Charges were framed.
Accordingly, both A 1 and A 2 were guilty.
A.2 companynted the numberes, kept the amount in his left pocket.
Sans unnecessary details, the prosecution version as unfolded during trial is as follows A 1 worked as an Excise Sub Inspector, at Mydukur, Cuddapah District and A 2 worked as a Home Guard.
On 4.5.1994 PW 1 sent Ex.
His father by name Subba Reddy was running a wine shop at Mydukur known as Eswara Wines since 1987.
On 7.2.1988 the enforcement wing of the Excise Department raided the shop of his father in his presence.
PW.1, who had numberinclination to pay the bribe to A.1, preferred Ex.
1 and 2 went to A.1.
On 15.5.1994 PW.1 approached the Superintendent of Excise along with the order of the High Court for the release of the stock.
A case was registered against PW.1 and his father and it ended in companyviction in April, 1994.
He was assisting his father in the said business.
P4 reply, which was received by the Excise Superintendent under Ex.
Though A.1 opened the shop by removing seals, he refused to give the stock register unless and until the bribe of Rs.3,000/ is paid.
At that time A 1 demanded Rs.
1, directing the excise officials to release the seized stocks.
3,000/ as demanded by A l. Accordingly, PW 1 paid the amount to A.2.
5,000/ towards bribe for opening the seals and when PW.1 expressed his inability, A.1 reduced the amount to Rs.3,000/ .
P5 acknowledgement.
When A 1 demanded the bribe, PW.1 told him that the money was ready, but A 1 told him to companye on the next day i.e. 17.5.1994 and further told that in case he goes for checking of shops, the amount may be paid to A.2, i.e. the present appellant.
P 10 companyplaint to Anti Corruption Bureau for short ACB officials on 16.5.1994.
Before the trial Court the prosecution referred to the evidence of PW 1 who claimed that as per the instructions of A 1 money was handed over to A 2.
On 27.4.1994 the Excise Superintendent issued a show cause numberice to PW 1 for cancellation of license issued in his favour.
They preferred an appeal and it was pending at the relevant point of time.
The High Court passed an order on 11.5.1994 in W.P.M.P. No.
Subsequently, PW.1 filed W.P. No.
Both the accused persons were companyvicted for the offence punishable under Section 7 of the Act and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment of one year each and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/ with default stipulation.
They were, however, acquitted of the other charges.
PW 8 after companypletion of investigation laid the charge sheet.
PW.1 is the de facto companyplainant.
6306 of 2005 Dr. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J. Leave granted.
Appellant denied the charges and claimed for trial.
PW.1 obtained a license to run another wine shop known as New Eswara Wines and was running the said wine shop.
1309 OF 2007 Arising out of SLP Crl.
A 1 denied the demand and acceptance of the bribe and pleaded that PW 1 paid the amount to A 2 to hand over the same to one person namely, Subbarayudu for the purpose of remitting the same to the treasury.
As numbered above, the trial Court companysidering the oral and documentary evidence recorded the companyviction.
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.
On the same day, PW.7 and members of the trap party reached the office of A 1 at about 5.00 p.m. Immediately, PWs.
PW.1 approached A 1 to remove the seals and to open the doors of the shop.
9460 of 1994 before the High Court seeking a direction for the release of the stock seized by A.1 from his shop known as New Eswara Wines.
The raiding party found some stock without license.
On 3.5.1994 A.1 sealed his shop pursuant to the directions of the Excise Superintendent.
Challenge in this appeal is to the judgment rendered by a learned Single judge of the Andhra Pradesh High Court upholding the companyviction of the appellant punishable under Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 in short the Act .
11535 of 1994, in favour of PW.
The appellant had faced trial along with another accused and for the sake of companyvenience he is described as A 2 hereinafter.
On the same day, the Excise Superintendent directed A.1 to open the seal of the shop and handover the stock to PW.1.
Subsequently, the amount was recovered from A 2 and the phenolphthalein test companyducted on the fingers of both the hands and the left pant pocket of A 2 proved positive.
The prosecution in order to establish the guilt of the accused persons examined 8 witnesses and marked 23 documents and produced 9 material objects.
