Billa Nagul Sharief vs State Of A.P

4. According to the prosecution the appellant-Billa Nagul Sharief at the relevant time was posted as Junior Assistant in the office of the District Supply Officer, Guntur and thus a public servant within the meaning of Section 2(c) of the Act. He was incharge of works pertaining to grant of composite licence to deal with scheduled grains. PW.1, P.Rama Krishna, de facto complainant, a resident of village Pedaravuru within Block Tenali in the District Guntur possessed a house in Sivalayam Street of the village and had constructed R.C.C. 3 godown in the vacant portion of the house with an intention to carry on business in scheduled commodities; like Redgram, Blackgram etc. For that he obtained registration certificate and C.S.T. Form from Assistant Commercial Tax Officer, Tenali. De facto complainant PW.1, P. Rama Krishna was required to obtain composite licence from the District Supply Officer, Guntur for carrying on the business. Accordingly, on 19.12.1996 he went to the office of the District Supply Officer and submitted an application for grant of composite licence. The District Supply Officer forwarded the application to the Deputy Tahsildar for enquiry and report, who in turn inspected the godown, recorded the statement of de facto- complainant on 22.12.1996 and submitted his report on 23.12.1996.

5. According to the prosecution on 30.12.1996, de facto- complainant went to the office of the District Supply Officer and enquired about the licence. The appellant asked PW.1 to deposit Rs.1,000/- National Savings Bond, pledged in the name of the District Supply Officer. As directed PW.1 obtained the same and handed over to the appellant. The appellant 4 demanded from de facto-complainant; i.e, PW.1, P. Rama Krishna to pay the bribe of Rs.3,000/- for issuing the composite licence. The de facto-complainant showed his inability to pay the amount and again met the appellant on 6.1.1997 at 11 a.m. and made enquiry about the licence. The appellant made it clear that the licence shall be given to the de facto-complainant only when he pays the bribe of Rs.3,000/-. On de facto-complainant's repeated request the appellant agreed to deliver the composite licence on payment of reduced amount of bribe of Rs.2,500/- with further stipulation that the said amount be paid within two days. De facto-complainant pretended to pay the said amount to the appellant but in fact he was not willing to pay the bribe. Hence, de facto- complainant met PW.4, J.B. Haskarna Rao, on 6.1.1997 at 7 p.m., who was working as Inspector of Police, Anti-Corruption Bureau, Guntur and lodged a report. De facto-complainant was asked to come on 8.1.1997 along with the bribe amount. As instructed, on 8.1.1997 de facto-complainant went to his office where PW.3, M.V. Mallikarjuna Lingam and other members of the trap party were present. De facto-complainant 5 produced 25 currency notes of 100 rupees each. The serial numbers of the currency notes were noted and phenolphthalein powder was applied over the currency notes. De facto-complainant was instructed not to touch the currency notes and to hand over the same to the appellant, only when he makes such a demand.

6. Prosecution case further is that thereafter, the trap party consisting of the de facto-complainant, PW.3 and PW.5, D.V.S.S. Murthy went to the office of District Supply Officer where de facto-complainant met the appellant at 12.20 p.m. and enquired about his licence. The appellant asked as to whether he had brought the bribe amount demanded by him and when told that he had come with the amount, appellant took him outside the room, stopped at the curve of the staircase and demanded the amount. At this de facto- complainant took out the currency notes from his shirt pocket and gave it to the appellant who counted the same with both hands and kept it in the left side of his trouser pocket. Thereafter both of them went inside the office, appellant took out the file from almirah, removed the licence granted in the 6 name of Ramakrishna Traders and gave it to the de facto- complainant after obtaining the acknowledgment. As instructed, de facto-complainant came out and gave the signal. Immediately the trap party entered into the office, apprehended the appellant and conducted phenolphthalein test on his both hands which turned pink. According to the prosecution the appellant removed the money from his pant pocket and gave it to PW.5, D.V.S.S. Murthy, the Deputy Superintendent of Police.

9. Appellant in order to prove his innocence has examined five witnesses. DW.1, K. Amma Mohana Rao, is a clerk working with the Rice Millers Association and has stated that at the request of the de facto-complainant he had filed his application for doing pulses business in the office of the District Supply Officer. He has also stated that the appellant on perusal of the application informed him that the de facto- complainant is required to deposit National Savings Bond and he accordingly informed the de facto-complainant. DW.2, Uppu Nagaratana Raju, at the relevant time was working as Deputy Tahsildar in the office of District Supply Officer and has stated about the altercation said to have taken place between the appellant and de facto-complainant on 30.12.1996 in the office. Besides DW.2, DW.3, P. Mohana Krishna and DW.4, Devarakanda Nagar Raju Rao who were at the relevant time working as Junior Assistants in the office of the District Supply Officer have also stated about the altercation which had taken place between the appellant and the de facto-complainant on 30.12.1996 between 3.15-3.30 p.m. DW.5, D.V. Ranga Rao, a Deputy Tahsildar working in 9 the office of the District Supply Officer had brought the Treasury Book maintained by the District Supply Officer for the financial year 1996-97. According to him the appellant was authorized to present five bills on 30.12.1996 and the appellant was further authorized to present two bills on 6.1.1997. According to him the appellant must have spent three and a half hours in treasury on both the dates.

10. On appreciation of evidence, the trial court came to the conclusion that the prosecution has been able to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt and accordingly convicted and sentenced the appellant as above. The appeal preferred by the appellant has been dismissed by the High Court.

16. In the result, we do not find any merit in the appeal and it is dismissed accordingly.