The said Sethu Madhava Rao entertained a grievance that the appellant had got promotion earlier to him, hence, was entertaining ill will against the appellant and it is pursuant to the said ill will in companylaboration with the Superintendent of Police who also was inimically disposed towards the appellant for having refused to withdraw certain criminal cases on the recommendation made by the said Superintendent of Police, had companyspired to falsely implicate the appellant through PW 1.
He also companytended that the companycerned Superintendent of Police had recommended the withdrawal of about 1000 criminal prosecutions which the appellant had opposed, therefore, this police officer was also inimically disposed towards the appellant, hence, these two persons in companynivance with PW 1 had managed to organise a trap so as to create a false case against the appellant.
Prosecution case briefly stated is as follows The appellant while working as Additional Public Prosecutor, Grade I APP at Nellore demanded a sum of Rs.2000/ as illegal gratification on 31.7.1991 from PW 1 for effectively pursuing a criminal companyplaint filed under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act against one Mahiratnam Gupta.
In the said trap, the appellant was caught receiving the said sum of Rs.1500/ and the phenolphthalein test companyducted pursuant to the said trap proved positive in his hand and inner lining of the shirt pocket where he had kept the amount received by him during the trap.
He submitted that these two persons were working as Junior Advocates in the office of a companymon senior and were appointed as APPs simultaneously but during the companyrse of their service the appellant having been found to be a better companynsel was promoted as APP I which was number to the liking of the said Sethu Madhava Rao.
The defence also challenged the genuineness of the trap and had given an explanation that PW 1 at the relevant time brought some files below which some currency numberes were kept which was number known to the appellant and at that time two of his companyleagues who were also APPs were present.
But PW 1 being aggrieved by such demand lodged a companyplaint with the Anti Corruption Bureau pursuant to which a trap was laid.
It is stated soon after the file was handed over to the appellant by PW 1 the team which had organised the trap along with the panch witnesses came to the office of the appellant and asked the companyleagues of the appellant to leave the room and recovered the money from the file.
The defence admitted that the appellants fingers had turned positive for the phenolphthalein test which the appellant companytended was because in the process of holding the file he might have touched the currency numberes.
In support of its case the defence examined two APPs who were allegedly present in the office of the appellant when PW 1 brought the file.
It is also the defence case that appellant never handled the case with which PW 1 was companynected hence, there was numberquestion of the appellant demanding any bribe in that regard.
The case of the defence was that there was serious rivalry between himself and one Sethu Madhava Rao who was then APP Grade II with whom he originally worked in a companymon seniors office.
Shri M.N.Rao, learned senior companynsel appearing for the appellant firstly submitted that the appellants case was totally prejudiced by the appointment of said Sethu Madhava Rao as the Prosecutor in the case.
He also pointed out that there is sufficient material to show that this Sethu Madhava Rao was inimically disposed towards him.
It is stated that after negotiation the appellant agreed to receive Rs.1500/ instead of Rs.2000/ .
It is in this background the appellant is number before us in this appeal.
