IMPORTANT POINT
Proof of demand for a bribe is essential for conviction under the Prevention of Corruption Act; mere recovery of money is not sufficient.

JUDGMENT :

K. Surender, J.

1. The appellant/A1 is aggrieved by the conviction recorded by the Principal Special Judge for SPE & ACB Cases, City Civil Court at Hyderabad for the under Sections 7 and Section 13(1)(d) r/w 13(2) of the Act of 1988 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (for short “the Act of 1988”) and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year under both counts, vide judgment in CC No.49 of 2004 dated 20.12.2007, the present appeal is filed. A2 was also tried along with the appellant/A1 and convicted. However, due to his death, the appeal filed by A2 was dismissed as abated.

2. Briefly, the case of the prosecution is that the appellant was working as Mandal Revenue Officer, Penubally Mandal, Khammam District. The father of P.W.1/defacto complainant died in the year 1999. P.W.1 was going around the office for three years to mutate his name in the revenue records in the place of his father. The application was also filed. However, he approached A1 on 07.08.2002 requesting him to process his application for mutating his name in the revenue records. The appellant demanded bribe of Rs.5,000/- to mutate his name in the revenue records. On the next day, i.e., on 08.08.2002 P.W.1 again met the appellant and he asked P.W.1 to file another application Ex.P1 for mutation. Since he was not inclined to give bribe, PW1 approached the Deputy Superintendent of Police, ACB on 12.08.2002 and filed complaint Ex.P2 in the ACB office. The DSP informed that the ACB personnel will visit Khammam on 16.08.2002 for taking appropriate action.

3. The DSP along with independent mediators went to Khammam and pre-trap proceedings were conducted in Sridhar Lodge near Khammam Bus Stand. The said pre-trap proceedings were drafted, which is Ex.P5. Having concluded the pre-trap proceedings, the trap party started to the office of the appellant and reached at 5.00 p.m. P.W.1 went into the office and found that the appellant was not present and waited for him in his office room. Thereafter, A1 entered into the room and asked P.W.1 to wait outside. Meanwhile, the appellant called A2 and after A2 arriving into the room, P.W.1 was called inside. A1 instructed A2 to take the money from P.W.1. A2 took P.W.1 to a room by the side of appellant’s room and there A2 accepted money from PW1. The passbooks were also handed over to A2. P.W.1 came out of the office and gave signal to the trap party indicating the acceptance of bribe. The DSP and other trap party members entered into the room and on questioning A1, he denied having received any bribe amount. Then P.W.1 was called inside the office and when questioned, P.W.1 stated to the DSP that at the instance of the appellant, he handed over the amount to A2. A2 was caught and test on his hands proved positive. Bribe money was recovered from A2. However, test on the hands of the appellant remained negative.

4. Learned Special Judge examined P.Ws.1 to 9 and marked Exs.P1 to P13 on behalf of the prosecution. On behalf of the appellant, Exs.D1 and D2 were marked. Learned Special Judge found both the appellant/A1 and A2 guilty and accordingly convicted them.

5. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant would submit that as on the date of alleged demand which is 07.08.2002, no application of P.W.1 was pending with the appellant. Even the Investigating Officer stated that they could not trace the said application and none of the officials in MRO office stated that any such application of P.W.1 was pending. P.W.1 also did not give any date or copy of such application, he had earlier claimed to have filed. When the application itself was made on 08.08.2002, the question of demanding bribe on 07.08.2002 does not arise. As on the said date, there was no official favour which was pending with the appellant. Further, the appellant had stated during the post trap proceedings that he did not accept or demand any bribe from P.W.1. The tests on the hands of the appellant remained negative. In the said ci