IMPORTANT POINT
Illegal gratification – Mere recovery would not suffice and prosecution is bound to prove that there was demand by accused.

JUDGMENT

Aggrieved by the conviction recorded under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) r/w 13(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (for short ‘the Act’) for demanding and accepting bribe of Rs.5,000/- from defacto complainant/P.W.1, present appeal is filed.

2. Briefly stated, according to the complaint lodged by PW1, P.W.1 was a business man, who obtained loan from Andhra Pradesh State Financial Corporation (for short ‘the APSFC’), Mahabubnagar. The appellant was working as Branch Manager of APSFC. P.W.1 and his family members obtained several loans from the APSFC and substantial amounts have to be paid. Previously advertisements in the news papers regarding outstanding and also seizures of vehicle JCB, excavator of complainant and his relatives was published twice. On account of the publication of the advertisements, the relatives, friends and others, who invested the amount in his business, have forcibly taken away their amounts. All the business transactions collapsed.

3. Further according to the complainant, due to the illegal seizure of the JCB vehicle, he has suffered loss and put to lot of inconvenience. In such a situation, the appellant threatened that he would again give paper advertisement regarding outstanding of PW1 and his relatives to APSFC. Though there were repeated requests, the appellant sent two notices on 21.01.2001 and also on 22.01.2001 demanding to repay the loans failing which the house kept as a collateral security would be auctioned. In the third week of July, 2001, P.W.1 met the appellant and requested not to give paper advertisement. Appellant allegedly demanded Rs.5,000/- as bribe for not publishing advertisement. Again PW1 met appellant on 13.08.2001, at 6.30 a.m and requested the appellant not to give paper advertisement, but the appellant insisted for bribe amount. On the very same day, i.e., on 13.08.2001, P.W.1 approached the DSP, ACB and lodged a telugu written complaint Ex.P1. The DSP/P.W.8 asked P.W.1 to come to his office on 16.08.2001 in the morning. Accordingly, the DSP arranged for entrapping the appellant and trap party members gathered at 5.30 a.m in the office of ACB.

4. P.W.3 and another acted as independent mediators. P.W.1, his friend P.W.2 were present. P.W.8 and other ACB officials were also present when the pre-trap proceedings Ex.P6 had taken place. P.W.1 was questioned by the independent mediators regarding the complaint. Thereafter, Ex.P6, pre-trap proceedings were drafted. After concluding the pre-trap proceedings, all the trap party members reached the flat of the appellant at Baghlingampally, Hyderabad. Both P.Ws.1 and 2 went inside and P.W.1 requested the appellant not to publish notice in newspapers, then the appellant demanded the bribe amount. P.W.1 handed over the bribe amount to the appellant, who received it with right hand and kept the same besides him on the sofa and covered a newspaper over the currency notes. P.W.3 went out and gave the pre-arranged signal. Thereafter, the trap party members went inside the room and questioned the appellant regarding the bribe amount that was handed over. Sodium carbonate solution test was conducted on the hands of the appellant and his right hand proved positive. However, the left hand test remained negative. Eenadu news paper which was placed on the notes by the appellant was also subjected to sodium carbonate test solution. The test proved positive.

5. Having examined the inmates of the house and also P.Ws.1 and 2, post-trap proceedings Ex.P8 were drafted. The investigation was handed over to P.W.9, Inspector, who concluded the investigation and filed charge sheet against the appellant for the offences under Sections 7 and Section 13(1)(d) r/w Section 13(2) of the Act. Charges were also framed for the said offences.

6. Learned Special Judge examined P.Ws.1 to 9 and marked Exs.P1 to P16 on behalf of the prosecution. The appellant examined D.Ws.1 and 2 and marked Exs.D1 to D21 in his defence. Learned Special Judge found that the appellant