IMPORTANT POINT
The accused must prove their defense by preponderance of probability in corruption cases, especially when the prosecution establishes a clear case of bribery.

JUDGMENT:

(K. Surender, J.) :

1. The appellant aggrieved by his conviction for the offence punishable under Sections 7 & 13(1)(d) r/w 13(2)of the Prevention of Corruption Act and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of six months and one year respectively, vide judgment in C.C.No.13 of 2004, dated 12.06.2009 by the Additional Special Judge for SPE & ACB Cases, at Hyderabad, filed the present appeal.

2. Briefly, the case of the prosecution is that the appellant was working as Additional Assistant Engineer (Operations) in APCPDCL, Urvakonda village. The defacto complainant/P.W.1 belongs to Urvakonda Village, Ananthapur District, who owned land of Acs.10.00 in which there was a well. In order to secure electricity connection to draw water from the well, prescribed fee of Rs.5,000/- was paid and also Rs.500/- demand drafts were paid by P.W.1 along with application that was submitted to the appellant on 19.09.2002. P.W.1 met the appellant couple of times and giving electricity connection was dodged by the appellant. The appellant informed that it requires three poles for giving connection to the well. On 30.10.2003, P.W.1 met the appellant regarding connection. The appellant demanded Rs.2,000/- bribe. Thereafter, the said demand was reduced to Rs.1,000/- and the appellant directed P.W.1 to get the said amount on 31.10.2003. On the very same day i.e., 30.10.2003, P.W.1 approached the DSP, ACB/P.W.7 and lodged complaint Ex.P1. The DSP arranged the trap on the next day i.e., 31.10.2023. P.Ws.1, 2, 7 and others formed part of the trap party. They gathered in the office of the DSP, ACB. All the formalities required before proceeding to trap were followed. The said proceedings were reduced into writing, which is Ex.P7/pre-trap proceedings. The trap party went to the house of the appellant. P.W.1 entered into the house while other trap party members stayed outside. Appellant on seeing P.W.1 demanded bribe amount. P.W.1 handed over the bribe amount to the appellant, who placed in his T-shirt pocket hanging to the wall and asked P.W.1 to come on the next day.

3. P.W.1 came out of the house and relayed signal to the trap party indicating demand and acceptance of bribe. The DSP and others entered into the house of appellant and questioned the appellant regarding the demand and acceptance of bribe. The appellant informed that he kept the amount in the shirt pocket and handed it over to the DSP. Even before the amount was handed over, the DSP conducted sodium carbonate solution test on the hands of the appellant, which turned positive. The rough sketch of the house was drafted and also P.W.1 and appellant were examined. Their statements were also recorded in post-trap proceedings which is Ex.P8. Thereafter, the trap party went to the office at the instance of the appellant and Exs.P10 to P18 which are the concerned records were all seized vide seizure memo Ex.P19.

4. The investigation was then handed over to the Inspector/P.W.8, who completed investigation and filed charge sheet.

5. Learned Special Judge framed charges under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) r/w 13(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act against the appellant and thereafter examined P.Ws.1 to 8 witnesses and Exs.P1 to P28 relied on by the prosecution. In defence, Ex.D1, which is the copy of transfer order of the appellant dated 20.03.2003 was placed on record by appellant.

6. Learned Special Judge convicted the appellant. Learned Special Judge refused to accept the defence of the appellant that the amount of Rs.1,000/- which was seized on the trap date was towards development charges as claimed by appellant and convicted him.

7. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant mainly laid emphasis on the fact that the amount of Rs.1,000/- was received on the date of trap, which had to be collected for the development charges from the consumer, which is specifically mentioned in Ex.P16 sanction. In fact, P.W.5, who was the D.E (Operations) had stated in his cross-examination that