The prosecution must prove the demand and acceptance of the bribe, but once gratification is found to have been accepted, a legal presumption can be drawn that the amount was accepted as illegal gratification.

JUDGMENT :

K. SURENDER, J.

1. This appeal is filed by the appellant/accused officer, questioning the conviction recorded by the Additional Special Judge for SPE & ACB Cases, City Civil Court, Hyderabad, in C.C. No. 21 of 2005, dated 18.02.2009, convicting the appellant/Accused Officer for the offence under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) r/w. 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, and sentenced to undergo one year Rigorous Imprisonment under both counts, for demanding and accepting an amount of Rs. 1,000/-

2. Heard both sides.

3. PW-1 is the complaint who approached the DSP, ACB and lodged a complaint on 24.03.2004. In the said complaint, he alleged that he had purchased agricultural land to an extent of Ac. 18.28 guntas in Survey Nos. 20 and 21 at Nagireddygudem Village, Moinabad Mandal, in the name of his wife Nalini Devi in the year 1965. On 08.03.2004, he applied for Certified Copies of 1A and 1-B documents in respect of his land in Survey No. 20, admeasuring Acres 7.34 guntas in the MRO office, Moinabad Mandal. Having given the application, PW-1 went to the office on 19.03.2004 and met the appellant who was working as Deputy MRO and requested for issuance of Certified Copies at an early date. The appellant demanded an amount of Rs. 1,000/- for issuing the Certified Copies. Again on 23.03.2004, the appellant met the MRO-PW-3 and requested him for issuance of certified copies. The MRO called and directed the appellant to issue Certified Copies as per record. Though, MRO, directed the appellant to issue Certified Copies, the appellant insisted for Rs. 1,000/- as bribe and if the amount was not paid he would not issue Certified Copies.

4. The DSP having received the complaint on 24.03.2004 at 4.00 p.m. conducted preliminary enquiries. PW-1 was asked to come on 26.03.2004.

5. PW-1, DSP, Inspector, Independent Mediators and others gathered in the office of DSP, ACB, Hyderabad. Pre-trap proceedings were drafted from 9.30 am to 10.30 am under Ex.P4. After completion of pre-trap proceedings, the trap party proceeded to the office of MRO, Moinabad. The DSP instructed PW-1 that only on demand made by the appellant, amount should be passed on and not otherwise.

6. PW-1, went inside office compound and on inquiry found that the appellant was not present. The trap party waited in the office compound, till the arrival of appellant at 1.45 p.m. Thereafter PW-1 went inside the office and at about 3.00 p.m. came out and gave signal to the trap party indicating acceptance of bribe by the appellant. The trap party entered into the office and DSP questioned the appellant. Sodium Carbonate Solution was prepared and the appellant rinsed his hands separately in two glasses. The right hand fingers of the appellant turned positive and the left hand test remained colourless. The DSP questioned the appellant regarding amount that was received from PW-1. The appellant took out the bribe amount of rupees thousand from his shirt pocket and handed it over to the trap party. Both the appellant and complainant were examined. PW-3-MRO was also examined during the post-trap proceedings. The relevant documents were handed over by the MRO. After having concluded the post-trap proceedings, Ex.P12-post trap proceedings was drafted.

7. The inspector concluded investigation and filed charge sheet against the appellant for the offence under Section 7 & 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act.

8. The main contention of the learned counsel appearing for the appellant is that at no point of time did the appellant deal with Ex.P2-application made by PW-1. In fact Ex.P2 was not seized from his possession. It does not contain his signature and he has no knowledge about the application made by PW-1. The complainant PW-1 never met him at any point of time and it is not his official duty to issue the Certified Copies of 1-A and 1-B documents. He further submitted that the MRO-PW-3, PW-4-Senior Assistant and PW-5-Junior Assistant have all colluded to falsely implicate the app