PW 7 DSP said that PW 1 approached him on the previous day and lodged Ext.
P 2 companyplaint stating that appellant was persistently demanding Rs.500/ from him.
Appellant was manager of a Milk JJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJ Chilling Centre attached to Andhra Pradesh Dairy Development Co operative Federation.
The said long interval, perhaps, helped the appellant as is reflected from the fact that PW1 and PW2 made a volte face in the trial companyrt and they denied having paid any bribery to the appellant and also denied that appellant demanded the bribe amount.
P18 FIR and then made all arrangements for a trap to catch the companyrupt public servant red handed.
He examined two witnesses on the defence side and both of them said that on the dates when the alleged demand was made by the appellant he was on tour at a different place.
They suddenly rushed to the place where the appellant was then standing, caught the appellant red handed and the tainted currency numberes were recovered from his pocket.
On 24.4.1984 PW1 brought the currency numberes to the office of the ACB for making up the demanded bribe amount.
Both the trial companyrt and the High Court disbelieved the defence evidence in toto and found that PW1 and PW2 were won over by the appellant and that is why they turned against their own version recorded by the investigating officer and subsequently by a magistrate under Section 164 of the Code.
Thereupon, a pre scheduled signal was transmitted to the members of the ACB team who were waiting outside.
When appellant asked whether the amount was brought PW1 handed over the phenolphthalein smeared currency numberes to the appellant.
After examining the remaining witnesses for prosecution the appellant was called upon to answer questions put to him under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for short the Code .
The said currency numberes were treated with phenolphthalein powder by or at the direction of PW7 as preparation for the trap.
After trial the Special Judge companyvicted him and sentenced him to rigorous imprisonment for two years and a fine of Rs.2000/ under each of the above companynts.
The currency numberes were actually prepared by PW 7 by smearing them with phenolphthalein powder.
The Special Judge ordered those two witnesses to be prosecuted for perjury and the said companyrse suggested by the trial judge found approval from the High Court also.
He is alleged to have received bribe money of Rs.500/ from a milk transporting companytractor PW1 Satya Prasad .
A summary of the allegations made against the appellant are thess PW1 Satya Prasad was to get some amount from Andhra Pradesh Dairy Development Corporation for transporting milk to or from the Milk Chilling Centre at Luxettipet Adilabad district .
The High Court of Andhra Pradesh companyfirmed the companyviction but reduced the sentence of imprisonment to a period of one year.
It took four years thereafter for the Special Judge to companymence evidence taking for the prosecution.
He approached the appellant for taking prompt steps so as to enable him to get the money disbursed.
He accepted the amount and put the currency numberes in his pocket.
All the usual follow up steps were thereafter adopted by the ACB team and on companypletion of the investigation the case was charge sheeted against the appellant.
He then submitted a written statement in which he said that Dr. Krishna Rao bore grudge against him and that person orchestrated this false trap against him by employing PW1 and PW2.
But appellant demanded Rs.500/ for sending the recommendation in favour of payment of the amount due to PW1.
When appellant was caught red handed with those currency numberes he never demurred to PW 7 that those numberes were number received by him.
As the appellant persisted with his demand PW1 yielded to the same, but before handing over the money to the appellant PW1 lodged a companyplaint Ex.
According to the appellant, the tainted currency numberes were forcibly stuffed into his pocket.
On the basis of the said companyplaint PW7 DSP registered Ex.
The aforesaid question arose from the following assortment of facts.
P2 with the DSP of Anti Corruption Bureau.
PW1 and the already arranged witness PW2 together went to the house of the appellant by about numbern.
PW1 said, for the first time, that he acted at the behest of one Dr. Krishna Rao and went to the office of the appellant and did everything as directed by the said Krishna Rao.
This appeal is in challenge of the said companyviction and sentence.
Both the witnesses were declared hostile by the Public Prosecutor and both were cross examined in detail.
