JUDGMENT :

1. The appellant who was working as Assistant Engineer was entrapped by the ACB for the reason of accepting an amount of Rs.4,000/- from P.W.1/complainant for putting up file pertaining to the complainant with regard to return of his EMD of Rs.11,000/-. Learned Principal Special Judge for SPE & ACB Cases, City Civil Court, Hyderabad found the appellant guilty and convicted him for the offence under Sections 7 and Section 13(1)(d) punishable under Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act vide judgment in C.C.No.51 of 2003 dated 29.09.2007. Aggrieved by the said conviction, present appeal is filed.

2. The case of P.W.1 is that in the month of January, 2001, civil contract was granted for construction of community shelter at Ibrahimpatnam by the office of the Executive Engineer, Pachayat Raj and he completed the work within six months. Final bill was also given in respect of the said works. P.W.1 made initial deposit of Earnest Money Deposit (EMD) of Rs.11,000/-, for which reason, an application under Ex.P11 was made for returning EMD.

3. On 14.02.2002, P.W.1 went to the office seeking return of EMD, when demand of Rs.5,000/- was made by the appellant. The demand was reiterated on 27.02.2002. However, the bribe amount was reduced to Rs.4,000/-. On the next day i.e., on 28.02.2002, P.W.1 preferred complaint before the ACB authorities. On the basis of the complaint, after conducting preliminary enquiry, case was registered and trap was laid on 01.03.2002.

4. The trap party met on 01.03.2002 at 4.00 a.m and the 1st mediators’ report was drafted. During the 1st mediators’ report, P.W.1 was questioned by the independent mediators regarding the complaint and also phenolphthalein powder was applied to the bribe amount in accordance with the procedure. The consequence of phenolphthalein sodium carbonate solution test was demonstrated to the complainant. After conclusion of the proceedings, the trap party went near the house of the appellant, as PW1 was allegedly asked by the appellant to pay the amount at his house. Around 7.15 a.m, P.W.1 went into the house and entered the drawing room of the appellant and questioned about the processing of EMD application, for which reason, the appellant demanded whether bribe amount was brought. When offered, it is stated that the appellant asked the amount to be placed in Ex.P3 wedding card cover which was on the table in the drawing room. After placing the amount in the wedding card cover, P.W.1 came out and gave pre-arranged signal indicating that the appellant had received the bribe amount.

5. The trap party went into the house of the appellant and questioned regarding the bribe amount. The appellant informed the DSP that PW1 forcibly tried to give some amount, he refused and asked PW1 to go away. Test of sodium carbonate solution was conducted and both the hands of the appellant turned negative indicating that the money was not handled by the appellant. However, the bribe amount was seized from the inside living room of the house where it was kept on a table, at the instance of the appellant. The appellant refused to touch the wedding card cover.

6. After completing the formalities of recording statements, seizure of documents and bribe amount, 2nd mediators’ report Ex.P8 was drafted and thereafter investigation was handed over to the inspector. After completing the investigation, Inspector Sharat Babu filed final report/charge sheet.

7. Learned Special Judge having framed charges under Section 7 and Section 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, examined P.Ws.1 to 5 and marked Exs.P1 to P10 on behalf of the prosecution. In defence, the appellant examined D.Ws.1 and 2 and also documents Exs.X1 to X3 were marked.

8. Learned Special Judge did not find favour with the defence of the appellant that the money was planted in the wedding cover. He further found that the case projected by the prosecution was convincing and accordingly convicted the appellant. The defence witnesses D.Ws