The judgment establishes that the demand and acceptance of bribes can be proved through witness testimony and circumstantial evidence, and the defense of discharging official duties must be supported by proper records.

JUDGMENT :

1. The appellant/A1 was convicted for the offence under Section 7 and Section 13(1)(d) read with under Section 13(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (for short ‘the Act’) and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year under both counts vide judgment in C.C.No.34 of 2003 passed by the Principal Special Judge for SPE & ACB Cases, Hyderabad dated 25.10.2007. Aggrieved by the same, present appeal is filed.

2. P.W.1 is the complainant. He approached the ACB and filed complaint Ex.P1 that the appellant who was the Traffic Inspector went to the shops of P.W.1, PW2, PW3 and others and asked to meet them in the police station. Since they failed to meet him in the police station, the appellant went to the shop and picked up 10 pairs of shoes from each of their shops on 16.10.2001. When P.W.1 and others had asked the appellant to return the shoes, the appellant demanded Rs.500/- as monthly mamool, failing which, he would see to that the shops are removed. On 19.10.2001, P.W.1 and others approached the appellant having collected Rs.3,000/- amongst themselves. However, the appellant did not agree for Rs.3,000/- and demanded Rs.6,000/- to be paid for two months immediately.

3. Aggrieved by the same, Ex.P1 complaint was lodged on 22.10.2001, in the morning. The trap was arranged on the same day. Around 3.00 p.m, P.W.1 took amount of Rs.6,000/- to the DSP office. The members of the trap party were present in the office. Accordingly, Ex.P2 mediators report (pre trap proceedings) was drafted by P.W.4. After concluding pre-trap proceedings, the trap party proceeded to Putlibowli police station. Other trap party members stayed outside the police station while PW1 and other vendors went into the police station at 4.45 pm. Only P.W.1 met the appellant, came outside and relayed signal at 5.15 pm indicating acceptance of bribe by the appellant. The DSP and other Inspectors went into the police station. While entering into the police Station, P.W.1 informed the DSP that the amount was demanded and accepted by appellant and handed over amount to another person in the room. The DSP questioned the appellant and was asked to rinse his fingers in the sodium carbonate solution. The solution turned pink indicating handling of bribe amount by the appellant.

4. The appellant explained that P.W.1 and other footwear vendors were encroaching on the road and causing hindrance to the traffic, for which reason, shoes were taken from them and several petty cases were also registered.

5. According to P.W.1, after he went inside the office of the appellant, the appellant demanded amount and after handing over, counted the money and gave it to Accused Officer-2 (acquitted by trial Court).

6. All that transpired in the police station was drafted and after conclusion of post-trap proceedings under Ex.P6, investigation was handed over to the inspector. Having concluded investigation, the Inspector filed charge sheet for the offence under Section 7 and Section 13(1)(d) r/w 13(2) of the Act. Charges were accordingly framed against this appellant and AO2, who was found in possession of the currency notes.

7. Witnesses P.Ws.1 to 7 were examined and Exs.P1 to P11 were marked on behalf of the prosecution. The appellant examined D.W.1 in defence.

8. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant would submit that the witnesses deposed that traffic officials used to threaten them not to use foot path for transacting their footwear business. Several times challans were issued. For the said reason, P.W.1 and other vendors have falsely implicated the appellant in a trap case. He relied on the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Dashrath Singh Chauhan v. Central Bureau of Investigation, AIR 2018 Supreme Court 4720. The Hon’ble Supreme Court recorded acquittal on the ground that the co-accused who was acquitted by the trial court and State did not prefer any appeal against the said acquittal. He also relied on the judgment in the case of