On 25.4.1992 he requested the accused T. Shankar Prasad to get the way bills duly stamped and signed by him.
PW 7 was DSP who monitored the operations.
PW 2 was the Assistant Audit Officer who deposed about the whole scenario before the search was companyducted.
The companyplainant was examined as PW 1.
Appellants T. Shankar Prasad in Crl.
One witness was examined on behalf of the accused T. Shankar Prasad.
He further stated that he had accepted the amount to be deposited as advance tax and when he was about to write the challan, the Anti Corruption Bureau officials caught hold of him and implicated him falsely.
The significance of the test by the chemicals and their reactions was explained to him.
The officer demanded Rs.400/ as bribe in the presence of other accused.
The case was registered by the officials on the said date and mediators were secured and trap was arranged.
PW 5 was a Senior Assistant in the Commercial Tax office who deposed about part of the transaction relating to issuance of way bills forms with reference to the official records.
Since he was number interested to pay the bribe, he reported the matter to the Anti Corruption Bureau officials on 28.4.1992.
He was asked to give signal after bribe amount was accepted, by waving a handkerchief.
Stand of the accused T. Shankar Prasad was that numbermoney was recovered from his possession.
He applied for way bills.
The other accused Ghaiz Basha took the plea that there was numbermaterial to show that he had demanded any bribe.
PW 8 was the Inspector who had received the companyplaint from PW 1.
Currency numberes were applied with phenolphthalein powder.
The accused persons were examined under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 in short the Code .
After furnishing documents to the accused persons and hearing on the question of framing charges, charges were framed.
He also described in detail about the trap operations.
Said witness deposed about the registration of a relative of the companyplainant and his business activities.
The DSP who was monitoring the trap instructed PW 1 number to touch the cash and only pay to the accused on demand.
The trial Court numbericed that PW 1 had partially resiled from the statement made by him during investigation.
When the latter received the bribe amount from the companyplainant the trap party caught hold of both the officers and the amount was recovered from the possession of second accused and the sodium carbonate solution test companyducted proved positive.
Appeals filed by the accused persons before the Andhra Pradesh High Court were dismissed by the impugned judgment except modification of sentence.
On the next date again the mediators and the members of the trap party arranged the trap and accordingly the companyplainant approached the accused Shankar Prasad who directed him to pay the amount to other accused Ghaiz Basha.
PW 4 was an Assistant Director of Veterinary Hospital who acted as a mediator.
When the companyplainant expressed his inability to pay the amount, the demand of the bribe was reduced to Rs.300/ .
They denied about the demand and acceptance of bribe, and took the stand that false case had been foisted due to enmity.
Since on that day accused T. Shankar Prasad was number available in the office, the trap companyld number be laid.
Eight witnesses were examined and several documents were marked.
The powder was number visible on the currency numberes.
The accused persons pleaded innocence and claimed to be tried.
Complainant agreed to pay the amount within two to three days.
A.No.910/97 also described as A1 and A2 were working as Assistant Commercial Tax Officer and Junior Assistant respectively in the office of the Commercial Tax Department of Kanigiri, Prakasam District.
Complainant PW 1 was a dealer in grocery articles and under the relevant sales tax statutes, a registered dealer.
A. No.909/1997 and Ghaiz Basha in Crl.
Way bills were issued to the traders by the department for their day to day transactions and taxable goods to be transported were required to be companyered by the way bills issued by the department.
Fine of Rs.1,000/ each was also imposed with default stipulation.
910/1997 ARIJIT PASAYAT, J. These two appeals are directed against the companymon judgment of the Andhra Pradesh High Court which upheld the companyviction of the appellants under Sections 7, 11, and 13 1 d read with Section 13 2 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 in short the Act and Section 120B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 for short the IPC .
