Point of law: Constitutional Bench judgment of 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/Accused Officer(AO) was convicted for the offence under Section 7 of Prevention of Corruption Act and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year and to pay fine of Rs.2,500/-, in default to pay fine amount, to undergo Simple Imprisonment for three months and also sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year for the charge under Section 13(1)(d) punishable under Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, and also to pay fine of Rs.2,500/- and in default, to undergo Simple Imprisonment for three months vide judgment in C.C.No.6 of 2004 dated 14.08.2008, passed by the Principal Special Judge for SPE & ACB Cases, City Civil Court, Hyderabad. Aggrieved by the same, present appeal is filed.

2. The case of the prosecution is that P.W.1 is the proprietor of M/s.United Seeds, Hyderguda and obtained licence for running his shop from the agriculture office. The said license is renewable every three years. Since the license expired on 23.11.2002, P.W.1 approached the office of the accused officer and filed challan. However, he did not get the renewal license for which reason, he approached the office of the Assistant Director and enquired with the accused officer regarding renewal of licence. The accused officer informed that he should get the NSC bond for Rs.500/- and also undertaking letter. On 24.06.2003, P.W.1 gave the renewal application along with the said documents.

3. On 26.06.2003 when P.W.1 met the accused officer regarding his license, the accused officer asked him to file his application once again in the office of the Joint Director of Agriculture. Though he submitted an application in the said office, he did not receive any communication, for which reason on 24.07.2003, P.W.1 met the accused officer, who demanded an amount of Rs.10,000/-for processing the file. On 30.07.2003 again P.W.1 called and enquired the accused officer regarding his license. The accused officer asked him to meet him at 4.15 p.m. On the same day, the accused officer questioned whether he had brought the bribe amount. The accused officer asked PW1 to get Rs.5,000/- on 01.08.2003 and remaining Rs.5,000/- after issuance of license. Aggrieved by the repeated going around the office for renewal of license and the accused officer demanding bribe, P.W.1 lodged complaint Ex.P1 with the ACB on 30.07.2003.

4. The trap was arranged on 01.08.2003. P.W.1 went to the office around 11.00 a.m where the pre-trap proceedings were conducted in the presence of independent mediators. The said proceedings were concluded at 1.00 p.m and the trap party members proceeded to the office of the Assistant Director of Agriculture, Hyderabad. Before entering the office, the DSP asked P.W.1 to enter into the office and only on demand to pay the bribe amount. P.W.1 entered into the office and after handing over the bribe on demand by the accused officer, PW1 came out and gave pre-arranged signal to the trap party. On receiving signal, the trap party entered into the room of the accused officer and questioned him whether he had received any bribe. The accused officer produced an amount of Rs.5,000/- from his left side pant pocket and kept it on the table. The test was conducted on the hands of the accused officer which proved positive. The accused officer produced the file from his almirah which was titled as M/s.United Seeds containing ten sheets which was seized by the DSP during the post-trap proceedings under Ex.P9.

5. The learned counsel for the accused officer would submit that P.W.1 was admonished earlier and his license was cancelled for the reason of involving in activities of purchase and sales contrary to the license conditions. Since the accused officer had inspected the shop on 28.07.2003 and fearing that licence would not be renewed falsely implicated the accused officer in the trap. Admittedly, even according to P.W.1, the accused officer was working under the Assistant Director of Agriculture and above the Ass