HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURENDER CRIMINAL APPEAL No.567 OF 2012

JUDGMENT:

1. This appeal has been preferred by the appellant/accused, aggrieved by the judgment dated 12.6.2012 in C.C. No. 34 of 2006, passed by the Principal Special Learned Learned Special Judge for SPE and ACB Cases, Civil City Court, at Hyderabad, whereby the appellant was convicted for the offences under Sections 7 and 13(2) read with 13(1)(d) of the PC Act, 1988, and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year and pay a fine of Rs 1,000, in default, simple imprisonment for one month for the offence under Section 7; and to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years and pay a fine of Rs 2,000, in default, simple imprisonment for one month for the offence under Sections 13(2) read with 13(1)(d). Both sentences were directed to run concurrently.

2. Briefly, the facts of the case are that PW1 is the complainant. According to him, his father, Bhoomanna, retired from service as Head Master from Government High School, Jumaratpet, Nirmal District. PW1’s mother, Susheela, aged about

48 years, underwent bypass surgery at Care Hospital on 5.3.2005 and was discharged on 20.3.2005. In this regard, PW1’s father applied for reimbursement of medical expenses incurred, amounting to around Rs 1,22,000.After scrutiny in the office of the Director of Medical Education, the eligible reimbursement amount was determined to be Rs 1,09,815, and the file was forwarded to the Director of School Education of A.P., Hyderabad, in October 2005.

3. It is the case of PW1 that he approached Sri P. Ranga Rao/appellant, who was working as a Senior Assistant in the office of the Director of School Education, on 18.10.2005 and enquired about the status of the file. The appellant informed him that the eligibility had been assessed under G.O. No. 74 dated 15.3.2005 instead of G.O. Ms. No. 175 dated 29.5.1997, as a result of which an additional amount of Rs 50,000 would be sanctioned. PW1 alleged that the appellant demanded a bribe of Rs 5,000 to process the file accordingly and stated that he would then forward it to the District Education Officer.On 10.11.2005, when PW1 again approached the appellant, the appellant allegedly reiterated the earlier demand and informed him that unless the amount of Rs 5,000 was paid, the file would not be processed. He instructed PW1 to bring the amount on the following day.

4. As PW1 was unwilling to pay the bribe, he lodged a complaint with PW5, the Deputy Superintendent of Police, ACB, on 10.11.2005 at 11:30 hrs. PW5 registered the complaint as Cr. No. 15/ACB-CR/2005 under Section 7 of the PC Act, 1988, on 11.11.2005 at 9:30 a.m., after verification and preliminary inquiry.

5. During investigation, PW5 secured the services of PW2 and LW9 to act as mediators. A trap was organized on 11.11.2005, following all legal procedures, and details were recorded in ExP3/Mediators’ Report I.

6. During the trap on 11.11.2005, at about 1:30 p.m., when PW1 met the appellant at the office premises of the Director of School Education, the appellant demanded and accepted Rs 5,000 as illegal gratification other than legal remuneration from PW1 with his right hand and placed the amount in his right-side trouser pocket. Upon receiving the pre-arranged signal from PW1, the trap party apprehended the appellant.

7. Subsequently, the phenolphthalein test was conducted on the appellant’s hands, and his right-hand fingers yielded a positive result. The tainted amount of Rs.5,000/- was recovered at the instance of the appellant from his right-side trouser pocket. When the inner lining of that pocket was tested with sodium carbonate solution, it also gave a positive result. The appellant was arrested on 11.11.2005 and sent to judicial remand. He was later granted bail.

8. Investigation revealed that the appellant had demanded and accepted the bribe amount of Rs 5,000 from PW1 for doing an official favour, i.e., for processing the medical reimbursement file of PW1’s father. Sanction for