IMPORTANT POINT
The prosecution must prove the demand for a bribe and the existence of pending official work to secure a conviction under the Prevention of Corruption Act.

JUDGMENT :

K. SURENDER, J.

1. The appellant who worked as Assistant Executive Engineer in Panchayat Raj Department, Asifabad, was trapped for demanding and accepting bribe of Rs.10,000/- from the defacto complainant/PW-1. Appellant was convicted by the Principal Special Judge for SPE & ACB Cases at Hyderabad, under Sections 7 & 13(1)(d) r/w 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act vide judgment in C.C. No. 9 of 2005 dated 12.07.2010. Aggrieved by the same, present appeal is filed.

2. Briefly, the case of the prosecution is that the defacto complainant/PW-1 was Mandal Parishad Territorial Constituency (MPTC) member, who was awarded three contracts for laying metal roads. Having entered into agreement with department, work orders were issued and accordingly he completed works within time. The roads were laid under the food for work programme. The wages would include distribution of rice which would be released by issuing rice coupons by the appellant within his jurisdiction.

3. It is further the case of PW-1 that the appellant had to release total extent of 80 quintals of rice and when asked to release rice, appellant demanded Rs.14,000/- as bribe and later reduced the bribe amount to Rs.10,000/- when pleaded his incapacity to give such amount. The said demand for bribe was again made on 05.03.2003. Aggrieved by the constant demand, Ex.P4 written complaint was filed by PW-1 with PW-6/DSP on 06.03.2003. PW-6 asked PW-1 to come to his office on the next day.

4. On 07.03.2003, the trap was arranged by the DSP/PW-6. The trap party including the complainant/PW-1, PW-3/independent witness, PW-6/DSP and others assembled in the guest house. PW-1 could not arrange for Rs.10,000/- and only Rs.5,000/- was arranged. However, the trap party went ahead and completed the formalities required before proceeding to entrap the appellant. All the formalities were concluded in the guest house where the trap party assembled. The pre-trap proceeding is Ex.P6.

5. Thereafter, PW-1/complainant and accompanying witness PW-2 went on motor cycle while the other trap party members followed them in a car. Around 9.20 am, they reached the house of the appellant and both P.Ws.1 and 2 entered into the house of the appellant. On seeing PW-1, appellant allegedly demanded the bribe amount and instructed PW-1 that the amount be kept on the table. After the amount was kept on the table, PW-2 went outside and signaled to the trap party. PW-1 also left. PW-3, PW-6/DSP and other trap party members then entered into the house and enquired about the bribe amount. Sodium carbonate test was conducted on the hands of the appellant, which remained colourless. The trap party found the amount on the table. The trap party verified the cash and seized the same. The appellant then produced three measurement books relating to PW-1 which are Exs.P7 to P9. The statement of the appellant, complainant and other witnesses were incorporated in the post trap proceedings Ex.P11. Thereafter, investigation was handed over to PW-7/Inspector. Having obtained sanction to prosecute the appellant, charge sheet was filed by PW-7.

6. During the course of trial, learned Special Judge examined witnesses produced by the prosecution who are P.Ws.1 to 7 and Exs.P1 to P13 were also marked. Further, MOs.1 to 9 were also placed on record during trial. D.Ws.1 and 2 were examined by the appellant in his defence. Learned Special Judge convicted the appellant accordingly.

7. The case of the appellant is that he did not demand any amount from PW-1. On the date of trap, PW-1 offered some amount, however, when the appellant refused to accept, PW-1 forcibly kept the said amount on the table. The appellant pushed the money with the note book which was held in his hand and asked PW-1 to take back the said amount. However, PW-1 asked appellant to sign on the rice coupons and left the room without taking the amount and leaving it on the table. Four persons were also present when PW-1 kept the amount, which included D.Ws.1 an