IMPORTANT POINT
Proof of demand and acceptance of bribe is essential for conviction under the Prevention of Corruption Act; mere recovery of money is insufficient.

JUDGMENT :

1. This Criminal Appeal is filed by the Appellant/Accused under Section 374(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973[Hereinafter, Cr.P.C.] (for short “the Code”) aggrieved by the impugned Judgment of conviction and sentence dated 28.07.2008 passed in C.C.No.9 of 2005 on the file of the Court of Special Judge for SPPE & ACB Cases, Vijayawada[Hereinafter, trial court] for the offences punishable under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.[Hereinafter “P.C.Act”]

2. Appellant was convicted under Section 248(2) of the Cr.P.C. and was sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of one year and to pay a fine of Rs.1000/-, in default to suffer simple imprisonment for a period of three months for the offence punishable under Section 7 of the P.C. Act and further sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of one year and to pay a fine of Rs.1000/-, in default to suffer simple for three months for the offence punishable under Section 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of the P.C. Act. The sentences were directed to run concurrently.

3. Appellant herein is the Accused Officer, respondent herein is the Complainant in C.C.No.9 of 2005. For the purpose of convenience, the parties are hereinafter referred to as they arrayed in C.C.No.9 of 2005.

4. During pendency of this Appeal, Accused Officer died and his legal representatives were brought on record as Appellant Nos., 2 to 5, vide order dated 23.01.2024 in I.A.No.3 of 2023.

5. The brief case of the prosecution is;

a. At the relevant point of time i.e., 30.12.2002 to 12.12.2003, Accused Officer was working as Divisional Panchayat Officer, Kovcvuru, West Godavari District, the De facto Complainant(PW.1)/Kadali Trimurthulu was the Sarpanch of Krishnampalem village, Devarapalli Mandal, West Godavari District and one Sankavarapu Krishna was the Village Secretary of Krishnampalem Village. Since the said Krishna mismanaged the work, members of Gram Panchayat passed a Resolution on 18.08.2003 and transferred him and then, De facto Complainant(P.W.1) locked the record room on 29.08.2003 to avoid tampering of records.

b. On the next day, the Accused Officer, who is Divisional Panchayat Officer came to the Office and informed that he was asked to conduct an enquiry into the matter. De facto Complainant and the other office staff narrated the incident and while leaving, the Accused Officer took way the minutes book, cheque book and cash book along with him and Accused Officer submitted a report to P.W.2/District Panchayat Officer.

c. Basing on the said report, a notice was issued to De facto Complainant by the District Panchayat Officer terminating his independent cheque power and he was ordered to get the counter signatures on the cheques by the Extension Officer, Devarapalli. A show cause notice was issued to De facto Complainant by the District Panchayat Officer directing him to give explanation for the irregularities in the Administration of the Grampanachayat. In turn, he submitted his explanation to District Panchayat Officer on 27.10.2003 through the Accused Officer.

d. When P.W.1 approached the Accused Officer, he demanded De facto Complainant(P.W.1) an amount of Rs.3000/- as bribe to send a favourable report. When De facto Complainant expressed his inability, it was reduced to Rs.1000/-.

e. De facto Complainant approached the ACB officials and gave a report and in the trap, the Accused Officer was trapped. During post trap Proceedings, the right and left hand fingers of the Accused Officer turned pink.

f. Basing on Ex.P1/report of P.w.1, P.W.6 registered a case against Accused Officer and issued FIR No.17/RCT-EWG/2003 dated 11.12.2003. After due investigation, P.W.6 filed a Charge Sheet against the Accused Officer for the offence punishable under Sections 7 of the P.C.Act and Sections 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of the P.C.Act.

Procedural History

6. Accused Officer appeared before the trial Court, denied the charges,