IMPORTANT POINT
A public servant's demand for a bribe must be substantiated by evidence that they had the authority to grant the favor sought by the complainant.

JUDGMENT :

K. Surender, J.

1. The appellant/A1 aggrieved by the conviction recorded by the Principal Special Judge for SPE & ACB Cases, City Civil Court at Hyderabad for the offences 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 six months and one year respectively, vide judgment in CC No.42 of 2003 dated 28.11.2007, the present appeal is filed.

2. Briefly, the case of the prosecution is that P.W.1/defacto complainant was working as an Attender in the office of the Deputy Director, Social Welfare, Khammam. On 02.11.2000, P.W.1 submitted an application in the APGLI (Andhra Pradesh Government Life Insurance Fund) for loan of Rs.5,000/- to get his house repaired. The said application Ex.P1 was forwarded through his office and after 15 days of the application, he met the appellant, who was working as Senior Accountant in the District Insurance Office of APGLI. The appellant instructed PW1 to get previous loan details from his office. Accordingly, particulars were provided on 14.12.2000. On 27.12.2000, when P.W.1 met the appellant, the appellant informed that he is eligible for Rs.2,100/- only. However, P.W.1 insisted that he requires Rs.5,000/-, for which appellant demanded Rs.500/- as bribe for sanctioning loan of Rs.5,000/-.

3. On 03.01.2001, P.W.1 approached the DSP, ACB and lodged Ex.P3 complaint. The DSP asked P.W.1 to come back on 05.01.2001 on which date trap was arranged. On the trap date, independent mediator/P.W.8, DSP/P.W.11 and others were present in the office of DSP. Formalities prior to proceeding to laying trap were followed like smearing the bribe notes with phenolphthalein powder. The said process is done by the agency to test whether the currency notes were handled by the public servant. In the event of touching the currency notes, particles of phenolphthalein powder would be transferred onto the hands of the public servant and when asked to rinse in sodium carbonate solution, the test would turn pink indicating handling of the currency notes. Having completed the procedure, what all transpired during pre-trap proceedings were drafted under Ex.P11.

4. Around 11.00 a.m., the entire trap party went to the office of APGLI. While the other trap party members waited outside, P.W.1 entered into the office. According to P.W.1, on seeing him, the appellant asked for the bribe amount, which was put in the table drawer by him. Again, the appellant asked P.W.1 to take out the amount from the table drawer and took him to the verandah. There, the appellant called A2 and asked P.W.1 to hand over the amount to him. After A2 receiving the amount, P.W.1 went outside the office and signaled the trap party indicating demand and acceptance of bribe by the appellant.

5. The trap party entered into the office and questioned the appellant regarding what transpired in between P.W.1 and himself and also regarding the bribe amount. The said bribe amount was recovered from A2. The tests on the hands of both A1 and A2 proved positive indicating handling the tainted currency notes. The post trap proceedings regarding seizure and statements of witnesses were recorded. The said post trap proceedings were drafted as Ex.P13.

6. After completion of investigation, charge sheet was filed against both A1 and A2. Learned Special Judge, having examined witnesses on behalf of the complainant-ACB and marking relevant documents, found that A2 was not complicit of any demand and acceptance of bribe, though the amount was recovered from him. However, the appellant was the person in-charge and he demanded the amount from PW1. Accordingly, the appellant was convicted and A2 was acquitted.

7. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant would submit that the version of P.W.1 cannot be believed since he was eligible only for Rs.2,100/- as loan. The appellant was not competent to grant loan over and above t