Arijit Pasayat, J. - (1.) Challenge in this appeal is to the judgment of a learned Single Judge of the Andhra Pradesh High Court directing acquittal of the respondent who faced trial for alleged commission of offence punishable under Section 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(d)(i) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (in short the Rs. Act). The trial Court i.e. the Court of Principal Special Judge for SPE & ACB Cases, Hyderabad, found the accused guilty. He was convicted and sentenced to two years rigorous imprisonment under each count. Both the sentences were directed to run concurrently. He was also fined with Rs. 1000/- under each count with default stipulation.
(2.) Background facts in a nutshell are as follows: One Gande Vaikuntam (PW-1) was sanctioned a loan of Rs. 15,000/- in the year 1986 by the A.P. Khadi & Village Industries Board, Sangareddy. But due to some unavoidable circumstances he could not avail the facility. After about three years between April and May 1989 he approached the respondent-accused officer who was the Development Officer of A.P. Khadi & Village Industries Board and requested him for revival of the lapsed loan. According to the defacto complainant, respondent dodged him on 25th May, 1989 when he went to his office at Sangareddy and asked him to see him in the Head Office of A.P. Khadi & Village Industries Board at Hyderabad on 27th May, 1989. Accordingly, the complainant and one Balreddy (PW-2) met the respondent at the Head Office in Hyderabad on 27.5.1989. The respondent demanded bribe of Rs. 500/- from him so that his loan case could be revived. He also told PW-1 to meet him on 31st May, 1989 at 8.00 a.m. at his residence. PW-1 approached the Dy. Superintendent of Police, A.C.B. Nizamabad and gave a report. On 31.5.1989 at about 7.25 a.m. PW-1 met the respondent who demanded and accepted the sum of Rs. 500/- from him in presence of D. Sridhar Reddy and Ch. Narsimha Reddi. The respondent was caught red handed and bribe money was recovered in presence of mediators from the respondent. To prove the accusations the prosecution examined eight witnesses and 31 exhibits were exhibited. Accused examined one witness and exhibited 2 exhibits. The trial Court found the evidence of PWs 1 and 2 to be clear and cogent and accordingly recorded the conviction and sentence as afore- stated. In appeal before the High Court it was submitted that the accusations have not been established so far as the respondent is concerned. The High Court held that according to the evidence of prosecution the application given by PW-1 was found in the brief case of the accused person. But the High court observed that normally one would expect that if the accused officer kept the application in the brief case he would also keep the money in the brief case and it is not expected that he would keep the money on a tea-pot and the application in the brief case. This according to the High Court created doubt whether any money was demanded and received by the accused person. It was further observed that the evidence of PW-1 was not corroborated. Although there was an independent witness available, he was not examined. The High Court also observed that non examination of one Narsimha Reddi rendered the prosecution version fragile. Accordingly, the conviction was set aside and acquittal was directed. Questioning the acquittal, the State of Andhra Pradesh has filed this appeal.
(3.) Learned Counsel for the appellant-State submitted that the High Court by a cryptic order has set aside the well reasoned judgment of the trial Court. Merely because some persons were not examined, same cannot be a ground to discard the evidence of a reliable witness. It is pointed out that the bribe money purported to have been given by Narsimha Reddi was also seized. The Investigating Officer had clearly stated the reasons for the non examination of Narsimha Reddi. It was stated that he had joined naxalites. The presumption available under Section 20 of the Act was not kept in view by the High Court. It is submitted that the High Courts conclusions are based on surmises and, therefore, the judgment of acquittal cannot be maintained.;