IMPORTANT POINT
The necessity of proving demand and acceptance of bribes under the Prevention of Corruption Act was affirmed, with emphasis on the burden of proof resting on the accused.

JUDGMENT :

K. Surender, J.

1. The appellant was convicted for the offence under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) r/w 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act for demanding and accepting an amount of Rs.1,000/- from P.W.1/defacto complainant, vide judgment in C.C.No.91 of 2010 dated 16.12.2011 passed by the II Additional Special Judge for SPE & ACB Cases, Hyderabad.

2. According to the prosecution case, the amount of Rs.1,000/- was demanded for processing the application of P.W.1 for the purpose of licence to run a fertilizer shop. According to P.W.1, he was having a valid licence to run the shop till 2006. Later, when he approached the appellant for renewal of the licence, the appellant demanded Rs.5,000/-. Though, challans were paid for running the shop, the licence was not renewed. On 20.09.2006, the appellant went to the shop and locked the shop on the ground that he was not holding a valid licence, though P.W.1 showed challans that were paid by him.

3. The appellant allegedly demanded Rs.3,000/- bribe for handing back the keys. Two days thereafter, P.W.1 went to the office of the appellant and requested the appellant to return the keys of his shop and promised to pay the bribe amount. Appellant stated that P.W.1 should pay the challan and also pay the bribe amount. Further, the filled in application should be given. On the assurance of P.W.1 that bribe would be paid, keys were returned to P.W.1. On 03.10.2006, P.W.1 paid the challans and approached the appellant on 06.10.2006 with application. The appellant demanded Rs.3,000/-. However, P.W.1 informed that he was ready to pay Rs.1,000/- and handed over the application form and challan.

4. Thereafter, P.W.1 approached ACB on 01.11.2006 and filed Ex.P1 complaint regarding demand of bribe by the appellant. The trap was arranged on the next day i.e., 02.11.2006. On the said date, the trap party gathered in the office of DSP, ACB. Pre-trap formalities were conducted in the presence of P.W.1/complainant, P.W.2/independent mediator, DSP/P.W.5 and others. From there, the trap party started to the office of the appellant.

5. The trap-party reached the office around 9.30 a.m, P.W.1 went inside and found that the appellant was absent. He was informed that the appellant would come back at 3.00 p.m. The trap party went away and again came back around 3.00 p.m. to the office. P.W.1 entered into the office and he found that there were farmers who were talking to the appellant. After the farmers left, the appellant demanded bribe amount when P.W.1 met him. Since there were attenders and farmers, P.W.1 took the appellant outside and handed over the amount. After taking the bribe amount, the appellant promised that the work of P.W.1 would be complete. P.W.1 gave the signal to the trap party, then the DSP and others entered into the office. According to P.W.2 and P.W.5, the appellant on seeing the trap party took out the amount from his pant pocket and threw on the floor. The fingers of both hands were tested. Test of both hands proved positive. When questioned regarding the bribe amount by the DSP, it was informed by the appellant that an incomplete application was given by P.W.1 and he did not demand any bribe. The amount was recovered which was on the floor.

6. Post-trap proceedings were conducted and during the said proceedings application form and challan of P.W.1 and other documents were seized. Having recorded the version given by P.W.1, the appellant and the details of the documents noted, post-trap proceedings Ex.P12 was drafted.

7. Investigation was then handed over to P.W.6/Inspector, who completed investigation and filed charge sheet for the offence under Section 7 and Section 13(1)(d) r/w 13 (2) of the Act. Having considered the evidence on both sides, appellant was convicted by Special Court.

8. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant would submit that no official favour was pending with the appellant as on the date of trap. It is for the Assistant Director of Agriculture, who is c