THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GOPALA KRISHNA TAMADA CRIMINAL APPEAL No.780 of 2007 JUDGMENT: This criminal appeal is preferred by the State against the judgment dated 20-03-2007 passed in C.C.No.1 of 2002 by the learned Special Judge for SPE and ACB Cases, Nellore, whereby the respondent-accused was acquitted for the offences punishable under Sections 7 and 13 (2) read with Section 13 (1) (d) of Prevention of Corruption Act (for short, ‘the Act’). The case of the prosecution, in brief, is that P.W.1-complainant is the proprietor of Keerthi offset Printers, Tirupathi, which is the approved Printers of Tirumala Tirupathi Devasthanams (TTD) publications work. The respondent-accused was working as Manager, Tirumala Tirupathi Devasthanam Press, Tirupathi, Chittoor District. As the said TTD Press is not able to cope up with the workload, the Printing Press is getting the works done by private Printers. P.W.1 got the works from the respondent-accused vide Ex.P5 proceedings dated 26.04.2000 for printing five items of spiritual books all worth Rs.2,14,223/-. Thereafter, on 18.08.2000 P.W.1 approached the respondent-accused and enquired about the cheques for the three bills. Respondent-accused demanded an amount of Rs.8000/- as bribe for hastening of the bills and to issue the cheques to P.W.1. P.W.1 expressed his inability to pay such huge amount. Respondent-accused signed the bills on the same day in 15 contingent bills and sent only 3 bills to the Audit Office and kept 12 bills including two bills of P.W.1 with him. Again on 29.08.2000 P.W.1 approached the respondent-accused at his Office and requested him to hasten the bills. Then the respondent- accused reiterated his earlier demand. When P.W.1 expressed his inability to pay the demanded bribe amount, the respondent-accused reduced his demand to Rs.7,5000/- Be that as it may, as P.W.1-complainant was not willing to pay the bribe amount to the respondent-accused, he approached P.W.7-Deputy Superintendent of Police, Anti Corruption Bureau, Tirupathi, on 30.8.2000 at 11 A.M. and submitted Ex.P6-report. P.W.7 conducted preliminary enquiry and obtained permission from the Director General, Anti Corruption Bureau and registered a case in Crime No.9/RCT-TPT/2000 on 31.08.2000 and submitted Ex.P25 F.I.R to the Court. On 31.08.2000 from 2.30 P.M. to 3.45 P.M. P.W.7 conducted pre-trap proceedings under Ex.P8 in the presence of mediators P.W.2 and another. P.W.1 produced M.O.3 amount of Rs.7,500/- and the serial numbers of the notes were noted in Ex.P8. Thereafter, the raid party went to the Printing Press and that P.W.1 went to the respondent-accused and paid the amount, on further demand, to the respondent-accused and then the respondent-accused received the same with his right hand and kept the amount in his left side shirt pocket. Thereafter the raid party went to the respondent-accused and the chemical test conducted on right hand fingers, inner linings of the shirt pocket and secret pocket of the pant and handkerchief of the respondent-accused, proved positive. P.W.7 seized the said tainted amount of Rs.7,500/-. After completion of investigation, P.W.8-the Inspector of Police, A.C.B submitted final report and other documents to Director General, A.C.B for obtaining sanction orders and after obtaining sanction orders Ex.P24, P.W.8 filed charge sheet against the respondent accused under the aforesaid Sections of law. The prosecution, in order to prove its case against the accused, examined P.W.1 to P.W.8 and got marked Exs.P1 to P25 and M.Os.1 to 12. On behalf of the accused, D.W.1 was examined and Exs.D1 and D2 were marked. Ex.X1 produced by D.W.1 was marked as third party document. The trial Court on appraisal of entire evidence, both oral and documentary, held that the prosecution has failed to prove its case for the offences under Sections 7 and 13 (2) read with Section 13 (1 (d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 against the accused and accordingly acquitted him for the said offences. Aggrieved by the same, the State preferred the present appeal. Head both sides. Having considered the submissions of the learned Standing Counsel-cum-Special Public Prosecutor for ACB cases, Mr.V.Ravi Kiran Rao, and also the submission of the learned Counsel for the petitioner, Mr.M.L.Ali, this Court is of the view that it is not a fit case to interfere with the finding of the trial Court. P.W.1, in his cross-examination, categorically admitted that he got Kalyanam tickets twice through the respondent-accused prior to the trap and that each Kalyanam ticket was worth Rs.2,500/- . In this context, the respondent-accused got examined D.W.1, a Plate Minder in T.T.D. Press. When once P.W.1 has admitted in his cross-examination that he got the said favour on two occasions through the respondent-accused prior to the date of incident, it is not known as to why the present trap has been arranged. In the instant case, admittedly by the date of trap, the bills of P.W.1 were signed by the respondent-accused and they were sent to Audit office on 29.08.2000. If really the respondent-accused was intending to extract bribe amount from P.W.1, he would not have signed in the bills or would not have sent the same to Audit office by 29.08.2000. Further the prosecution wanted to prove through P.Ws.3 and 4 that the respondent- accused did not send the 12 bills including two bills of P.W.1 intentionally. But, P.Ws.3 and 4, in their evidence, did not support the case of the prosecution. In the absence of the same, it cannot be concluded that the respondent-accused intentionally did not send the bills of P.W.1 to Audit office. The trial Court rightly held that the prosecution has failed to prove that by the date of trap the respondent-accused was demanding money to do an official favour pertaining to P.W.1 and that the respondent-accused has received the amount towards bribe from P.W.1. Further, from the record, it appears that the respondent-accused is aged about 70 years and he retired from service on attaining the age of superannuation. In view of all the above facts and circumstances, I am of the considered view that the prosecution has miserably failed to bring home the guilt of the respondent-accused beyond all reasonable doubt. The trial Court has given sufficient and cogent reasons in acquitting the respondent-accused. Therefore, I see no reason or justification to interfere with the finding of the trial Court. Thus the appeal is liable to be dismissed. The Criminal Appeal is accordingly dismissed. ___________________________ (GOPALA KRISHNA TAMADA, J) 08-09-2010 Gsn.