IMPORTANT POINT
The necessity of proving a clear demand for a bribe is essential for a conviction under the Prevention of Corruption Act.

JUDGMENT :

K. SURENDER, J.

1. Criminal Appeal No. 545 of 2012 is filed by A2 and Criminal Appeal No. 584 of 2012 is filed by A1. Both A1 and A2 were trapped by ACB for demand and acceptance of Rs.6,000/- from complainant/PW-1. They are convicted for the offence under Sections 7 and Section 13(2) r/w 13(1) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (for short ‘the Act’) and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of six months and one year respectively vide judgment in C.C.No. 4 of 2006 dated 15.06.2012 passed by the Principal Special Judge for SPE & ACB Cases, City Civil Court, Hyderabad. Aggrieved by the same, present appeals are filed.

2. Briefly, the case of the prosecution is that A1 was working as Assistant Pay and Accounts Officer and A2 was working as Superintendent in the office of Pay and Accounts Office (PAO), Tilak Road, Hyderabad. PW-1/defacto complainant was working as Honourary State Treasurer, Bharat Scouts and Guides, A.P.State Association, Hyderabad. The said Society gets annual grant in aid from the Director of School Education for meeting the expenditure including salaries and other activities. During the year 2005, there was two months delay for issuing grant in aid, for which reason, salaries of the employees were not paid for the months of January and February, 2005. Bills were submitted for about Rs.96.00 lakhs by the Assistant Accounts Officer of Commissionerate of School Education in the office of Pay and Accounts Office, however, they were not passed and kept pending.

3. PW-1 went to the office of PAO on 17.03.2005 and enquired with A1 about the bills. A1 allegedly demanded Rs.6,000/- to pass the bills. A2 was also present when the demand was made by A1 and he also demanded the said amount for processing the bills and issuing cheque in his name as the Treasurer of Bharat Scouts and Guides. Aggrieved by the said demand on the very same day, PW-1 approached ACB and filed typed complaint at about 12.00 noon. The said complaint was handed over to PW-7/DSP who arranged to trap appellants on the next day i.e., on 18.03.2005. PW-7 sent for independent witness PW-2 and another to act as witnesses to the trap proceedings. P.W’s.1, 2, 7, 8 and others formed the trap party. All the formalities required before proceeding to the trap were followed and the said proceedings were drafted under Ex.P2.

4. Thereafter, the entire trap party went to the office of the PAO. While PW-2 was staying in the first floor, P.Ws.1, 7, 8 and other trap party members went to the 5th floor of the building. There, PW-1 entered into the 5th floor of the building and came out within few minutes and informed that he met A1 and according to his direction, he had to meet A2, who was in the first floor of the same building. Thereafter, all of them came down to the 1st floor. PW-1 entered into the office in the first floor and handed over bribe amount on demand by A2, came out and gave signal to trap party indicating demand and acceptance of bribe by A2. Thereafter, the trap party entered into the office and hands of A2 were tested with sodium carbonate solution. The said test proved positive for handling the phenolphthalein smeared bribe amount.

5. The trap party then went to the office of A1 to the 5th floor and the originals of Exs.P3 and P4 were seized. A1 was brought to the 1st floor where A1 was present. Other documents were also seized and since there appeared to be law and order problem and other PAO office employees were gathering, PW-7 took decision to continue post trap proceedings in ACB office and accordingly all of them left. Having concluded the post trap proceedings in ACB office, which included recording statements of witnesses, accused, complainant and what transpired, Ex.P8 second mediators’ report was drafted incorporating the same. The investigation was thereafter handed over by PW-7 to PW-8, who concluded investigation and filed charge sheet.

6. Learned Special Judge mainly placed reliance on the evidence of PW-1