Point of Law : The law on the issue is well settled that demand of illegal gratification is sine qua non for constituting an offence under the 1988 Act. Mere recovery of tainted money is not sufficient to convict the accused when substantive evidence in the case is not reliable, unless there is evidence to prove payment of bribe or to show that the money was taken voluntarily as a bribe. Mere receipt of the amount by the accused is not sufficient to fasten guilt, in the absence of any evidence with regard to demand and acceptance of the amount as illegal gratification. Hence, the burden rests on the accused to displace the statutory presumption raised under Section 20 of the 1988 Act, by bringing on record evidence, either direct or circumstantial, to establish with reasonable probability, that the money was accepted by him, other than as a motive or reward as referred to in Section 7 of the 1988 Act.

JUDGMENT :

Originally, the Accused Nos.1 and 2 in Calendar Case No.19 of 2001 on the file of Additional Special Judge for SPE & ACB Cases, Hyderabad were tried for the offences punishable under Section 7 and Section 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 [for short, “P.C.Act”].

2. Vide Judgment, dated 17.05.2006, the learned Additional Special Judge for SPE & ACB Cases, City Civil Court at Hyderabad while acquitting Accused No.1, convicted Accused No.2 under both the counts and sentenced him to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for a period of one year and to pay a fine of Rs.1000/- in default to undergo Simple Imprisonment for a period of three months for the offence under each of the counts. The substantive sentences were directed run concurrently.

3. The gravamen of the charge against the accused is that on 26.01.1999 Accused No.1 while working as Mandal Revenue Officer, Rudravaram Mandal and Accused No.2 as Mandal Deputy Surveyor, Rudravaram Mandal, demanded a sum of Rs.1000/- each as illegal gratification other than legal remuneration from Owk Chennaih and others, for doing an official favour, namely providing Ac.2.00 cents of land to Smt. Lachamma and five others under a scheme announced by S.C. Corporation.

4. The facts, as culled out from the evidence of the prosecution witnesses, are as under:

i) P.W.1, a resident of Yellavanthula Village, Rudravaram Mandal, was eking out his livelihood by doing coolie work. On coming to know that the S.C. Corporation was granting Ac.2.00 cents of land and that too for women, he along with one Maduleti Butchanna went to the M.R.O. office Rudravaram Mandal, met the M.R.O-Ramachandraiah (A1) and submitted their application. The said application was said to have been given on behalf of six persons. The M.R.O. informed them that he has no power to allot the land and that necessary directions are required to be given by the Collector.

ii) Accused No.1 is said to have advised them to meet Accused No.2 who is working as Mandal Deputy Surveyor and get a sketch prepared. The averments in the Charge Sheet show that when they approached Mandal Deputy Surveyor (AO.2), he is said to have demanded illegal gratification of Rs.1000/- to do official favour. On 16.02.1999, Accused No.1 informed P.Ws.1 and 2 that applications for granting of land cannot be forwarded under the land purchase scheme to the Collector, Kurnool due to backlog of applications. It was further informed that these applications cannot be considered by the R.D.O. Thereafter, the accused Officer No.1 went on leave for two days.

iii) While things stood thus, on 21.02.1999 while P.W.6- Additional Superintendent of Police was present in the office, P.W.1 along with P.W.2 approached him at 2.00 PM and preferred an oral complaint against A1 and A2 alleging that these two accused are demanding money. The said oral complaint was reduced into writing and the same is on record as Ex.P12. P.W.6 got conducted preliminary enquiry with regard to genuineness of the report and the antecedents of the Accused Officer. Being satisfied, he registered a case in Crime No.1/ACB-KUR/99 under Section 7 and Section 11 of P.C. Act and sent the original F.I.R. to the Court. Ex.P13 is the F.I.R. Thereafter, he secured two mediators K.V. Ashok Kumar, District Inspector Legal Metrology, Narasingrao Pet, Kurnool and K.C. Prakash Rao (P.W.3), Inspector Legal Metrology and conducted pre trap proceedings in his office. P.Ws.1 and 2 were introduced to the mediators. The mediators perused the report, questioned P.Ws.1 and 2 and about its content were satisfied with the contents of the complaint.

iv) At the instance of P.W.6, the complainant (P.W.1) produced the bribe amount of Rs.800/- to be paid to the A1 and A2. The mediators took the currency notes, counted them and found it to be eight hundred rupee notes. The numbers of the notes were incorporated in the pre trap proceedings. One K. Pulla Reddy, searched the person of P.W.1 and ensured that he