Point of Law : Presumption under Section 20 of the Prevention of Corruption Act cannot be drawn as there is no prima facie case found that the appellant-accused has accepted or obtained the gratification as alleged by the prosecution.

JUDGMENT:

CHILLAKUR SUMALATHA, J.

1. Challenging the validity and the legality of the judgment that is rendered by the Court of Principal Special Judge for SPE & ACB Cases, City Civil Court, Hyderabad, in C.C.No.8 of 2002, dated 28.3.2007 the appellant who is the accused in the said Calendar Case is before this Court by way of appeal.

2. In the grounds of appeal, it is urged that the judgment of the trial Court is contrary to law and weight of evidence; that the learned judge of the trial Court ought to have seen that DSP, ACB, acted against the appellant-accused without any complaint and without conducting any preliminary enquiry; that the learned judge ought to have observed the discrepancy in the date mentioned in Ex.P-4-complaint; that the learned judge failed to see that Exs.P-1 to P-3-applications were not ready by the time of the alleged meetings dated 18.9.2000 and 20.9.2000; that the learned judge failed to see that the appellant-accused is not a competent authority to act on Exs.P-1 to P-3 and issue valuation certificates which were sought by P.W-1; that the learned judge failed to suspect the genuineness of Exs.P-1 to P-3 which were not found during the pre-trap proceedings; that the learned judge failed to appreciate the fact that P.Ws.3 and 4, who are the mediators, deposed to the effect that they found the amount on the table and not in his hands of the appellant-accused; that the learned judge failed to appreciate the fact that the tainted amount was not recovered by P.W-10 from the hands of the appellant-accused; and that the learned judge failed to consider that the entire post-trap proceedings were drafted to the dictation of P.W-10 and that Ex.P-4-complaint was obtained during the course of said proceedings and in spite of absence of any evidence either regarding demand or acceptance of bribe, the learned judge raised presumption under Section 20 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, which is improper and therefore, the punishment awarded to the appellant-accused by the trial Court is unsustainable.

3. Heard the submissions of the learned counsel for the appellant-accused and the submissions of the learned Special Public Prosecutor who represented the respondent.

4. Now the points that arise for consideration are:

(1) Whether the respondent emerged successful in establishing the guilt of the appellant-accused beyond all reasonable doubt for the offence punishable under Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.

(2) Whether the respondent emerged successful in establishing the guilt of the appellant-accused beyond all reasonable doubt for the offence punishable under Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.

(3) Whether there exists any infirmity in the judgment of the trial Court either in appreciating the facts of the case or in applying the established principles of law to the said facts, as contended by the appellant, which in turn requires the interference of this Court exercising appellate jurisdiction.

5. Point Nos.1 & 2:

The matrix of the case, as could be culled out from the charge sheet, is that P.W-1 being an unemployee intended to obtain loan from the State Finance Corporation to purchase a tractor and for that purpose, he required market value certificates from the Sub-Registrar’s office concerned and therefore, he collected three required forms, obtained the signatures of his father and relatives, affixed the required stamps and approached the appellant-accused who was working in the office of the Sub-Registrar, Husnabad, on 18.9.2000 and requested him to receive the forms and process them, and on that, the appellant-accused demanded Rs.600/- @ Rs.200/- for each application for accepting and processing the same, and that P.W-1 again approached the appellant-accused on 20.9.2000 requesting to take the applications, but the appellant-accused reiterated his earlier demand of bribe and when P.W-1 expressed his inability to pay such a huge amount, he reduced the same to Rs.500/