IMPORTANT POINT
The prosecution must prove the demand for bribe beyond reasonable doubt, and contradictory evidence from the main witness can lead to acquittal.

JUDGMENT :

(K. Surender, J.) :

1. The appellant is questioning his conviction in the present appeal, recorded by the Additional Special Judge for SPE & ACB Cases, City Civil Court at Hyderabad for the offences under Sections 7 and Section 13(1)(d) r/w 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (for short “the Act of 1988”) and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of two years under both counts, vide judgment in CC No.17 of 2005 dated 19.11.2009.

2. Briefly, the case of the prosecution is that P.W.1, who is the defacto complainant lodged a complaint with ACB stating that he is the owner and possessor of agricultural lands and he had a borewell in his land. The borewell fetches sufficient watering, as such, some of the villagers including Sarpanch approached him and requested him to provide drinking water from his borewell to the village and promised to pay money for supply of the water. P.W.1 was being paid Rs.1,500/- per month by the RDO for supplying drinking water to Redlarepaka village. According to procedure, recommendation would be made by the Assistant Engineer, who was working in the Rural Water Supply Office, Veligonda to the M.R.O. M.R.O, in turn recommends to the R.D.O. Then the payment would be made by way of cheque.

3. According to prosecution case, since Rs.1,500/- per month was less, in the year 2004, an agreement was made to pay Rs.3,000/- per month. Though, he supplied water from January, 2004 to May, 2004, he was not paid water charges. Thereafter, P.W.1 stopped supply of water from June, 2004. In the 1st week of July, 2004, the appellant who was working as Senior Assistant in RDO office informed P.W.1 that a cheque for Rs.15,000/- towards water supply was ready and asked P.W.1 to meet him. However, demand of bribe of Rs.4,000/- was made by appellant to handover cheque. P.W.1 requested to reduce the amount. However, appellant insisted to pay the said amount to deliver the chqeue. The demand was made on 17.07.2004 and again on 23.07.2004. Appellant asked P.W.1 to come to RDO’s office on 26.07.2004 and pay Rs.4,000/- to collect the cheque. Aggrieved by the said demand, on 24.07.2004, P.W.1 went to the ACB office and lodged Ex.P1 complaint. The trap was arranged by the DSP on 26.07.2004.

4. On 26.07.2004, P.W.1/complainant, P.W.2/mediator, P.W.8/DSP and others were formed as trap party. Pre-trap proceedings were reduced into writing, which is Ex.P4 after conclusion of the formalities before proceeding to the trial. The trap party, then went to the R.D.O’s office. While the other trap party members waited outside, P.W.1 entered into RDO’s office and 20 minutes thereafter, he came out and conveyed the signal to the trap party. The trap party entered into the office and questioned the appellant regarding the bribe. The appellant did not say anything and since P.W.1 informed that the appellant took the amount and kept in his right side pant pocket, his pant was tested with sodium carbonate solution, which turned positive. The test on both the hands also proved positive. Since the amount was not found, it is further the case of the prosecution that P.W.1 informed that after he gave the amount to the appellant, he observed the appellant going towards almirah. Then, the trap party searched for the currency and found the amount kept in a log book in the almirah. The amount was seized including the relevant documents along with the cheque Ex.P5. Thereafter, having concluded the formalities including recording of statements of P.W.1/complainant and seizures, post-trap proceedings under Ex.P9 was drafted. Investigation was concluded by P.W.8 himself and filed charge sheet.

5. Learned Special Judge having framed charges, examined P.Ws.1 to 9 and Exs.P1 to 12 were marked on behalf of the prosecution. MOs.1 to 10 were also placed on record by the prosecution. Neither witnesses were examined nor any exhibits marked on behalf of the appellant. Learned Special Judge, having found the appellant guilty, convi