JUDGMENT :

1. The appellant is questioning his conviction recorded under Sections 7 and Section 13(1)(d) punishable under Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act and sentencing him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of six months and one year respectively and also to pay fine of Rs.300/- under each count vide judgment in C.C.No.36 of 2003 dated 24.07.2007 passed by Principal Special Judge for SPE & ACB Cases, City Civil Court, Hyderabad.

2. Briefly, the case of the prosecution is that the appellant was working as Line Inspector in the office of A.A.E, A.P. Transco, Bodhan, demanded an amount of Rs.300/- from the defacto complainant (not examined during trial since dead) for installation of new meter. Application was made by enclosing Form-A applications under Exs.P9 and P10 along with DDs Exs.P5 to P7. The defacto complainant allegedly met the appellant 10 to 12 times. However, the appellant insisted that Rs.300/- has to be paid failing which work cannot be done. The said demand was made on 19.08.2002 at 2.30 p.m. A complaint was preferred by the complainant to the ACB DSP the same day.

3. The Deputy Superintendent of Police, ACB secured the presence of two independent mediators, P.W.3 and another and pre-trap proceedings were conducted in the presence of trap party on 20.08.2002 from 8.00 a.m. and concluded at 9.00 a.m. The trap-party thereafter proceeded to the office of ADE (Operations) in Bodhan along with P.W.1, who is friend of the defacto complainant and also the author of Ex.P1. Both P.W.1 and the defacto complainant entered into the office and waited at office area since the appellant was not present. Appellant called the office and also talked to the defacto complainant and to come to a place where transformer installation was going on. The same was informed to trap party and all the trap party members went to the location. Ten minutes after the trap party went there, the appellant arrived at the place where transformer work was going on. Complainant wished the appellant and the appellant wished both defacto complainant and P.W.1 and asked whether he brought the money. The defacto complainant gave the said amount of Rs.300/- from his shirt pocket and handed over to the appellant, who took the said amount and kept in his shirt pocket. Signal was relayed indicating acceptance of bribe and the DSP and other trap party confronted the appellant regarding the bribe. Having conducted post trap proceedings, mediators’ report Ex.P3 was drafted in the ADE’s office and also rough sketch was drawn which is Ex.P4.

4. After conclusion of the post trap proceedings investigation was handed over to the Inspector, who concluded investigation and filed charge sheet after obtaining sanction.

5. Learned Special Judge examined P.Ws.1 to 8 and marked Exs.P1 to P22 on behalf of the prosecution. Appellant examined D.W.1 on his behalf and Exs.X1 to X6 documents were marked on being called for by the Court.

6. Learned Special Judge found that though the complainant died and was not examined, the other evidence corroborated with the case of the prosecution that the appellant demanded and accepted an amount of Rs.300/- from the defacto complainant and accordingly convicted the appellant.

7. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant would submit that the defacto complainant was not examined and P.W.1, who was the scribe of Ex.P1 was not witness to the alleged demand of the appellant. In the said circumstances, it cannot be said that demand was proved by the prosecution. He further submitted that Exs.P9 and P10 Form-A applications were in fact planted by the ACB and so also DDs which were enclosed shown as that of the defacto complainant. There is no signature of the appellant on Exs.P9 and P10. In fact, it is not mentioned in Ex.P3 post trap proceedings that the documents pertaining to the defacto complainant were seized from the scooter dicky. There are no proceedings to the seizure of the said documents. In the said circ