Point of Law :
on proof of acceptance of illegal gratification, presumption can be drawn under Section 20 of the Act. Whereas, in the present case, the prosecution has proved beyond reasonable doubt that there is acceptance of illegal gratification by the Accused Officer to do the official favour and thus the prosecution has proved both the demand and acceptance in the present case.

JUDGMENT :

1. Feeling aggrieved by the judgment, dated 05.12.2007, passed by the learned Principal Special Judge for SPE & ACB Cases, City Civil Court, Hyderabad, in Calendar Case No.13 of 2002, wherein and whereby, the appellant was found guilty of the charges under Sections 7 and 13 (1) (d) read with 13 (2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, the appellant preferred the present appeal. Vide the said judgment, the trial Court sentenced the Accused Officer to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of one (01) year each and to pay a fine of Rs.1000/- (Rupees one thousand only) each and in default to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of one (01) month each for the said charges. Both the sentences of imprisonment were ordered to be run concurrently.

2. The factual matrix of the present appeal is as follows :

(i) Accused Officer - K. Kishan Reddy worked as Assistant Executive Engineer, Rural Water Supply, Sub-division Ghanpur (Station), Warangal District at the relevant time.

(ii) De facto complainant - Kasulabada Damoder was the Sarpanch of Venkatadripet village of Ghanpur (Station) Mandal, Warangal District. Pursuant to the General Body Meeting of his Village and the resolution of the Committee held on 07.01.2000, he dug an open well to overcome the drinking water scarcity of his village, at a cost of Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees one lakh only). In order to prepare a bill for the said amount, the de facto complainant approached the Accused Officer, A.E., RWS, to record the measurements of the well in ‘Measurement Book’(hereinafter called as ‘M’ Book).

(iii) The Accused Officer being the competent authority to record the measurements in ‘M’ Book, demanded an amount of Rs.6,000/- (Rupees six thousands only) as bribe from the de facto complainant.

(iv) Since the de facto complainant was not interested to meet the said demand of Rs.6,000/- towards bribe, approached the ACB Officials on 10.04.2000 by lodging Ex.P17 complaint. Thereafter, PW.10, DSP, ACB, Warangal Range, registered a case on 12.04.2000, laid the trap on the same day by following the procedural aspects including conducting pre-trap and post trap proceedings in the presence of mediators.

(v) After completion of investigation, the ACB Officials filed a charge sheet and the same was taken on file vide C.C. No.13 of 2002 for the aforesaid offences.

3. The trial Court framed charges under Sections 7 and 13 (1) (d) read with 13 (2) of the Act. On examination, the Accused Officer denied the said charges and prayed for trial. Accordingly the trial Court proceeded with the trial.

4. During trial, the prosecution examined ten (10) witnesses i.e., PWs.1 to 10, marked Exs.P1 to P18 and MOs.1 to 8 were exhibited. In support of defence, the Accused Officer examined one witness i.e., DW.1 and marked Ex.D-1, and Exs.X1 to X15 were also marked.

5. After completion of the trial, and on consideration of evidence both oral and documentary, the trial Court found the Accused Officer guilty of the aforesaid charges and accordingly convicted him vide impugned judgment, dated 05.12.2007 in C.C. No.13 of 2002 and imposed the punishment in the manner stated supra.

6. Feeling aggrieved by the said judgment, the Accused Officer preferred the present appeal.

7. Heard Mr. V. Prabhakar Rao, learned counsel for the appellant - Accused Officer and Mr. T.L. Nayan Kumar, learned Additional Standing Counsel - cum - Special Public Prosecutor for ACB Cases for the State of Telangana appearing on behalf of the respondent.

8. Impugning the judgment, the learned counsel for the appellant would contend that the de facto complainant, who gave Ex.P17 – complaint to the ACB Officials against the Accused Officer, was not examined by the prosecution. Non-examination of the de facto complainant is fatal to the case of the prosecution and the prosecution did not prove the twin requirements of demand and acceptance which are sine qua non. The appellant further contended that PWs.1 to 4 and PWs.6 to 9 were declared as