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

JUDGMENT :

1. The appellant is convicted for the offence under Sections 7 and also under Section 13 (1) (d) punishable under Section 13 (2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (for short “the Act of 1988”) and sentenced to undergo one year under each count vide judgment in Calendar Case No.40 of 2002, dated 27.04.2007 passed by the Principal Special Judge for SPE & ACB Cases, City Civil Court, Hyderabad for demanding and accepting bribe of Rs.1,000/- from the defactocomplainant/P.W.1. Aggrieved by the same, the present appeal is filed.

2. Briefly stated the case of the prosecution is that P.W.1 is the defacto complainant who is Proprietor of Bharat Radiators. He applied for APGST registration vide Ex.P1 in the office of the Assistant Commercial Tax Officer (ACTO) on 12.10.2000. On 16.10.2000, P.W.1 received notice from the ACTO asking him to file Rs.2,000/- National Saving Certificate, property particulars etc. and after receiving the said notice, P.W.1 submitted proper documents under ExP3 to the appellant.

3. On 27.11.2000, PW.1 went to the office and met the appellant and enquired about the registration certificate, for which, the appellant demanded an amount of Rs.2,000/- to be paid as bribe. However, on repeated requests made by P.W.1, the amount was reduced to Rs.1,000/-. The appellant further informed that P.W.1 had to pay the said amount of Rs.1,000/- and take the registration certificate.

4. Aggrieved by the said demand, P.W.1 met PW.6, DSP, Karimnagar, Range and handed over written complaint, which is Ex.P6 on 28.11.2000. The trap was arranged on 29.11.2000. P.W.6 sent for independent mediators and pre-trap proceedings were conducted at 7.45 a.m. and concluded at 8.50 a.m. in the ACB Office, Karimnagar.

5. Having concluded the first mediators’ report Ex.P7 at 8.50 a.m., the trap party proceeded to the office of the accused officer and reached the office at 11.00 a.m. P.Ws.1 and 2 went inside the office of the accused officer and came out at 11.08 a.m. and gave the pre-arranged signal indicating acceptance of bribe. The trap party members entered inside and confronted the accused officer regarding demand and acceptance of bribe. Thereafter, the sodium carbonate solution test was conducted, which proved positive. The accused officer when questioned, he stated that P.W.1 offered the said amount for giving it to P.W.4-ACTO, as such, he accepted the amount and kept in his shirt pocket. When questioned again by the DSP-P.W.6, the accused officer stated that he did not demand any bribe from P.W.1, but P.W.1 came to him and offered the said amount to be given to the ACTO-P.W.4.

6. The prosecution, in all examined P.Ws.1 to 7 and marked Exs.P1 to P18. In defence, the accused officer marked Exs.X1 and X2 and after concluding trial, the learned Special Judge found the accused officer guilty as mentioned above.

7. Learned counsel for the accused officer submits that P.W.1 is the Proprietor of Bharat Radiators who applied for APGST registration certificate vide Ex.P1 on 12.10.2000. On 16.10.2000, he received notice from the ACTO, Macherial. Thereafter, the relevant documents were submitted. The appellant had given spontaneous reply during post trap proceedings that the said amount was received when P.W.1 gave the amount asking him to give the same to P.W4, which is the amount towards payment of tax. Ex.X1, which is the Form-A2 return of monthly turnover dated 20.11.2000, the payable tax is shown as Rs.1,000/-. Admittedly, the said amount can be collected by P.W.4. On the date of trap when PW.1 handed over the amount stating that it was towards the tax amount, the accused officer had accepted and kept in his pocket to be handed over to P.W.4. P.W.4 has also stated that the amount was towards the tax amount, which is outstanding from P.W.1. He further submits that there are two clear inconsistencies in the version of prosecution case, firstly, there was no preliminary investigation to enquire or any enquiry made to know about the an