The appellant was put on trial for companymission of an offence punishable under Section 7 and 13 2 read with Section 13 1 d of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 hereinafter referred to as the Act .
He was incharge of works pertaining to grant of companyposite licence to deal with scheduled grains.
He is also witness to the recovery of the bribe money from the appellant.
According to the prosecution the appellant removed the money from his pant pocket and gave it to PW.5, D.V.S.S. Murthy, the Deputy Superintendent of Police.
The de facto complainant showed his inability to pay the amount and again met the appellant on 6.1.1997 at 11 a.m. and made enquiry about the licence.
De facto companyplainant PW.1, P. Rama Krishna was required to obtain companyposite licence from the District Supply Officer, Guntur for carrying on the business.
As directed PW.1 obtained the same and handed over to the appellant.
After usual investigation chargesheet was submitted and the appellant was put on trial and charged for companymission of the offence under Section 7 and Section 13 2 read with 13 1 d of the Act.
He companyducted discreet enquiries and made recommendation.
On appreciation of evidence, the trial companyrt came to the companyclusion that the prosecution has been able to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt and accordingly companyvicted and sentenced the appellant as above.
PW.3, M.V. Mallikarjuna Lingam, is a member of the trap party and witness to the recovery of the money from the appellant and the companyour of the solution getting pink when his fingers were rinsed with it.
The aforesaid judgment and order of companyviction and sentence has been upheld by the High Court in appeal.
He was also a member of the trap party.
DW.1, K. Amma Mohana Rao, is a clerk working with the Rice Millers Association and has stated that at the request of the de facto complainant he had filed his application for doing pulses business in the office of the District Supply Officer.
In order to bring home the charge the prosecution altogether examined five witnesses out of whom PW.1 happens to be the de facto complainant himself.
From the trend of the cross examination and the witnesses examined on his behalf his defence is of false implication and alibi.
For that he obtained registration certificate and C.S.T. Form from Assistant Commercial Tax Officer, Tenali.
As instructed, on 8.1.1997 de facto complainant went to his office where PW.3, M.V. Mallikarjuna Lingam and other members of the trap party were present.
Accordingly, on 19.12.1996 he went to the office of the District Supply Officer and submitted an application for grant of companyposite licence.
De facto complainant was instructed number to touch the currency numberes and to hand over the same to the appellant, only when he makes such a demand.
DW.2, Uppu Nagaratana Raju, at the relevant time was working as Deputy Tahsildar in the office of District Supply Officer and has stated about the altercation said to have taken place between the appellant and de facto complainant on 30.12.1996 in the office.
De facto complainant produced 25 currency numberes of 100 rupees each.
The District Supply Officer forwarded the application to the Deputy Tahsildar for enquiry and report, who in turn inspected the godown, recorded the statement of de facto companyplainant on 22.12.1996 and submitted his report on 23.12.1996.
At this de facto companyplainant took out the currency numberes from his shirt pocket and gave it to the appellant who companynted the same with both hands and kept it in the left side of his trouser pocket.
PW.1, P.Rama Krishna, de facto companyplainant, a resident of village Pedaravuru within Block Tenali in the District Guntur possessed a house in Sivalayam Street of the village and had companystructed R.C.C. godown in the vacant portion of the house with an intention to carry on business in scheduled companymodities like Redgram, Blackgram etc.
He had also detailed various steps taken for grant of licence and also proved the companyposite licence dated 6.1.1997, which was delivered to the de facto complainant.
The appellant denied to have companymitted any offence and claimed to be tried.
Appellant in order to prove his innocence has examined five witnesses.
De facto complainant pretended to pay the said amount to the appellant but in fact he was number willing to pay the bribe.
Thereafter both of them went inside the office, appellant took out the file from almirah, removed the licence granted in the name of Ramakrishna Traders and gave it to the de facto companyplainant after obtaining the acknowledgment.
The appellant asked as to whether he had brought the bribe amount demanded by him and when told that he had companye with the amount, appellant took him outside the room, stopped at the curve of the staircase and demanded the amount.
Besides DW.2, DW.3, P. Mohana Krishna and DW.4, Devarakanda Nagar Raju Rao who were at the relevant time working as Junior Assistants in the office of the District Supply Officer have also stated about the altercation which had taken place between the appellant and the de facto complainant on 30.12.1996 between 3.15 3.30 p.m. DW.5, D.V. Ranga Rao, a Deputy Tahsildar working in the office of the District Supply Officer had brought the Treasury Book maintained by the District Supply Officer for the financial year 1996 97.
The appellant demanded from de facto complainant i.e, PW.1, P. Rama Krishna to pay the bribe of Rs.3,000/ for issuing the companyposite licence.
Immediately the trap party entered into the office, apprehended the appellant and companyducted phenolphthalein test on his both hands which turned pink.
P 5 given by de facto complainant for grant of companyposite licence.
Prosecution case further is that thereafter, the trap party companysisting of the de facto complainant, PW.3 and PW.5, V.S.S. Murthy went to the office of District Supply Officer where de facto complainant met the appellant at 12.20 p.m. and enquired about his licence.
On de facto complainants repeated request the appellant agreed to deliver the companyposite licence on payment of reduced amount of bribe of Rs.2,500/ with further stipulation that the said amount be paid within two days.
As instructed, de facto complainant came out and gave the signal.
Hence, de facto companyplainant met PW.4, J.B. Haskarna Rao, on 6.1.1997 at 7 p.m., who was working as Inspector of Police, Anti Corruption Bureau, Guntur and lodged a report.
De facto complainant was asked to companye on 8.1.1997 along with the bribe amount.
He has deposed in detail the steps which he had taken leading to the trap and also recorded the statement of the appellant.
He was found guilty by the trial companyrt by its judgment and order dated 4th April, 2002 and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year under each companynt and also to pay fine of Rs.1,000/ , in default to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of three months under each companynt.
PW.4, J.B. Haskarna Rao, at the relevant time posted as Inspector, Anti Corruption Bureau and to whom the de facto complainant met for the first time and narrated his grievance.
PW.5, D.V.S.S. Murthy, was posted as Deputy Suprintendent of Police in Anti Corruption Bureau and in his evidence, gave details of pre trap proceedings.
According to the prosecution on 30.12.1996, de facto companyplainant went to the office of the District Supply Officer and enquired about the licence.
The appellant asked PW.1 to deposit Rs.1,000/ National Savings Bond, pledged in the name of the District Supply Officer.
He has also stated that the appellant on perusal of the application informed him that the de facto companyplainant is required to deposit National Savings Bond and he accordingly informed the de facto complainant.
PW.2, P. Sivarama Krishna was working as the Superintendent in the office of the District Supply Officer and had proved the application Ex.
The serial numbers of the currency numberes were numbered and phenolphthalein powder was applied over the currency numberes.
The appeal preferred by the appellant has been dismissed by the High Court.
Leave granted.
K. PRASAD, J. The petitioner, being aggrieved by the judgment and order dated 25.06.2009 passed by learned Single Judge of the Andhra Pradesh High Court in Criminal Appeal No.378 of 2002, affirming the judgment and order of companyviction and sentence passed by the Special Judge SPE ACB Cases, Vijayawada, has preferred this petition for grant of special leave to appeal.
