Point of Law : Hon’ble Supreme Court held that though there was any irregularity in a proceeding, such irregularity should have been resulted in causing prejudice to accused.

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”) vide judgment in Calendar Case No.8 of 2004, dated 04.03.2008 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 de facto complainant/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 was running M/s. Bhanu Engineering works at Ranigunj, Secunderabad. On 14.08.2004 at about 12.00 noon, in the absence of P.W.1, accused officer visited the shop and asked the person in the shop about the business details and informed the person in the shop to inform P.W.1 to meet him in his office on 20.08.2003. When P.W.1 met the accused officer on the said day, AO demanded Rs.1,000/- as mamool for not inspecting his shop in future and not to point out any irregularities in inspection reports and further not to harass him. PW1 was not willing to pay the bribe amount, as such he gave a written complaint to the ACB on the same day at 11.00 a.m.

3. The trap was laid on 23.08.2003. The pre-trap proceedings were drafted under Ex.P9 in the office of ACB Range-I, Hyderabad in the presence of trap party. After concluding the pre-trap proceedings, the trap party proceeded to the Bombay Hotel and Bakery where AO asked PW1 to meet him, and reached the hotel around 4.00 p.m. PW1 went inside the Hotel whereas the other trap party members were waiting outside the hotel. Everything was visible from outside as there were no complete wall structure. Around 4.10 P.M, the accused officer arrived on his motorcycle and walked into the Bombay hotel and met P.W.1/complainant. Thereafter he received the amount and kept in his back pocket. The entire transaction of meeting PW.1 and receiving amount, placing the amount in his pocket was witnessed by the trap party members, as such, without even receiving pre-arranged signal, the trap party entered the hotel and DSP confronted the accused officer regarding receiving of bribe. The accused officer was taken to the first floor of the hotel and post trap proceedings under ExP10 were concluded by 8.30 p.m., after conducting test on the hands of AO. The investigation was thereafter handed over to the inspector, who concluded investigation and filed chargesheet for the offences under Sections 7 and 13 (1) (d) read with Section 13 (2) of the Act of 1988. The charges were also framed under the said provisions and after conclusion of trial the accused officer was found guilty.

4. Sri T. Niranjan Reddy, learned Senior Counsel appearing for Sri V. Jitender Rao, learned counsel for the appellant would submit that there is no proof of demand by the accused officer. Further, the reason for demand as mentioned in the complaint Ex.P1 was that it was towards mamool, so that he will not inspect the shop in future and not to point out any irregularities in the preparation of inspection reports and not to harass P.W.1. However, when he was examined before the court, he stated that he went to the office of accused officer on 20.08.2003 and met him for the reason of pending returns and asked time for filing the said returns, for which reason Rs.1,000/- was demanded by AO for not taking any action. In view of the improvement made regarding non-filing of the returns, which was not mentioned earlier, there is an improvement regarding demand of bribe.

5. In similar circumstances, the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the judgment of K. Shanthamma v. State of Telangana, (2002) 4 SCC 574 held that the version regarding the demand was an improvement in the earlier statements as such the demand could not be conclusively proved. In the said circumstances, the conviction recorded against the appellant was set aside.

6. The learned Senior Counsel also argued that material document which is Section 164 C