IMPORTANT POINT
The court established that mere acceptance of a bribe without direct demand or capacity to influence does not constitute an offence under the Prevention of Corruption Act.

JUDGMENT:

K. Surender, J.

1. The appellant was convicted for the offences under sections 7 and 13(1)(d) r/w.13(2) of the Prevetion of Corruption Act, 1988, on the allegation of accepting bribe of Rs.1,000/-.

2. The appellant died during the course of pendency of the appeal and accordingly permission was sought by the legal heirs who are the wife and daughter to prosecute the appeal. Permission was granted.

3. The prosecution case is that the defacto complainant/PW1 was a motor mechanic. One A.Praveen used to give him a two wheeler for repair. However, the Inspector (not prosecuted) along with the appellant who was Constable went to PW.1’s mechanic shop of 19.04.2008 and informed that the two wheeler which was given by Praveen was stolen vehicle. An amount of Rs.1,500/- was taken from PW1 and the Inspector also threatened him saying that PW1 knew about the commission of theft of the vehicle. PW1 pleaded with the Inspector and the appellant saying that he does not know anything about the factum of theft of two wheeler by Praveen. The telephone numbers of the Inspector and the appellant were given to PW1 and asked him to appear in Police Station on 22.04.2008.

4. PW1 along with PW4 who is his friend went to the Police Station on 22.04.2008 on which date it is alleged that inspector made the demand for Rs.10,000/-, failing which, Inspector threatened that case would also be registered against PW1. PW1 requested that he could not arrange for such huge amount. Appellant then met Inspector and informed PW.1 that was reduced by Rs.5,000/-. PW1 thereafter borrowed an amount of Rs.2,500/- from PW.4. However, on the suggestion made by PW4, they went to TV9 news channel net work. PW5 was the head of the team which was running a programme namely ‘NIGHA’ (surveillance). Then, PW5 deputed one of his camera men, PW2 namely Muralidhar, who fixed Spy Cameras on the person of PWs.2 and PW4.

5. PWs.1, 2 and 4 then went to the Central Crime Station (CCS), Saroornagar Police Station on 24.04.2008 where the Inspector and appellant were present. The amount of Rs.2,500/- was paid by PW1. However, there was demand for remaining amount of Rs.1,000/- out of the total bribe of Rs.5,000/- as demanded by the Inspector and informed by the appellant herein.

6. PW1 then decided to lodge a complaint with ACB. The complaint-Ex.P1 was drafted by PW5 to the dictation of PW1 and handed over to the DSP-PW9. The DSP informed that the trap would be arranged on 26.04.2008. On the said day, PW1, PW2, PW5, PW9 and others formed the trap party and they assembled in the office of the DSP/PW9. The formalities before proceeding to the trap were all followed and what all transpired was reduced into writing as pre trap proceedings which is Ex.P5.

7. Around 11.00 a.m., the trap party went to the police station. While other members of the trap party waited at a distance, PW1 and PW2 entered into the police station. The Inspector was talking with the staff in the police station and he directed PWs.1 and 2 to meet the appellant. Then the appellant received the amount counted it and placed it in his pocket. PW1 signalled to the trap party indicating the demand and acceptance of bribe. PW9 and others then went near the appellant and questioned the appellant regarding the bribe amount. His fingers of both hands were tested for the presence of Phenolphthalein powder, which Powder was smeared to the currency notes. Phenolphthalein powder when mixed with Sodium Carbonate solution would turn into pink colour. When Sodium Carbonate test was conducted on both the hand fingers of the accused, they turned positive.

8. The DSP questioned PWs.1 and 2 and their versions were recorded in Ex.P6 which is Post-trap proceedings. The seizure of documents etc. and what all transpired during the course of Post trap proceedings were also mentioned in Ex.P6.

9. The investigation was thereafter handed over by PW9 to PW10-Inspector. Having examined witnesses, collecting spy cam footage which was converted i