Point of Law: Hon’ble Supreme Court held that when demand of illegal gratification was not proved, the offence under Section 7 of the Act is not established.

JUDGMENT :

K. SURENDER, J.

1. The appellant/AO was convicted for the offences under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) r/w Section 13(2) 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 under both counts vide judgment in C.C. No. 34 of 2002 dated 23.03.2007 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 appellant was working as Sub Treasury Officer, Bodhan, Nizamabad District. PW-1, who worked as Telugu Pandit in Government Boys School, Bodhan was entitled for Special Grade promotion arrears of Rs. 31,887/- and pay fixation arrears of Rs. 23,980/-. The Head Master of the school prepared bills and forwarded them on 07.08.2001 to the STO office. Since the bills were not passed, PW-1/complainant went to the STO office on 16.08.2001 and met the appellant and asked about his pending bills. Appellant demanded Rs. 5,000/- as bribe to get his work done. Again PW-1 met the appellant on 23.08.2001 and the appellant insisted the bribe of Rs. 5,000/- to be paid, but ultimately reduced to Rs. 4,000/-.

3. PW-1 went to the ACB office on the same day evening and on the instructions of DSP, gave a written complaint Ex.P1. The trap was arranged on the next day i.e. on 24.08.2001. Around 7.00 a.m. the complainant/PW-1, DSP, independent mediators and others gathered in the office of ACB and after following the due procedures, pre-trap proceedings were prepared. The DSP instructed that the amount should be handed over to the appellant only on his demand. All the trap party members went to the office of the appellant. PW-1/complainant and PW-2/accompanying witness went inside the office and met the appellant, who demanded the bribe amount. Then, the appellant took PW-1 to the record room of RDO office situated by the side of the STO office. There, the appellant asked the bribe amount to be paid and after receiving the said amount, it was kept in a cover and placed in between the records in record room of the RDO office, Bodhan. Thereafter, the appellant assured that the work of PW-1 would be done. PW-1 came out of the office and gave pre-arranged signal.

4. The trap party entered into the office and conducted test on the hands of the appellant. The test proved positive and when the DSP questioned about the bribe amount, the appellant kept quite. However, later the envelope containing bribe amount was found in the record room of RDO’s office at appellant’s instance. The relevant files were seized and after concluding the post-trap proceedings, the investigation was handed over to the Investigating Officer-PW-7.

5. Sri D.V. Seetharama Murthy, learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of Sri V. Prabhakara Rao, learned counsel for the appellant submits that the very recovery of the amount is doubtful. The appellant works in the office of the Sub Treasury Office whereas the amount was found in a cover in the adjoining RDO’s office record room. It is apparent that the amount was planted and the appellant was falsely implicated by PW-1. PW-1’s nature and conduct was stated by his Principal, who was examined as DW-1. DW-1 stated that on 16.08.2001 and 17.08.2001, PW-1 did not attend the duties as he was on election duties on the said dates. DW-1 also produced the attendance register, which was marked as Ex.X1 and the relevant page Ex.X1-A. DW-1 further deposed that as a Head Master, complaint was given against PW-1 to the Inspector of Police and further deposed that PW-1 was a quarrelsome person. He further submits that according to PW-4, the appellant did not have the authority to pass the bills submitted under Exs.P2 and P3, as seen from the stamp affixed on the said documents, it is apparent that they were received in the STO’s office on 23.08.2001, as such, the claim that the bills were submitted on 07.08.2001 cannot be believed. Fu