IMPORTANT POINT
The central legal point established in the judgment is the requirement of proving the demand of illegal gratification as essential for establishing an offence under the Prevention of Corruption Act.

JUDGMENT :

K. SURENDER, J.

1. The appellant was convicted for demanding bribe of Rs. 5,000/- for doing official favour of facilitating PW-1 to go back to Dubai without implicating him in the kidnapping case. Further, the bribe was demanded to reduce the gravity of case against his son who was involved in Crime No. 21/2006 of Kamareddy Police Station for kidnapping.

2. Briefly, the facts of the case are that on 01.02.2006, a complaint was lodged against the son of the defacto complainant (PW-1) by one Radhakrishna Murthy alleging that his daughter was kidnapped. On the basis of the said complaint, the appellant who was working as Sub-Inspector of Police arrested the son of PW-1 on 07.02.2006. Nearly 2½ months thereafter on 22.04.2006, PW-1 returned to India and went to the Police Station. One of the Constable who was not examined in the Court asked for bribe of Rs. 6,000/- for not adding the name of PW-1 in the charge sheet to be filed against his son. Thereafter, the appellant demanded Rs. 5,000/- on 26.04.2006 and asked PW-1 to pay the said amount by 04.05.2006. Aggrieved by the said demand of bribe, PW-1 and PW-2 who is the cousin of PW-1, gave a complaint Ex.P1 on 01.05.2006 to the Deputy Superintendent of Police, ACB, Nizamabad. PW-1 was asked to appear before the DSP along with the proposed bribe amount on 04.05.2006. On 04.05.2006 after verifying the antecedents of appellant, the crime was registered. PW-2 accompanied PW-1 to the office of DSP on the date of trap. PW-3 an independent mediator and another person were asked to act as mediators to the trap. In the office of the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Anti Corruption Bureau, the first Mediators report which was marked as Ex.P5 was drafted after completing the formalities, before proceeding to trap the appellant. What all transpired in the office of the DSP, was incorporated in the mediator’s report Ex.P5.

3. On the same day at 4.30 P.M., the trap party members, PW-1 to PW-3, DSP and others went to the Police Station where the appellant was working as SI. The DSP instructed PWs. 1 and 2 to go into the Police Station and give bribe amount to the accused on demand. Accordingly, PW-1 and PW-2 went into the Police Station. However, they were asked to meet the appellant at the R & B Guest House in Kamareddy in the evening at 10.00 P.M. The trap party again reached the guest house premises at 10 PM. PWs. 1 and 2 went inside and on demand PW-1 handed over the tainted bribe amount to appellant. After passing of the amount, PW-2 went outside and gave pre-arranged signal. The trap party entered into the police station accosted the appellant and conducted test on the hands of the appellant. The test on the hands of the appellant proved positive. The CD file relating to Crime No. 21/2006 of Kamareddy Police which was registered under Section 366-A of Indian Penal Code, against the son of PW-1 was seized. Having completed the post trap proceedings, mediators report was drafted.

4. Thereafter, the case was investigated and charge sheet was filed. The learned Special Judge having concluded examination of witnesses found the appellant guilty of demanding and accepting the bribe amount and accordingly convicted him.

5. The learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant would submit that even according to the prosecution case, the case against PW-1’s son was investigated and charge sheet was filed on 20.03.2006. Therefore as on the date of demand i.e. 26.04.2006, there was no official favour pending and the question of implicating PW-1 in the case does not arise.

6. Learned Senior Counsel further argued that at the earliest point of time in the ‘panchanama’ when the second mediators report was drafted in the guest house, the appellant had stated that money was thrusted into his pocket and he never demanded any amount. The said version of the appellant was in fact stated by PWs. 1 and 2 during the course of trial. However, they were treated hostile to the prosecution case. Mere