Further he had taken the amount as he was under the impression that the respondent had sent the amount for the purposes of buying some provisions or other articles, which he numbermally used to do for the respondent.
P9 from PW1 and affixed his signature putting the date as 23.06.1995 and returned the same to PW1.
The respondent kept the amount on the papers lying on his office table.
P8 after getting the relevant endorsement made by PW4.
It however found that Viswanadham had number at any point of time demanded any bribe and that the case against him was number proved at all.
PW4 in his examination in chief deposed that when the endorsement of delivery of registration certificate was made on 05.07.1995, PWs 1 and 2 were present and on the instructions of the respondent PW4 had left his office.
The respondent was companyvicted under Sections 7 and 13 1 d ii read with Section 13 2 of the Act and sentenced on each of the aforesaid two companynts to suffer simple imprisonment for one year and to pay a fine of Rs.1000/ , in default whereof to undergo further simple imprisonment for four months .
At this stage PW1 presented a report Ext.
The evidence of PW9 as companyroborated by that of PW7, Government official who had acted as panch, proved that the hands of the respondent were first subjected to test which yielded positive result and only thereafter on the instructions of PW9, PW7 had picked up the currency numberes from the table top.
One P. Ramakrishna Rao i.e. PW1 wanted to start a Kirana and General Stores at Gudivada and had submitted an application on 22.05.1995 with necessary enclosures in the office of the Deputy Commercial Tax Officer No.1, Gudivada seeking issuance of registration certificate.
The State being aggrieved has preferred the instant appeal by special leave.
The amount of Rs.400/ was recovered from the office table of the respondent and Rs.100/ from the almirah in front of the seat of Viswanadham.
On that day PW1 also furnished additional National Savings Bond in the sum of Rs.500/ as per directions of the respondent.
PW1 then went along with PW2 K.B. Narayana to meet the respondent on 22.06.1995 and requested for issuance of the certificate.
The respondent after accepting the same reiterated his demand.
The evidence of PW1 as companyroborated by that of PW2 proved beyond reasonable doubt that the respondent had demanded bribe amount of Rs.1000/ which was then reduced to Rs.500/ for issuance of registration certificate and that on 05.07.1995 the respondent in the presence of PW2 had demanded and received Rs.400/ from PW1 and thereafter delivered the registration certificate Ext.
The respondent allegedly repeated his demand and PW1 reluctantly agreed to pay the amount.
The evidence of PW1 as companyroborated by that of PW2 proved that registration certificate Ext.
In support of its case the prosecution examined ten witnesses and marked thirty six documents.
At the post trap proceedings also, the D.S.P. did number make any attempt to companyduct the sodium carbonate test on the daybook.
Thereafter PW1 offered to give Rs.500/ as demanded earlier.
PW1 along with PW2 thereafter went to the office of the respondent on 01.07.1995 and made the request for registration certificate.
The respondent also instructed PW1 to produce the Day Book duly written upto 24.06.1995 for affixing his signature.
It was submitted that the registration certificate of PW1 was approved by him as early as on 24.06.1995 and that PW1 was asked to companylect the registration certificate immediately and that numberhing relating to PW1 was pending with him after 24.06.1995.
The respondent stated that he had never demanded and received the bribe from PW1 and that the trap proceedings dated 05.07.1995 were stage managed at the instance of one Hanumantha Rao, a tax companysultant.
After companypleting investigation and obtaining appropriate sanction, charge sheet was filed against the respondent and Viswanadham and charges under Sections 7, 13 2 read with 13 1 d ii of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 hereinafter referred to as the Act were famed against them.
In defence, the respondent and Viswanadham filed their statements in writing.
The respondent then called one K. Viswanadham, Junior Assistant dealing with registration work and on his directions PW1 paid the balance amount of Rs.100/ to said Viswanadham, who received the same and went back to his seat.
The registration certificate Ext.
On the instructions of the respondent, PW4 Attender E. Kanakam affixed the rubber stamp on the registration certificate and handed over the same to the respondent, who then instructed PW4 to go away.
P24 were reduced to writing by the mediators.
PW9 registered the same as FIR and decided to lay a trap.
After companysidering the material on record and rival submissions, the trial companyrt rendered following findings No reliable evidence was produced on record number anything was elicited in cross examination of the witnesses which companyld substantiate the theory that the trap proceedings were stage managed at the instance of Hanumantha Rao.
On 05.07.1995 PW9 companyducted pre trap proceedings Ext P23 in the presence of PWs1, 2 and the mediators during which time five currency numberes of Rs.100/ each produced by PW1 were treated with Phenolphthalein powder and kept in the empty shirt pocket of PW1.
P8 was then delivered by the respondent to PW1 PW1 thereafter came out of the office leaving PW2 inside the office who kept talking with the respondent.
It was submitted that PW1 had clandestinely put currency numberes on the papers lying on his table and when PW9 entered the office he directed the respondent to pick up those numberes and to give them to one of the officials present with him and that he had accordingly picked up said numberes with his left hand.
Viswanadham was, therefore, acquitted of all the charges.
The evidence of PW1 and PW2 as regards the demand and acceptance was companypletely trustworthy and reliable.
P8 though prepared on 24.06.1996 was number delivered to PW1.
The respondent asked PW1 to give him Rs.400/ only which amount was so given by PW1 and received by the respondent with his left hand.
It is also creating a doubt whether the phenolphthalein powder struck to the left hand fingers is that of the day book or of the tainted numberes.
With these findings the trial companyrt held that the case was proved beyond any doubt as regards the respondent.
Thereafter on the same day at about 12.25 PM PW1 along with PW2 met the respondent in his office and upon being asked by the respondent, PW1 informed the respondent that he had brought the bribe amount of Rs.500/ .
Requisite signal having been given by PW1, PW9 with the raiding party entered the office of the respondent.
Right since the beginning the companytention of the respondent had been that he was asked to pick up the currency numberes by PW9 and that is how his fingers got smeared.
Viswanadham in his written statement stated that on the relevant date PW1 met him and informed that the respondent had sent PW1 with instructions to give Rs.100/ to him and therefore he had accepted the same and kept in the open almirah.
The numbers of the currency numberes were verified and tallied by the mediators and the post trap proceedings Ext.
It is alleged that on 23.06.1995 PWs1 and 2 again went to the office of the respondent and repeated the request for issuance of registration certificate.
P1 on 01.07.1995 at 4.00 PM in the office of the Anti Corruption Bureau to PW8 N. Prasad, District Inspector ACB, Vijayawada, who in turn submitted it to PW9 DVSS Murthy, DSP, ACB, Vijaywada.
The respondent allegedly informed PW1 that the registration certificate was ready and would be delivered upon payment of bribe of Rs.1000/ as demanded.
When PW1 expressed his inability, the bribe amount was reduced to Rs.500/ .
Uday Umesh Lalit, J. This appeal by Special Leave challenges the judgment and order dated 25.04.2006 of the High Court of Judicature of Andhra Pradesh at Hyderabad in Criminal Appeal No.27 of 2001 setting aside the judgment and order of companyviction dated 29.12.2000 of the Special Judge for SPE ACB Cases, Vijayawada in CC No.4 of 1996.
The respondent thereafter took the Day Book Ext.
He companyducted appropriate test on the fingers of the respondent and Viswanadham which turned positive.
The application was forwarded to the respondent who, as Assistant Commercial Tax Officer No.1, Gudivada, District Krishna, was companypetent to issue registration certificate under the Sales Tax Act.
In this companynection PW1 met the respondent in his office on 16.06.1995 and requested him to issue registration certificate, at which time the respondent allegedly demanded Rs.1000/ as bribe.
