Point of law: Supreme Court held that once it is shown that amount received by any accused is towards illegal gratification, presumption has to be raised.

JUDGMENT :

1. The appellant/AO was convicted for the offence under Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (for short “the Act of 1988”) and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year and also sentenced to pay fine of Rs.5,000/-, in default, to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of three months and also sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year and also sentenced to pay fine of Rs.5,000/-, in default, to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of three months for the offence under Section 13(1)(d) r/w 13(2) of the Act of 1988 vide judgment in CC No.37 of 2003 dated 23.07.2008 passed by the Principal Special Judge for SPE & ACB Cases, City Civil Court at Hyderabad. Aggrieved by the same, the present appeal is filed.

2. Briefly, the case of the prosecution is that the AO worked as Prohibition & Excise Inspector. P.W.1 was running a wine shop, which was owned by P.W.2. Accused officer visited the wine shop on 15.06.2002 and demanded to pay Rs.20,000/- as yearly mamool.

Again he visited the shop on 25.06.2002 and 04.07.2002. The accused officer further instructed that an amount of Rs.10,000/-has to be paid at his residence in the evening of 05.07.2002. P.W.1 lodged a complaint with ACB on 04.07.2002. A trap was arranged on 05.07.2002. Both P.Ws.1 and 2 went to the ACB office at Karimnagar with the bribe amount. P.W.5 and another independent mediator and DSP-P.w.6 and Inspector-P.W.7, who formed the trap party, were present in the office. The pre trap proceedings were drafted under Ex.P6. The trap party proceeded to the house of the accused officer at 6.55 p.m. Around 7.00 to 8.00 pm, P.W.2 gave pre arranged signal, as such, the trap party entered into the house and conducted sodium carbonate solution test and both the hands of the accused officer, when rinsed in the solution, turned into pink colour. The trap amount was removed from the table drawer and handed over to DSP. When questioned during post trap proceedings, the accused officer stated that he has taken hand loan of Rs.10,000 for his personal use. DSP questioned whether any note for the loan was executed, he stated that no such note was executed.

3. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that Exs.D1 to D7 which are crime occurrence reports and panchanama conducted on 01.11.2002, 12.06.2002, 25.06.2002. It goes to show that the alleged demand of on 25.06.2002 and 13.06.2002 are incorrect, as the accused officer conducted raids at various places. Further, the alleged amount of bribe by the accused officer is towards mamool and there was no official work pending. However, taking advantage of his position, the alleged demand of bribe is made. Both the witnesses P.Ws.1 and 2 turned hostile to the prosecution case and supported the defence version of the accused officer as stated during post trap proceedings that the amount was towards loan. In the said circumstances, the prosecution has failed to prove its case and since no demand is proved, conviction under Section 7 of the Act of 1988 cannot be maintained in view of the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court;

i) N.Vijay Kumar v. State of Tamil Nadu, (2021) 3 SupremeCourtCases 687. He also relied on the judgment of C.M.Girish Babu v. CBI, Cochin, AIR 2009 SC 2022, wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that the version of the accused officer therein that the amount was paid towards the repayment of loan.

ii) He also relied on the judgment of Punjabrao v. State of Maharashtra, (2002) 10 Supreme Court Cases 371, wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that defence can be established by preponderance of probability and if any explanation is offered during Section 313 Cr.P.C examination and same is found to be reasonable, it cannot be refused merely on the ground that the said explanation was not given when the amount was seized.

iii) In Gaddam Mutyala Rao v. State of A.P., (2006 (2) ALD (Crl.) 972 (AP), this Court held that in the case of hostility of the prosecutio