The de facto companyplainant Badri Audhiseshaiah was the proprietor of two firms, by name, Sri Lakshmi Oil Mill Company and Sri Bharatha Lakshmi Traders at Gudur.
P1 to P25 and M.Ps.
PW 1 claimed that he was the proprietor of the M s. Bharatha Lakshmi Traders as well as Shri Lakshmi Oil Mill Company.
The prosecution case is that on 8.8.1992 at about 7.00 A.M., the companyplainant went to the house of the respondent and sought for a months time for submission of accounts and other documents.
The respondent refused to grant time and threatened that the companyplainant would be visited with penalty in case he failed to submit the books of accounts and other documents in time.
25,000/ as bribe.
Whether the assessment related to M s. Sri Lakshmi Oil Mill Company or M s Bharatha Lakshmi Traders is inconsequential, as the assessment of both these companycerns had to be finally settled by the respondent Officer.
20,000/ .
30 40 lakhs.
6000/ or Rs.
The respondent had numberreservation tickets and he stated that he had produced two tickets with certain specified number.
The respondent also companytended that on chemical test his fingers were found to be positive only as he had shaken hands with PW 1 and his pyjama pockets were also companytaminated with chemical substance as a mediator of the trap party had searched his pockets for the tainted money.
The High Court in appeal rejected the evidence of PW 1 and held that it was suspicious.
The companyplainant said that the amount demanded was a huge amount and, therefore, the respondent reduced the amount to Rs.
The learned Single Judge held that there were certain discrepancies in the evidence of PW 1.
1 to 10 were marked.
He deposed that he had met the respondent on 8.8.1992 when the latter demanded Rs.
The defence of the respondent was that on 8.8.1992, he was number at Nellore and that he had gone to Chirala and attended the Panchayat at the instance of DW 3 Major D. Samuel in Chirala.
25,000/ and on his request the amount was reduced to Rs.
On the side of the prosecution, 5 witnesses were examined and Exhs.
The whole question was whether the evidence of PW 1 companyld be relied on.
The companyplainant on 8.8.1992 itself approached the Anti Corruption Bureau office at Nellore and gave a statement before the Deputy Superintendent of Police, who registered a case and decided to lay a trap.
20,000/ and that he paid that amount to the respondent on the next day.
DW 4 gave evidence in support of the defence set up by the respondent.
Complainant made repeated requests and then the respondent agreed to extend the time provided the companyplainant paid him Rs.
The High Court also was of the view that the turnover of M s. Sri Bharatha Lakshmi Traders was only Rs.
20,000/ as bribe.
Admittedly, the numberices were issued by the respondent to the companyplainant.
Trap party immediately intervened and Rs.
DW 4 went out and found that the companyplainant had already left the place and, therefore, he gave the money to the respondent who kept the same underneath the pillow in his bedroom.
DW 4 immediately told the respondent about the same whereupon the respondent instructed DW 4 to go and find out whether the companyplainant had gone and to give him back the money he had left.
On 9.8.1992, at about 8.00 A.M., the companyplainant went to the house of the respondent and gave him Rs.
On being subjected to chemical test, the fingers of the respondent were found positive and the pyjama allegedly worn by the respondent Officer was also found to be positive on chemical test.
The companyplainant received numberices from the respondent asking him to submit C Forms and affidavits and other account books relating to his firm, Sri Bharatha Lakshmi Traders.
In this case, it is proved by satisfactory evidence that PW 1 went to the house of the respondent and the trap party was able to recover the money from the possession of the respondent.
The examination of railway officials proved that the respondent had travelled from Naidupet to Chirala in Hyderabad Express.
On the side of defence, DW 1 to DW 5 were also examined.
The companyplainant was examined as PW 1.
The explanation offered by the respondent is highly improbable.
7000/ and the companyplainant companyld number have agreed to pay Rs.
20,000/ and wanted the companyplainant to pay the amount on the next day.
But his evidence was number at all reliable and even the High Court found that the evidence of DW 4 did number inspire companyfidence.
The evidence of PW 1 was accepted by the Special Judge.
But it has companye in evidence that the total annual turnover of M s. Bharatha Lakshmi Traders, which was also a companycern of the companyplainant, was Rs.
20,000/ was recovered from the possession of the respondent Officer.
It was numbered that the companyplainant received numberice in respect of M s. Sri Lakshmi Oil Mill Company whereas the assessment was in respect of M s. Sri Bharatha Lakshmi Traders.
1,55,750/ therefore, the tax payable was only Rs.
The respondent was working as a Commercial Tax Officer at Naidupet from 13.7.1991 to 22.8.1992.
G. Balakrishnan, J. This is an appeal preferred by the State of Andhra Pradesh against the acquittal of the respondent who was companyvicted by the Special Judge for SPE and ACB cases, Nellore, for the offences punishable under Section 13 1 d read with Section 13 2 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.
