The presumption under Section 20 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 can only be drawn if the prosecution proves the foundational facts regarding the demand and acceptance of bribe.

JUDGMENT :

This Criminal Appeal is filed by the State, being represented by the Inspector of Police, Anti-Corruption Bureau (“A.C.B.” in short), Rajahmundry Range, Rajahmundry, challenging the judgment, dated 24.01.2006 in C.C.No.113 of 2000, on the file of Special Judge for SPE & ACB Cases, Visakhapatnam (“Special Judge” for short), where under the learned Special Judge, found the Accused Officer (“A.O” for short) therein not guilty of the charges under Sections 7 and 13(2) r/w 13(1)(d) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (“P.C. Act” for short) and acquitted him under Section 248(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure (“Cr.P.C.” for short).

2. The parties to this Criminal Appeal will hereinafter be referred as described before the trial Court for the sake of convenience.

3. The case of the prosecution, in brief, before the Court below, according to the charge sheet filed by the Inspector of Police, Anti-Corruption Bureau, Rajahmundry Range, Rajahmundry, pertaining to Crime No.11/RC-ACB/RJY/99 of A.C.B., Rajahmundry Range, is as follows :

(i) Sri Mohammed Ismail i.e., the A.O. worked as Mandal Revenue Inspector, Mandal Revenue Office, Samarlakota Mandal, East Godavari District from 08.09.1998 to 26.11.1999. He is a public servant within the meaning of Section 2(c) of the Act.

(ii) L.W.1-Chundru Satyanarayana is a resident of G. Medapadu Village, Samarlakota Mandal, East Godavari District. He is an agriculturist. As an agriculturist, he submitted an application to A.O. in the second week of November, 1999 to issue legal heir certificate. A.O. visited the village of L.W.1 on the same day. After four days, L.W.1 went to Mandal Revenue Office, Samarlakota and met the AO and requested him to issue legal heir certificate. A.O. informed to him that he is busy with other works and requested him to meet after one week.

(iii) On 23.11.1999 in the morning L.W.1 went to Mandal Revenue Office, Samarlakota and met the A.O. and asked him about the legal heir certificate. The A.O. demanded bribe of Rs.300/- to issue legal heir certificate, for which L.W.1 expressed his inability. A.O. insisted him to pay the amount. L.W.1 reluctantly agreed to pay the amount and approached L.W.7-Inspector of ACB, Kakinada and presented a report on 26.11.1999 at 8-00 a.m. It was registered as a case in Crime No.11/RC-ACB/RJY/99. The A.O. was trapped on 26.11.1999 at 4-20 p.m. in his office room when he demanded and accepted Rs.300/- from L.W.1 as illegal gratification for doing official favour. The chemical test on right hand fingers of A.O. yielded positive result. The inner linings in the left side shirt pocket of A.O. proved to be positive. The A.O. produced tainted amount from his left side shirt pocket in the presence of L.W.3-Ch. Suryanarayana and L.W.4-V. Satyanarayana. L.W.8-M. Subba Rao, the then D.S.P. of ACB arrested the A.O. and released him on bail.

(iv) The Government of Andhra Pradesh, being the competent authority to remove the A.O., accorded sanction orders in G.O.Ms.No.521, dated 31.07.2000 to prosecute the A.O. Hence, the charge sheet.

4. The learned Special Judge for SPE & ACB Cases, Visakhapatnam, took the case on file under the above provisions of law and after appearance of the A.O and after compliance of Section 207 of Cr.P.C., framed charges under Section 7 and Section 13(2) r/w 13(1)(d) of P.C. Act against the A.O and explained the same to him in Telugu, for which he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

5. During the course of trial, on behalf of the prosecution, P.W.1 to P.W.4 were examined and Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.11 were marked and M.O.1 to M.O.8 were marked. After closure of the evidence of the prosecution, the A.O was examined under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. with reference to the incriminating circumstances appearing in the evidence let in, for which he denied the same and stated that he has defence witnesses.

6. The learned Special Judge on hearing both sides and on considering the oral as well as documentary evidence, found the A.O not gui