IMPORTANT POINT
The prosecution must prove the demand and acceptance of bribe beyond reasonable doubt, and the accused's explanation must be supported by evidence.

JUDGMENT :

K. SURENDER, J.

1. The appellant was convicted for the offence under Section 7 and 13(1)(d) r/w 13(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of six months and one year respectively vide judgment in CC No. 36 of 2004 dated 28.03.2008 passed by the Principal Special Judge for SPE & ACB Cases, City Civil Court, Hyderabad. Aggrieved by the same, present Appeal is filed.

2. The case against the appellant is that while he was working as Senior Assistant in the office of Khammam Municipality, Khammam District, demanded an amount of Rs. 2,000/- for the purpose of mutating the name of Banoth Veerabhadra Rao, (defacto complainant, not examined during trial due to his death) in respect of his half share property by virtue of partition decree passed by the Lok Adalat. Pursuant to the said demand, an amount of Rs. 700/- was accepted as part payment on 05.02.2003 on which date, the appellant was trapped.

3. The complaint was filed on 03.02.2003. The said complaint was given to the Deputy Superintendent of Police and the complainant was instructed to get back on 05.02.2003, on which date, trap was arranged. Meanwhile, antecedents of complainant and appellant were enquired. On 05.02.2003, the said complaint was registered for the offence under Section 7 and 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act.

4. On 05.02.2003, pre trap mediators’ report Ex.P2 was prepared in the presence of PW-1, DSP and other officials. Thereafter, the trap party proceeded to the office of the appellant. PW-1 who was working as Assistant Geologist in the office of Mines and Geology and his colleague were asked to act as mediators to the trap. After the pre-trap proceedings, PW-1 along with deceased complainant reached the office of municipal Corporation, Khammam around 2.10 p.m. Both of them went inside the office and other trap party members took positions nearby the office. It was informed that the appellant was not present and the same was conveyed to the DSP. The DSP instructed PW-1 and the complainant to wait till the arrival of the appellant around 5.30 p.m. PW-1 was informed by the complainant that the appellant had come to the office in jeep. Around 5.30 p.m. the complainant followed by PW-1 met the appellant. According to PW-1, the complainant asked the appellant about mutation of the house in his favour. Appellant asked the complainant whether he brought the demanded amount, for which complainant took out the amount from his shirt pocket and gave it to the appellant. Appellant accepted the amount with his right had, counted the said amount with both the hands and kept the amount in his back side pant hip pocket.

5. The complainant then went out of the office to give pre arranged signal and the DSP and others entered into the office of the appellant. The complainant and PW-1 pointed out the appellant. Thereafter, the DSP and other trap party members questioned the appellant. The said amount of bribe was recovered from his right side pant pocket and the amount was handed over by the appellant to trap party. The relevant files of the complainant were asked to be produced by the appellant. The appellant produced movements register Ex.P8. He informed that the application of complainant was with Vijender Reddy Revenue Inspector, who was examined as PW-2.

6. The staff searched for the file of the complainant in the almirah of PW-2 and found Ex.P4, file of one Nirmala in which Ex.P4(a) application of complainant was found and same was seized. The other relevant documents were also seized.

7. The trap party having concluded the post trap proceedings drafted Ex.P9, which is the second mediators report. Having obtained Sanction Order from the competent authority, the investigating officer concluded investigation and charge sheet was laid.

8. Learned Special Judge examined PWs. 1 to 6 on behalf of the prosecution and marked Exs.P1 to P15. The colleague of the appellant namely M.Ramachandra Rao was examined