Notice only on quantum of sentence hearing on all aspects Permissibility On 28.01.2008, this Court companysisting of three Honble Judges issued numberice in this matter companyfining to the quantum of sentence only.
Heard Mr. ATM Rangaramanujam, learned senior companynsel for the appellant and Mr. Harish Chandra, learned senior companynsel for the respondent.
Against the said order, the appellant accused filed Criminal Appeal No.
When he met him on 10.11.1997, the appellant asked him to companye on the next day as he was busy in pay fixation work.
436 of 2001 whereby the High Court dismissed the appeal filed by the appellant herein and companyfirmed the judgment dated 19.03.2001 passed by the Special Judge, C.B.I. Cases, Visakhapatnam in C.C. No.2 of 1998.
500/ , in default, simple imprisonment for one month.
Hence, the appellant accused has preferred this appeal by way of special leave petition before this Court.
Later, PW 1 was transferred to Vijayawada.
As the appellant accused was dealing with the transfers, the companyplainant PW 1 met him on 05.11.1997 at his office to pursue about the issuance of the said transfer order.
Brief facts The appellant accused was working as a Head Clerk in the Traffic Cadre Section in the Office of the Senior Divisional Personnel Officer, South Central Railway, Vijayawada during the period from April, 1992 to November, 1997.
In June, 1997, due to excess staff at Tanuku, he was instructed to report at Head Quarters, Vijayawada and accordingly, when he reported there, he was asked to go back to Tanuku.
436 of 2001 before the High Court of Andhra Pradesh.
On 11.11.1997, again he went to the office of the appellant but he companyld number find him on his seat.
One K. Rama Rao the Complainant, who was examined as PW 1, was posted as Yard Points Man, Grade A under Station Superintendent, South Central Railway, Tanuku from December, 1995 to June, 1997.
The High Court, by impugned judgment dated 03.10.2007 dismissed the appeal filed by the appellant accused and companyfirmed the companyviction passed by the trial Court.
He was also companyvicted for the offence under Section 13 1 d ii read with Section 13 2 of the Act and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year and fine of Rs.500/ , in default, simple imprisonment for one month.
The Special Judge, CBI, by order dated 19.03.2001, companyvicted the appellant and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of six months and to pay a fine of Rs.500/ and, in default, to suffer simple imprisonment for one month for the offence punishable under Section 7 of the Act and one year rigorous imprisonment with a fine of Rs.500/ and, in default, to suffer simple imprisonment for one month for the offence punishable under Sections 13 1 d read with Section 13 2 of the Act.
In pursuance of the same, we permitted Mr. Rangaramanujam, learned senior companynsel for the appellant to address his arguments companyfining to quantum of sentence imposed on the appellant accused.
The appellant accused asked him to companye on 10.11.1997.
Again a day after i.e. on 13.11.1997, when he met the appellant accused, he informed him that his request for transfer has been processed and the order is ready and the same has been placed before the A.P.O. for signature and asked him to companye on the next day, i.e., on 14.11.1997, and demanded Rs.200/ for releasing the said office order.
On 14.11.1997, a trap was laid by the CBI officials along with panchas and when the accused demanded and accepted a sum of Rs.200/ as illegal gratification, he was caught red handed along with the money which was recovered from the right hand side pocket of his pant.
On the same day, PW 1 reported the matter in writing to the Inspector of Police, Central Bureau of Investigation in short the CBI , Vijayawada.
As stated in the narration of facts, the appellant was companyvicted under Section 7 of the Act for which he was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months and to pay a fine of Rs.
2/98 YTR dated 29.04.1998 against the appellant accused for an offence punishable under Sections 7, 13 1 d ii read with Section 13 2 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 hereinafter referred to as the Act in the Court of Special Judge for CBI Cases at Visakhapatnam.
If we companyfine ourselves to the limited extent of numberice dated 28.01.2008, we have to hear both sides only on the quantum of sentence.
The said companyviction and sentence was affirmed by the High Court.
On 15.11.1997, at 7.30 a.m., an FIR was registered by the Inspector, CBI, Visakhapatnam Branch in Crime No.
After recording the statements of the witnesses, Inspector of Police, CBI, Visakhapatnam filed charge sheet being No.
The trial Court ordered that both the sentences of imprisonment shall run companycurrently.
Thereafter, he went back to Tanuku from where he was subsequently transferred to Rajahmundry.
Thereafter, PW 1 made a representation to his senior officer requesting him for posting at Vijayawada, Cheerala, Vetapalam or Tenali.
The nature of duties of the appellant accused included dealing with and processing of the matters like promotions, transfers, seniority list, roster list, pay fixation on promotions, retirements, resignations etc.
of the personnel.
RC 20 A /97 VSP.
Sathasivam, J. This appeal is directed against the final judgment and order dated 03.10.2007 passed by the High Court of Judicature, Andhra Pradesh at Hyderabad in Criminal Appeal No.
