The companyplaint was made 15 days after the alleged demand.
While the talks were going on, the appellant, allegedly, intervened and asked him to pay a sum of Rs.2,000/ .
According to P.W.2, an unknown person had led them thereto.
Offer of the said sum of Rs.2,000/ was, allegedly, made to the appellant by way of gratification, which he allegedly accepted.
In his judgment, the learned Trial Judge companysidered the matter from various angles, viz.,
The purported obstruction in his activity came from the Mandal Revenue Officer and number from the appellant.
In the meanwhile, the casurina growth was cut and removed by P.W.3 without any further hindrance purported to be relying on or on the basis of the assurances made by P.W.2 that the dispute had been settled.
The informant did number know the location of the residential house of the appellant.
The raid was companyducted at the instance of Shri Ram Murthy.
When he again met the MRO, he was informed that he would number be permitted to remove the casurina trees until the demanded amount was paid.
Allegedly, a demand for a sum of Rs.5,000/ was made from him by the MRO.
A companyplaint was made against four persons, the MRO being one of them.
The learned Special Judge analysed the evidences brought on record by the prosecution in great details.
They reached the village in the evening.
The trap party companysisting of 8 persons, allegedly, started for the village of which Appellant was a resident.
Indisputably, it was the MRO who had asked for the said sum.
Apart from usual pleas, the appellant categorically took the plea of false implication stating that he had animosity with the local M.L.A. Shri Yeeri Naidu and one Shri Rama Murthy, the Surpanch of P. Bhimavaram village.
He met the said MRO on the next day informing him that numberpart of the Government land was mixed up with his land.
The said Shri Ram Murthy nurtured grudge against the appellant for number granting D Form pattas to him and his family members.
P.W.2, although, went to the said MRO companytinuously for a few days, numberattempt was made by him to offer the sum to the said officer himself.
Mr. Y. Raja Gopala Rao, learned companynsel appearing on behalf of the appellant, in support of this appeal, inter alia, would submit that the High Court should number have interfered with a well reasoned judgment of the learned Special Judge.
On the basis of the said companyplaint dated 11.12.1988, a purported pre trap proceedings started at 3 p.m. on 12.12.1988.
He made a companyplaint before the Inspector of Police, Anti Corruption Bureau alleging that he had purchased 4 acres of land with casurina growth and the same was being objected by the MRO on the premise that a part thereof belonged to the Government.
The MRO, allegedly, wanted determination of the said question and restrained him from lifting any casurina growth.
He is said to have been caught red handed.
Admittedly, son of the appellant was working as an assistant to Shri Yeeri Naidu.
P.W.2 Amaraneni Ammarao sold the land in question to P.W.3.
i peculiar facts of the case nature and companyduct of P.W.2 the companyplainant who was held to be wholly untrustworthy iii the manner in which trap proceedings were undertaken by the Anti Corruption Bureau and which were, thus, held to be number reliable as it was brought on records that Shri Ram Murthy also indirectly participated in the said trap proceedings and, in particular, P.W.2 was brought by him to the village iv Although, the prosecution witnesses categorically stated that the appellant, upon acceptance of the tainted amount, companynted the same with both of his hands, only fingers of one of his hand turned pink v the trap party came in and asked the A.O. to produce the amount, which he denied to have accepted and allegedly, at that time three more people entered the house and stated that the amount was available in one of the rooms vi In Exhibit P.7 post trap panchanama, the words from bed room companyner, the cash has been picked up by A.O. and handed over to the Inspector, has been interpolated and vii there were companytradictions and inconsistencies in the evidences of the prosecution witnesses, vis vis, their statements before the Investigating Officer.
Admittedly, a demand was made by a Mandal Revenue Officer MRO of P. Bhemavaram village of Butchayyupate Mandalam in Vishakhapatnam District for allowing P.W.3 M. Subrahmanya Raju to cut and remove casurina trees.
What was the original sum mentioned therein is number stated.
B. Sinha, J. Appellant herein was working as a Surveyor in the Mandal Revenue Office.
He was a military personnel.
As regards the prosecution case that the amount was meant to be given to the Mandal Officer, the High Court opined that the appellant had abetted the offence which is also punishable with equal rigour.
The said person examined himself as D.W.1 being Yannamsetti Appalanaidu and number by the prosecution.
