IMPORTANT POINT
Proof of demand for a bribe is essential for conviction under the Prevention of Corruption Act; mere recovery of a bribe is insufficient.

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 and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of two years under both counts, vide judgment in C.C.No.8 of 2007 dated 18.06.2010 passed by the Additional Special Judge for SPE & ACB Cases, City Civil Court, Hyderabad. Aggrieved by the same, present appeal is filed.

2. Briefly, the case of the P.W.1/Defacto complainant is that he purchased land of Ac.1.24 guntas in Shaipur village under an agreement of sale. In order to fix the boundaries, he went to the land, but the neighbors objected. For the said reason, GPA was obtained from the vendor/P.W.2 and having filed civil suit, obtained injunction orders. On 19.01.2005, application was filed before the MRO for making correction of the survey number in the revenue records. Since the land, which was sought to be purchased was shown as Sy.No.22/E2 instead of 22/AA. Again an application was filed with the RDO on 18.03.2005, who endorsed it to the MRO.

3. A1/appellant herein was working as the Senior Assistant in the office of MRO. A2 (acquitted) was working as Deputy MRO. The appellant demanded an amount of Rs.5,000/- for attending to the work of P.W.1. P.W.1 again met the appellant on 13.04.2005. However, the bribe amount of Rs.5,000/- was reduced to Rs.2,000/-. Aggrieved by the demand made by the appellant, complaint Ex.P1 was filed with the ACB on 19.04.2005. The trap was arranged by the DSP on 21.04.2005.

4. P.W.1 went to the ACB office on 21.04.2005 where independent mediator/P.W.3 and another along with DSP, Inspector and other trap party members were present. Pre-trap proceedings were conducted and concluded around 8.45 a.m. The trap party reached the office of accused at Tandur around 11.30 AM. P.W.1 went inside the office and met the appellant. When enquired about his work of correcting entries in the revenue record, the appellant demanded to pay the amount. Accordingly, P.W.1 handed over the amount. Then the appellant gave the original memo Ex.P4 to P.W.1. Thereafter, P.W.1 went out and signaled to the trap party. The trap party entered inside the office. Sodium carbonate solution test was conducted on the hands of the appellant to know whether the appellant handled the smeared currency bribe amount. The right hand test turned positive while left hand tested negative. Further, the appellant handed over Rs.1,500/- from his right side pant pocket. When questioned about the remaining Rs.500/-, it was allegedly informed that the amount was with the 2nd accused, who is the Deputy MRO. Rs.500/- was seized from table drawer of A2. Sodium carbonate solution test was done on the hands of A2 but test on both the hands remained negative.

5. Post trap proceedings under Ex.P12 were concluded and what all transpired including the seizure of documents and statement given by the appellant were incorporated in the panchanama which is Ex.P12.

6. Investigation was handed over to the Inspector/P.W.8 who filed charge sheet after concluding investigation. P.W.8 had also assisted P.W.7 trap laying officer during trap and member of trap party.

7. Learned Special Judge having framed charges under Section 7 and 13(1)(d) of the Act, commenced trial. P.Ws.1 to 8 and Exs.P1 to P21 were brought on record on behalf of the prosecution. MOs.1 to 13 were also placed on record. On behalf of the appellant, D.Ws.1 and 2 were examined and Exs.D1 to D4 were marked.

8. Learned Special Judge found that the demand as stated by P.W.1 was convincing and the recovery corroborated with the version of demand. Further, the amount of Rs.500/- was passed on by the appellant to 2nd accused. However, learned Special Judge extended benefit of doubt to 2nd accused on the ground that the hands of 2nd accused remained negative and further, there was no mention against A2 in the complaint.

9. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant submits that P.W.1 was not the purchaser,