The trial Judge went through the evidence on record very carefully and in the companyrse of a very elaborate judgment, discussing all aspects of the case held that the evidence of PWs.1 and 2 was number worthy of credence as it was clear that the payment of Rs.700/ had been made towards repayment of a loan which one Prasad, a nephew of PW.1, the companyplainant had taken from the accused, and that the record indicated that the accused and the companyplainant represented two different factions of employees union and that was an additional reason for what companyld be a case of false implication.
On the companypletion of the investigation, the accused was charged under Sections 11 and 13 2 read with Section 13 1 D of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and brought to trial.
On 4th June, 1991, a salary bill pertaining to 23 employees of Irrigation Division No.2 amounting to Rs.43,178/ was submitted in the District Treasury Office, Warangal.
P.1 On the basis of this companyplaint a trap was arranged on 6th June, 1991 when the accused allegedly accepted the amount from PW.1.
The prosecution, in support of its case, examined PWs 1 6 and put on record Exhibits P.1 P.20 and M.Os.
The accused demanded Rs.700/ as a bribe for getting the bill passed.
As per the prosecution story, the very same evening, the companyplainant Venugopal PW 1 and his companyleague Srinuvas Rao PW 2 approached the accused and enquired about the bill.
The accused appellant was, at the relevant time, working as a Senior Accountant in the District Treasury Office, Warangal.
Interference by the High Court, therefore, by a sketchy and ill considered judgment was, therefore, number called for.
As the companyplainant was number wiling to pay this amount he approached the DSP, Anti Corruption Bureau, Warangal and lodged a companyplaint, Ext.
The tainted money was recovered from the appellant and on the phenolphthalein test, the solution turned pink.
Four witnesses in defence, DWs.1 4, were also examined by the accused.
We have heard learned companynsel for the appellant and perused the record.
