THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE B.N. RAO NALLA CRIMINAL APPEAL No.1175 OF 2003 JUDGMENT: Since there was no representation for the appellant – AO-1 on 07-02-2011, the matter was adjourned to 08-02-2011. On 08-02-2011 also, there was no representation for the appellant. Hence, the matter was directed to be listed today under the caption “for orders.” Today also, there is no representation on behalf of the appellant though the matter is listed under the caption “for orders.” 2. Coming to the merits of the case, an electrical connection to the agricultural well of the de facto complainant – PW.1 was disconnected in December 1996, as such, he obtained requisite demand draft dated 15-04-1997 and submitted the same to the appellant for restoring the said electrical connection, but the appellant dodged the matter on one pretext or the other making PW.1 to move around him and ultimately demanded him Rs.2,000/- as illegal gratification other than legal remuneration for doing official favour of restoring the disconnected electrical connection to his agricultural well. Since PW.1 expressed his disability to pay Rs.2,000/-, appellant reduced the amount to Rs.1,000/-. Then, on the basis of the complaint preferred by PW.1, a trap was laid on 05-05-1997 and when PW.1 was about to pay the tainted amount to the appellant, he asked him to pay the same to AO-2, who was a private electrician, and he (AO-2) received the amount on behalf of the appellant and the trap proceedings proved successful. After obtaining sanction order, prosecution was launched against the appellant for the offence under Sections 7, 13(1)(d) read with 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (for short “the Act”). The appellant pleaded not guilty for the offences with which he was charged. 3. To substantiate its case, prosecution got examined PWs.1 to 7 and got marked Exs.P-1 to P-12 apart from MOs.1 to 10. On behalf of the accused officers, DWs.1 and 2 were examined. 4. After taking into consideration and appreciating the evidence of the prosecution witnesses and other material on record, the trial Court found that the evidence of prosecution witnesses was clear, cogent and convincing and clearly established the case of the prosecution that the appellant demanded and accepted the bribe amount of Rs.1,000/- from PW.1 for doing official favour of restoring electrical connection to his agricultural well and that it was only on instructions of the appellant, PW.1 paid the bribe amount to AO-2, and, as such, the trial Court found the appellant guilty for the charges under Sections 7, 13(1)(d) read with 13(2) of the Act and accordingly convicted and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of two years and to pay a fine of Rs.500/-, in default, to undergo simple imprisonment for one month obviously for the offence under Section 7 of the Act though it is not clearly mentioned and he was also sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years and to pay a fine of Rs.500/-, in default, to undergo simple imprisonment for one month obviously for the offence under Section 13(1)(d) read with 13(2) of the Act though it is not clearly mentioned. 5. In the circumstances, this Court finds no merit in this appeal and it is of the opinion that the appeal is liable to be dismissed. 6. Therefore, the Criminal Appeal is dismissed and the judgment in C.C. No.18 of 1999 dated 22-10-2003 passed by the learned Principal Special Judge for SPE & ACB Cases, City Civil Court, Hyderabad is confirmed. _________________ B.N. RAO NALLA, J February 9, 2011. PV