Point of Law : Mere recovery from AO2 would not entail prosecution to seek drawl of presumption under Section 20 of Prevention of Corruption Act and shift burden on to appellant.

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 six months and to pay fine of Rs.500/-, in default to pay fine amount, to undergo Simple Imprisonment for one month 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.500/- and in default, to undergo Simple Imprisonment for one month vide judgment in C.C.No.10 of 2004 dated 06.12.2007, 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 was a retired Head Constable of Government Railway Police (GRP). The bills relating to his retirement benefits, leave encashment and gratuity were sent to the Pay and Accounts Office(PAO) where the appellant was working as Auditor, from the GRP office. According to the complainant/PW1, he met and enquired with Sona Babu in the office of GRP who asked P.W.1 to personally pursue with the Pay and Accounts Office to receive payments. Accordingly, P.W.1 met the Appellant and she asked P.W.1 to meet him on 24.06.2000. When P.W.1 met the Appellant on 24.06.2000, she demanded an amount of Rs.1,500/- for passing his bills which were about Rs.1,50,000/-. Though, P.W.1 expressed his inability to pay the amount, the appellant insisted, for which reason, P.W.1 approached the ACB and met P.W.10, DSP, on 26.06.2000 and narrated his grievance which was taken down in writing in ACB office and registered as Ex.P1.

3. The trap was laid on 27.06.2000. On 27.06.2000, DSP- P.W.10 sent for two mediators P.W.2 who acted as accompanying witness-cum-mediator and another person namely Sri V. Krupakar Reddy. In the office of ACB, the pre-trap proceedings were drafted in the presence of the trap party. P.W.1 was asked regarding the demand of bribe and after producing the bribe amount, they were smeared with phenolphthalein powder. The phenolphthalein test was shown to the complainant and other trap party members and DSP/PW10 informed that if anyone comes into contact with the tainted currency notes, the contacted portion when tested with sodium carbonate solution would yield pink colour. The pre-trap proceedings Ex.P2 was drafted at 11.00 a.m. and the trap party proceeded to the office of the Pay and Accounts, where the Accused Officer was working as Auditor. P.W.1 was asked to handover the bribe amount only on demand and not otherwise. In the event of the amount being demanded and accepted, the same should be intimated to the trap party by relaying a signal.

4. The trap party arrived at Pay and Accounts Office at 12.50 p.m and both P.Ws.1 and 2 went inside the office and came out after five minutes and relayed the signal. The trap party went inside the office and introduced themselves. The accused officer was disturbed and stated that she did not ask for any amount not took any money. The DSP asked her to stay calm. AO2 who was the person sitting on the left side of the appellant was found panicking and informed that he took the amount from P.W.1 and he was on deputation working in the Railway Police from April, 1991. Further, he came down to the office of Pay and Accounts to assist in pay bill work of GRP office, Secunderabad.

5. The DSP conducted sodium carbonate test on the hands of both the appellant and AO2. The test on the hands of the appellant was negative, however, it was positive for AO2. The relevant file of P.W.1 was also seized.

6. ACB after completion of investigation, filed charge sheet and the Special Court, after recording evidence, convicted the appellant and acquitted AO2.

7. The counsel for the appellant submits that the amount was recovered from AO2, who was acquitted by the trial Court. However no appeal is filed by the State. Even according to the prosecut