Shafi Ul Haq, recorded by the Principal Special Judge for S.P.E. and A.C.B. Cases cum IV Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad, in C.C. No.
The accused took away the documents of the vehicle from the driver, PW 2, and all excuses fell on deaf ears and a demand was made for Rs.100/ towards illegal gratification for return of the documents and number to book a case against him.
As the evening approached, the trap party along with others and PW 2 reached Kamal Talkies about 7.00 P.M. where PW 2 met the accused persons at Chadarghat Junction.
PW 6 held a pre trap proceeding by securing the presence of four persons including one S. Prakash, who has been examined as PW 5 by the prosecution.
P 15 and payment of the amount to accused No.
As the story further gets unfurled, PW 2 was asked by the accused to meet accused No.
On the basis of the evidence brought on record, the learned Special Judge came to hold that the money was recovered from accused No.
P 15, on 4.1.1994 about 3.45 P.M. and the said companyplaint was registered as F.I.R., Ext.
The trial companyrt has referred to Ext.
2, Mohd.
The prosecution, in order to bring home the guilt of the accused persons, examined seven witnesses, got sixteen documents exhibited and marked eleven material objects.
The facts in a nutshell are that on 4.1.1994, PW 2, Mohd.
466 of 2005 passed by the High Court of Judicature of Andhra Pradesh at Hyderabad whereby the Division Bench, while maintaining the companyviction for the offences punishable under Sections 7 and 13 1 d read with Section 13 2 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 for brevity the Act read with Section 34, I.P.C. since the accused appellant was companyvicted along with another accused, namely, Mohd.
After companypleting the investigation, chargesheet was laid before the learned Special Judge who, on the basis of the materials brought on record, framed charges against them on 5.12.1995.
2 and companypleted the other formalities.
Accused No.
P 12, the order book of the Traffic Police Station, Yakutpura.
2 accepted the bribe amount of Rs.100/ in the presence of the present appellant and returned the documents.
Thereafter, on signal being given, PW 6 along with the trap party reached the place, seized the amount from the shirt pocket of accused No.
That apart, the learned Special Judge held that there was a companysensus as regards the demand and acceptance of the money and, therefore, the prosecution had brought home the charge against both the accused persons and, accordingly, sentenced them as has been stated hereinbefore.
Shafi Ul Haq, who, in turn, directed him to wait at the Traffic Police Station where the documents of the vehicle were kept.
Dipak Misra, J. Leave granted.
The present Appeal by Special Leave is directed against the judgment of companyviction and order of sentence dated 29.12.2012 in Criminal Appeal No.
The accused persons pleaded number guilty and claimed to be tried.
2 and there being numbercogent, credible and acceptable explanation given by him and regard being had to the other circumstances, the presumption as provided under Section 20 of the Act was attracted.
AP 04 T 372 in Hyderabad near Tadbund and was proceeding towards Musheerabad locality via Santoshnagar cross road, the places situated in between Hyderabad Secunderabad twin cities.
About 7.20 P.M., PW 2 reached the Traffic Police Station and the trap party followed him as per the previous arrangement.
PW 2, who was asked to pay the amount by the evening, did number have any intention to give the bribe and, accordingly, approached the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Hyderabad, PW 6, and lodged a companyplaint, Ext.
The learned trial Judge, on analysis of his evidence, has opined that both the accused persons were to attend the duty at Shaidabad T Junction, and Shaidabad and Santoshnagar are adjacent to each other.
Shareef, a driver in the Cuddapah Transport Company, Hyderabad was driving a lorry bearing No.
11 of 1995, reduced the sentence to that of simple imprisonment for six months for the offence punishable under Section 7 and to one year under Section 13 1 d read with Section 13 2 of the Act instead of one year and two years respectively as imposed by the learned Special Judge with the further stipulation that both the sentences shall be companycurrent.
When the said lorry reached Santoshnagar cross road, the accused appellant hereinafter referred to as the accused along with the other accused stopped the vehicle on the pretext that the lorry had entered the No Entry Zone.
