IMPORTANT POINT
The necessity of corroborative evidence in bribery cases and the principle of benefit of doubt in favor of the accused were established.

JUDGMENT :

K. Surender, J.

1. The appellant was convicted for the offence under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) r/w 13(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of six months and one year respectively, vide judgment in C.C.No.24 of 2004 dated 17.09.2008 passed by the Principal Special Judge for SPE & ACB Cases, City Civil Court, Hyderabad. Aggrieved by the same, present appeal is filed.

2. Briefly, the case of the defacto complainant, who was examined as P.W.1 is that his father-in-law gifted Acs.3.00 of land in Sy.No.24 of Edulapuram village to his wife by registered gift deed and the same was being cultivated by P.W.1. The service connection to the land bearing No.31 standing in the name of Laxminarayana, who is late father-in-law was disconnected on the ground that there was Rs.2,550/- arrears that had to be paid. P.W.1 then went to the office of Additional Assistant Engineer, ERO, Khammam and paid Rs.1,800/- under Ex.P2 on 23.04.2003. On the next day i.e., on 24.04.2003, Rs.750/- was paid and another Rs.50/- was paid towards reconnection charges.

3. On 24.04.2003, P.W.1 met the appellant, who was working as Additional Assistant Engineer (AAE) and gave application Ex.P3 enclosing copies of receipts for reconnection of electricity. Having received the application, the appellant demanded Rs.3,000/- as bribe for restoring the electricity connection. P.W.1 again met the appellant on 26.04.2003. Appellant insisted that Rs.1,500/- has to be paid immediately and the remaining after reconnection.

4. P.W.1 then approached the ACB authorities and filed complaint which is Ex.P4. The DSP, ACB having received the complaint informed P.W.1 to come on 02.05.2003 on which date the trap was arranged. On the day of trap, the trap party including P.W.1, independent mediators, DSP and others gathered at 9.00 a.m. in the R & B Guest house. The formalities before proceeding to trap were concluded. Ex.P7 was recoded which is pre-trap proceedings. All the trap party members reached the office of the appellant around 11.30 a.m. P.W.1 entered into the office of the appellant. On seeing P.W.1, the appellant demanded bribe amount and accordingly P.W.1 passed on bribe amount. He then came out and gave signal to the trap party indicating acceptance of bribe by the appellant. The trap party led by the DSP entered into the office and questioned the appellant. Test was conducted on both his hands and right hand test proved positive for presence of phenolphthalein powder, indicating handling of smeared currency notes.

5. During post trap proceedings, at the instance of DSP, the appellant produced the amount from the right side table drawer, which was seized by the trap party. Thereafter, application Ex.P3 and other documents were taken from N.Tirumalachary, Additional Assistant Engineer. The said application of P.W.1 was endorsed by the appellant earlier. The same was seized. Having concluded the post trap proceedings, Ex.P13 was drafted narrating all the events.

6. After investigation, the ACB filed charge sheet for the offence under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) r/w 13(2) of the Act. The Special Judge having framed charges for the said offences, examined witnesses P.Ws.1 to 6 and marked Exs.P1 to P16 on behalf of the prosecution. D.Ws.1 and 2 were examined by the appellant in defence. Learned Special Judge found that there was demand by the appellant for bribe to provide reconnection and accordingly convicted the appellant.

7. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant would submit that P.W.1 is a person of poor moral fiber. His criminal antecedents were admitted by him. There was departmental enquiry for misconduct and indiscipline against P.W.1. He further admitted that there were civil and criminal cases against him including murder case, however, he was acquitted in all the cases. Further, P.W.1 was remanded to judicial custody in a case of murder and abduction for two months.

8. Learned counsel further argued that ther