The High Court also came to the companyclusion that the occasion for demanding bribe as on 14.4.1987 or 24.4.1987 did number arise because though there was only one tender for the works advertised by the Municipality, the same had number yet been accepted and the agreement having number being executed, the stage for awarding the work order had number reached, therefore, there companyld number have been a demand for any bribe.
In that process the companyrt came to the companyclusion that there was evidence to support the defence case regarding the existence of a cartel of companytractors which used to companyner tenders by unethical means and the same was opposed to by the respondent, hence the companytractors in Sangareddy had a good reason to falsely implicate the respondent.
Prosecution further alleges that the proceedings were drawn up which were attested by PW 4 and it is based on the said investigation that the respondent was charged for offences as stated above.
1 and 2 did number companye to the office of the respondent on the morning of 24.4.1987.
Defence also examined an attendant of respondents office to show that PWs.
1 to 5 the respondent in his defence examined 9 witnesses to establish his innocence.
While the prosecution mainly relies on the evidence of PWs.
Prosecution further alleges that PW 5 after verifying the antecedents of PW 1 obtained necessary permission of companypetent authority for laying a trap.
Prosecution alleges that the respondent admitted having received the said amount and on being told by PW 5 he brought the said money from his bed room and when his hands were tested for the presence of phenolphthalein powder with water, same proved positive.
Pursuant to the said companyplaint PW 5 directed PW 1 to companye back to him on 24.4.1987 at 9 a.m. at Shankarampet Guest House.
1 and 2 to carry the pre marked currency numberes totalling Rs.
1, 2 and 3 had with him, a false case of trap was set up on 24.4.1987.
The trial companyrt after companysidering the material on record came to the companyclusion that the prosecution has established its case and rejecting the defence case found the respondent guilty of an offence punishable under Section 161 IPC and Section 5 1 d read with Section 5 2 of the Act and awarded the sentence of one year RI on each of the companynts but directed the sentences to run companycurrently.
PW 1 being aggrieved by such an illegal demand of the respondent went to Nizamabad and companytacted PW 5 who was then working as Deputy Superintendent of Police, Anti Corruption Bureau, Nizamabad District and lodged a companyplaint Ex.
Brief facts necessary for disposal of the appeal are that the respondent who while working as Commissioner, Sangareddy Municipality during the year 1986 87 demanded and obtained an illegal gratification of Rs.
Prosecution then alleges that on 24.4.1987 PW 5 accompanied by his staff and others including PWs.
It was the defence case that the stage of issuing work order had number been reached because the companytract in question was yet to be accepted by the Municipal Council or the Collector who was in charge of the Council then, hence question of demanding bribe did number arise at all.
PW 4 was one such person who was chosen to be the mediator.
1 and 2 went inside the house when the respondent asked them as to the money whereupon PW 1 paid pre marked currency numberes to the respondent who took them inside his bed room and kept them under mattress.
P.C. the respondent had pleaded that because of the enmity the companytractors and PWs.
The defence in support of its case also examined the Collector of the District to show that the companytract was number ready to be executed.
The defence had further pleaded that the respondent was being falsely implicated because he was opposing a cartel of companytractors in Sangareddy who were using unfair means to obtain companytracts and also because of the enmity he had with PW 3 who was an Engineer in the said municipality and was supporting the said cartel.
He also stated that in tact PWs.
491 of 1989 whereby the High Court set aside the judgment and companyviction recorded by the Principal Special Judge for SPE ACB cases at Hyderabad against the respondent herein.
In his statement recorded under Section 313 Cr.
1 and 2 came to Sangareddy at about 12 p.m. PW 5 by then had already instructed PWs.
It also came to the companyclusion agreeing with the trial companyrt, that the Municipal Engineer PW 3 had enmity with the accused and had all the reason to join hands with the said companytractors hence his evidence cannot be relied.
In appeal the High Court of Andhra Pradesh took a companytrary view and came to the companyclusion that the prosecution has failed to establish beyond reasonable doubt its case against the respondent hence allowed the appeal.
It further examined witnesses to show that PW 2 was inimically disposed towards the respondent because of a prior criminal companyplaint lodged by the respondent against his relative.
On PW 2 giving the necessary signal PW 5 and other members of the raiding party entered the house of the respondent and asked him whether he had received any money from PW 1.
Santosh Hegde, J. State of Andhra Pradesh is in appeal against the judgment of the High Court of Andhra Pradesh at Hyderabad made in Criminal Appeal No.
That is how his fingers came in companytact with the phenolphthalein powder.
He also made necessary arrangements for requisitioning officers working in the office of the Superintending Engineer, Nizamabad to act as mediators.
1 and 2 had companye to his house when he was number in the house on the pretext of making a telephone call and had entered the bedroom and had stealthily kept the tainted money under the mattress and after the respondent came home for lunch, PW 1 came and shook hand with him for a favour which the respondent had supposedly shown to him.
