N.RAJENDRA PRASAD Vs. STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellant/AO is convicted for the offence under Ss. 7 and Sec. 13(1)(d) r/w 13(2) of the Act of 1988 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (for short "the Act of 1988") and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of six months and one year respectively, vide judgment in CC No.28 of 2003 dtd. 27/12/2007 passed by the Principal Special Judge for SPE and ACB Cases, City Civil Court at Hyderabad. Aggrieved by the same, the present appeal is filed.

(2.) Briefly, the case of the prosecution is that the appellant was working as Assistant Electrical Inspector, Standard Laboratory, Mint Compound, Hyderabad. The defacto complainant was possessing wireman permit. On 16/9/2000, he obtained application form to get 'B' Grade Electrical Contractors Licence from the office of the Secretary, A.P. Electrical Licencing Board, Hyderabad. As per the requirement, a test certificate has to be enclosed along with the application. P.W.1 paid challan of Rs.100.00towards the testing fee. On 21/9/2000, he went to the Standard Laboratory and on purchasing challan, he was issued instrument testing application form. The said form was filled up by P.W.1 and approached the appellant along with two instruments and requested him to do the necessary test and submit the testing report. To do the needful, the appellant demanded an amount of Rs.650.00 i.e., to conduct instrument test and forward test report. Aggrieved by the said demand, a complaint was made on 27/9/2000. The trap was laid on 28/9/2000. On the trap date, the trap party including P.W.1-complainant, P.W.2-independent mediator, Inspector of Police, DSP and others met in the office of ACB. After concluding pre-trap proceedings Ex.P7 report was drafted. Thereafter, they proceeded to the office of the appellant. P.W.1 went inside the office accompanied by P.W.2 at 12.35 p.m. P.W.2 came out of the office and relayed signal indicating the acceptance of bribe by the appellant. The Deputy Superintendent of Police and others went into the office and confronted the appellant regarding the bribe. The appellant was tested with sodium carbonate solution which turned positive on both hands. When questioned regarding the bribe amount, the appellant broke into tears and produced the bribe amount.

(3.) After concluding the post trap proceedings under Ex.P13, investigation was handed over to the Inspector. After conclusion of investigation, charge sheet was laid for the offences under Ss. 7 and 13(1)(d) r/w 13(2) of the Act. The learned Special Judge found the appellant guilty of accepting the bribe amount and convicted as stated supra.