IMPORTANT POINT
Proof of demand for illegal gratification is essential to establish offences under the Prevention of Corruption Act; mere recovery of money is insufficient.

JUDGMENT :

Venkata Jyothirmai Pratapa, J.

Aggrieved by the impugned judgment for conviction and sentence passed against the sole accused in C.C.No.17 of 2006 on the file of the Court of Special Judge for SPE & ACB Cases, Vijayawada, for the offences under Sections 7 & 13(2) read with 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988[In short, PC Act] under Section 248(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure,1973[In short, Code], wherein he was sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of one year and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- (Rupees one thousand only) in default to suffer simple imprisonment for three months for the offence under Section 7 of the Act and further sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for one year and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- (Rupees one thousand only) in default to suffer simple imprisonment for three months for the offence under Section 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of the Act and directed to run both the sentences concurrently, the Accused preferred the present Appeal.

2. The appellant and the respondent herein were the accused and the State represented by the Range Inspector-III, Anti Corruption Bureau (ACB), Vijayawada, respectively before the trial Court. During the pendency of the appeal, the accused died. His legal representatives,who are his wife and daughter, came on record to pursue the appeal.

3. The case of the prosecution in brief is as follows:

a. Accused officer worked as an Assistant Engineer in the office of MPDO, Gurazala, Guntur District. The complainant namely, Challa Srinivasa Rao was a Contractor. The complainant was engaged by the Government for construction of protection wall from S.C.Hostel to the house of Yerukala Nagaiah in Gurajala Village under Janma Bhoomi Programme. The worth of the contract was Rs.1,50,000/- and it was agreed to complete on or before 31.10.2003. The complainant (P.W.1) executed the work and received rice worth of Rs.45,000/- and the balance to be paid to him was Rs.1,05,000/-.

b. In that regard, on 01.04.2004, he met the accused officer for release of the remaining amount of Rs.1,05,000/-. The accused officer demanded 10% of the total estimation of the contract work, which comes down to Rs.15,000/- as a bribe to clear his due amount. On bargaining, the bribe amount was reduced to Rs.5,000/-, and that the accused officer informed the Complainant that if his demand is not fulfilled, the M-Book and bill would not be processed. The accused officer asked the complainant to pay the bribe amount and they met in the house of accused officer on 27.05.2004 in the evening hours.

c. The complainant, who was not willing to oblige the demand of the accused officer, gave a report to Anti Corruption Bureau. Sri N.Ravi Kumar Reddy (P.W.9) on receipt of the said report from the complainant (P.W.1) and after verifying the antecedents of the accused officer and on the instructions of the Joint Director, ACB, Hyderabad, registered the complaint, vide Crime No.16/RCT-ACB-VJA/2004 of ACB, Vijayawada Range, Vijayawada (Ex.P14) for the offences punishable under Sections 7 and Section 13(1)(d) read with 13(2) of the Act.

d. P.W.9 conducted pre-trap proceedings in the presence of the mediators. The complainant produced Rs.5,000/- and after applying phenolphthalein powder on the currency notes, P.W.9 asked him to pay the same to the accused officer only on his further demand and in case, the accused officer accepts the bribe amount, to give prearranged signal. The complainant entered into the house of the accused officer at 4.35 p.m. on 27.05.2004 and gave signal to P.W.9 that the accused officer received the bribe amount. Immediately, P.W.9 along with mediators rushed to the scene, conducted Sodium Carbonate solution test and the accused officer voluntarily led P.W.9 and mediators and showed the tainted amount which was on the table cloth.

e. The serial numbers of the said currency notes were compared with that of the numbers mentioned in the pre-trap proceedings (Ex.P9) and t