JUDGMENT :

1. The appellant is aggrieved by the conviction under Section 7 and 13(1)(d) r/w 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act and sentenced to one year rigorous imprisonment and to pay fine of Rs.2,000/- under each count vide judgment in C.C.No.23 of 2021 dated 13.04.2007 passed by the Principal Special Judge for SPE & ACB Cases, City Civil Courts, Hyderabad, present appeal is filed.

2. Briefly, the case of the prosecution is that on 23.05.1999, P.Ws.5 and 6, who are the officials of A.P. Transco visited the house of P.W.1 and inspected the service connection bearing No.1129 and it was found that P.W.1 was extracting energy by-passing the meter by providing a loop wire from the incoming phase of the meter to cut out-going to the terminal. Since it was a case of pilferage of energy, an inspection note was prepared and handed over to the appellant for proceeding further by the competent authority. P.W.1 enquired about the said proceedings and he was asked to meet the appellant. P.W.1 met the appellant on 14.06.1999 and enquired about the case. The appellant allegedly informed that he has to pay an amount of Rs.18,000/- towards fine. P.W.1 pleaded with the appellant and the appellant demanded an amount of Rs.5,000/- to be paid as bribe to extend official favour of not initiating action. On repeated requests made by P.w.1, the bribe amount was reduced to Rs.3,000/-. The said amount was asked to be paid on 21.06.1999. P.W.1 approached ACB office on 20.06.1999 and lodged the complaint at 10.00 a.m with the DSP-P.W.9.

3. P.W.9 instructed P.W.1 to come on the next day. After verification of the antecedents of the appellant and genuineness of the complaint, permission was sought and crime was registered on 21.06.1999 and on the same day i.e., P.W.3 and another government officials were asked to act as mediators to the trap to be laid on the basis of the complaint of P.W.1. Ex.P9 is the complaint drafted by P.W.2 and given by P.W.1 on 20.06.1999. Having verified the contents, the mediator/P.W.3 drafted the proceedings Ex.P20. Having concluded the preliminary proceedings in the office, around 11.00 a.m, the trap party went to the office of the appellant situated in Karimnagar on two wheelers. P.W.2 was asked by P.W.9/DSP to accompany P.W.1 and inform about the happenings between P.W.1 and the appellant. Both P.Ws.1 and 2 entered into the office. At the same time, P.W.2 gave a pre-arranged signal intimating the acceptance of bribe by the appellant in the snacks bar. The trap party entered into the snacks bar in the office premises. Sodium carbonate solution was prepared in two glasses and the appellant was asked to rinse both his hands and also fingers separately. Both the solutions turned positive. On questioning by P.w.9, the bribe amount was handed over to the trap party from his shirt pocket. The said amount was seized and the proceedings were concluded in the office premises at 2.15 p.m. Ex.P20 is the post trap proceedings.

4. The investigation was handed over to P.W.11/Inspector, who completed investigation and filed charge sheet for the offences under Section 7 and 13(1)(d) r/w Section 13(2) of the Act.

5. Learned Special Judge examined P.Ws.P1 to P11 and marked Exs.P1 to P28 on behalf of the prosecution. D.W.1 was examined on behalf of the appellant and Exs.D1 and D2 were marked.

6. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant would submit that both the complainant and P.W.2/accompanying witness turned hostile to the prosecution case and also stated that the amount was thrust into the pocket of the appellant. Further, the prosecution failed to prove the aspect of demand since P.W.1 has disowned the complaint and the contents of complaint Ex.P9 were not proved. Both P.Ws.1 and 2 denied any kind of demand by the appellant, as such, the appellant is entitled to be acquitted of the charge. He relied on the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the cases of;

i) B.Jayaraj v. State of A.P in Criminal Appeal No.696 of 2014;

ii) K.Sh