The conviction under the Prevention of Corruption Act was overturned due to failure in proving beyond reasonable doubt the demand for bribe and inconsistencies in testimonies.

JUDGMENT

AHSANUDDIN AMANULLAH, J.

Leave granted.

2. This is an appeal at the instance of the sole Appellant-convict (hereinafter also referred to as the ‘accused officer’) against the Final Judgment and Order dated 06.03.2024 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Impugned Judgment’) in Criminal Appeal No.157 of 2008 passed by a learned Single Judge of the High Court for the State of Telangana at Hyderabad (hereinafter referred to as the ‘High Court’). The High Court dismissed the Criminal Appeal and affirmed the Judgment dated 29.01.2008 of the learned Additional Special Judge for Special Police Establishment & Anti-Corruption Bureau Cases at Hyderabad (hereinafter referred to as ‘Trial Court’) in Calendar [Mis-spelt as ‘Calender’ in the Trial Court Judgment.] Case No.19 of 2004, whereby the Trial Court convicted the Appellant and sentenced him to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for a period of one year and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- (Rupees One Thousand) and in default to undergo simple imprisonment for a further period of six months for the offence punishable under Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Act’) and also for the offence punishable under Section 13 (1)(d) r/w Section 13 (2) of the Act to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for a period of one year and pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- (Rupees One Thousand) and in default to undergo Simple Imprisonment for a further period of six months.

FACTUAL POSITION:

3. The Appellant, presently aged about 70 years, was working as a Revenue Inspector in the office of the Mandal Revenue Office (hereinafter referred to as the ‘MRO’) posted at Gundala Mandal, Nalgonda District, which was in the undivided State of Andhra Pradesh between 12.10.2001 to 20.08.2003. On 06.08.2003, the complainant submitted an application to the MRO, Gundala Mandal, claiming compensation for trees that dried up due to drought. The MRO forwarded the same to the accused officer/Appellant for conducting an inquiry. On the same day, in the evening, it was alleged that when the complainant (hereinafter also referred to as ‘PW1’) approached the Appellant to discuss a matter regarding compensation for the damaged trees, the Appellant demanded a bribe of Rs.2,000/- (Rupees Two Thousand) to conduct the inquiry and prepare a report. It was further alleged that on 07.08.2003, PW1 met the accused officer and requested that he is not in a position to pay such huge amount, whereupon the accused officer is said to have stated that unless the bribe amount of Rs.2000/- (Rupees Two Thousand) is paid to him, he would not come to the village for inspection. It is alleged that the Appellant finally asked PW1 to come with the bribe amount of Rs.2000/- (Rupees Two Thousand) and meet him at his residence at Mothukur Village on 11.08.2003.

4. Aggrieved by these demands, PW1 filed a written complaint with the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Anti-Corruption Bureau, Hyderabad Range, Hyderabad (hereinafter referred to as ‘PW7’) on 08.08.2003. PW7 registered a case being Cr. No.19/ACB-HR/2003 against the Appellant under Section 7 of the Act, on 11.08.2003.

5. On 11.08.2003, in presence of independent mediators, PW1 and others, pre-trap proceedings were conducted. The trap party then went to the Appellant’s house. The house of the Appellant was found locked and PW1 was informed by the Appellant’s neighbours that the Appellant had gone to the MRO at Gundala. From the house, independent witness-PW2 and PW1 went on scooter to the MRO, where PW7 and the other trap members followed them in a jeep. PW1 met the Appellant in the MRO. The A