The judgment emphasized the need to establish the demand for bribe or pecuniary advantage as essential for conviction under the Prevention of Corruption Act. It highlighted the foundational facts required to benefit from the presumption under Section 20 of the P.C. Act.

JUDGMENT :

Challenge in this Criminal Appeal is made by the State, represented by Inspector of Police, Anti-Corruption Bureau (“A.C.B.” for short) Eluru Range, Eluru to the judgment, dated 26.08.2006 in C.C.No.25 of 2002, on the file of Special Judge for SPE & ACB Cases, Vijayawada (“Special Judge” for short) whereunder the learned Special Judge acquitted the Accused Officer (“A.O.” for short) for the charges under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) r/w 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act (“P.C. Act” for short).

2) The parties to this Criminal Appeal will hereinafter be referred to as described before the learned Special Judge for the sake of convenience.

3) The case of the prosecution as set out, in brief, in the charge sheet filed before the learned Special Judge pertaining to Crime No.4/ACB-RCT-EWG/2002 of A.C.B., Eluru Range, Eluru, alleging in substance as follows:

(a) The A.O. was working as Executive Engineer, Panchayatraj, Eluru, as on 29.01.2002, as such, he is a public servant within the meaning of Section 2(c) of the P.C. Act, 1988. P.W.3 is a native of Chodavaram village, Nallajerla Mandal. He is an agriculturist-cum-Contractor. He met the A.O. at his office on 21.01.2002 with a request to release of his Earnest Money Deposit of Rs.24,600/- pertaining to a contract work of road laying, which was completed by him during the year 1998. On that the A.O. demanded him to pay a bribe amount of Rs.5,000/-, for which P.W.3 expressed his inability, but the A.O. stood on his earlier demand and further threatened him that unless he is bribed, his work will not be done.

(b) On 22.01.2002 P.W.3 paid Rs.4,000/- as bribe and on that the A.O. instructed P.W.3 to pay the balance of Rs.1,000/-within 5 or 6 days and to receive the cheque, for which P.W.3 reluctantly agreed to pay the demanded bribe of Rs.1,000/- and as he was not willing to pay the same, he approached the D.S.P. (P.W.7) and presented a report on 28.01.2002. The D.S.P. after observing the necessary formalities registered the case.

(c) On 29.01.2002 at 12-30 p.m., A.O. was successfully trapped by P.W.7 at his office, when he further demanded and accepted the bribe amount of Rs.1,000/- for showing official favour, as gratification other than legal remuneration and when both the hand fingers of A.O. were subjected to chemical tests, they proved positive and the tainted amount was recovered from the left side shirt pocket of A.O. On conducting the S.C. solution test to the inner linings, it proved positive and the D.S.P. seized the tainted amount from his physical possession in the presence of the mediators.

(d) The Government of Andhra Pradesh being the competent authority to remove the A.O. from service, issued prosecution sanction orders vide G.O.Ms.No.370, dated 07.10.2002, Panchayatraj and Rural Development Department (Vigilance Section-I) for the above charges. Hence, the case.

4) The learned Special Judge took cognizance of the case under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) r/w 13(2) of P.C. Act. On appearance of the Accused Officer and on compliance of Section 207 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (“Cr.P.C.” for short), the learned Special Judge framed charges under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) r/w 13(2) of P.C. Act against the Accused Officer and explained the same to him in Telugu for which he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

5) In order to establish the guilt against the Accused Officer, the prosecution examined P.W.1 to P.W.8 and got marked Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.20 and M.O.1 to M.O.10. After closure of the evidence of prosecution, the Accused Officer 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. He got filed written statement contenting in substance as follows:

(i) He never demanded or accepted any bribe amount from P.W.3 and at the instance of unscrupulous and disgruntled contractor by name G. Rambabu (P.W.3) he was implicated in the stage managed foisted case. He further stated