IMPORTANT POINT
The court established that the burden of proof in bribery cases lies with the accused to provide a credible explanation for the acceptance of money, which was not met in this case.

JUDGMENT :

K. Surender, J.

1. The appellant 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 one year under both counts vide judgment in CC No.14 of 2005 dated 29.12.2009, the present appeal is filed.

2. Briefly, the case of the defacto complainant/P.W.1 is that he was sub-contractor of P.W.4, who secured the contract for laying road from Ramagudem to Pandavarigudem with the R & B Department. The agreement in between P.W.4 and R & B is Ex.P9. The said work had to be completed within 2 months from the date of agreement. P.W.4 was unable to execute the work and handed it over to P.W.1. Accordingly, P.W.1 completed work within stipulated time having invested money for completion of the work. The appellant was the concerned Assistant Engineer who recoded measurements in the M Book. P.W.1 was given an amount of Rs.2.00 lakhs and also 34 tons of rice towards part payment of the contract. According to P.W.1, he was yet to receive an amount of Rs.1.00 lakh and 19 tons of rice.

3. For the reason of settling his outstanding payment from the department, P.W.1 approached the appellant on 20.07.2003 requesting him to prepare the bills for the remaining amount. The appellant demanded Rs.30,000/- towards bribe and when requested, the said amount was reduced to Rs.20,000/-.

4. P.W.1 then decided to approach ACB authorities with the grievance of the demand of bribe by the appellant. P.W.2 is the scribe of the complaint Ex.P1. The said complaint was handed over to the DSP, ACB on 18.08.2003 and the trap was arranged on 20.08.2003. In the meanwhile, according to the prosecution case, the antecedents of the appellant were enquired into and also the correctness of the complaint. Permission from the competent authority was also taken before laying trap. The DSP and Inspector (died prior to commencement of trial) along with defacto complainant and other independent witnesses gathered in the guest house and pre-trap proceedings were conducted. Having concluded the pre-trap proceedings, Ex.P3 first mediator’s report was drafted. After the pre-trap proceedings, P.W.1 called the appellant over phone and the appellant informed that he would come to P.W.1’s house. Accordingly, around 11.50 a.m, the appellant went to the house of P.W.1. After entering into the house of P.W.1, P.W.1 asked about the outstanding payment whether it was ready. In turn, the appellant asked for the bribe which was paid to him. The appellant counted the amount and kept in his back pant pocket. P.W.1 offered tea to the appellant and came out and relayed signal to the trap party. The trap party entered into the house of P.W.1 and questioned the appellant regarding the bribe. The appellant informed the trap party that Rs.20,000/- was asked as hand loan. Accordingly, P.W.1 promised that he would provide either on 19.08.2003 or 20.08.2003 and the amount received was the loan amount.

5. The said amount was seized by the DSP, ACB. From the house of P.W.1, the trap party went to the house of the appellant as the appellant informed that the concerned M Books and other documents were in his house. Two M books, which are pertaining to the complainant and rough book of appellant, were seized from the house of the appellant. Ex.P10 was drafted for the seizure of the documents.

6. Investigation was handed over by the DSP to the Inspector. Having concluded investigation, the Inspector filed charge sheet for the aforesaid offences.

7. Learned Special Judge, having framed charges, examined P.Ws.1 to 7 and marked Exs.P1 to P13 on behalf of the prosecution. Exs.D1 to D3 were marked during the course of cross-examination of prosecution witnesses. Learned Special Judge found the appellant guilty and accordingly convicted him.