IMPORTANT POINT
The court established that the demand and acceptance of bribes under the Prevention of Corruption Act is a serious offense, and the burden of proof lies on the accused to disprove the allegations.

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 three years under both counts, vide judgment in C.C.No.32 of 2008 dated 11.01.2011 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 prosecution is that the appellant was working as Village Secretary. P.W.1/Defacto complainant was a mason resident of Thatikole village, Devarkonda Mandal. P.W.1 and his family members owned 58 acres of joint family property. The said land was surveyed by a private surveyor and the family members partitioned the land among themselves. An application was made to the MRO for the purpose of mutating the names of PW.1 and his family members in the revenue records and to issue pattadar pass books and title deeds for the said partitioned land. The said application was filed in the month of August, 2006. The MRO having received the application informed that the application of P.W.1 would be dealt with by the Village Secretary who is the appellant herein. On the instructions of the MRO, P.W.1 met the appellant and when requested to issue pass books in the name of P.W.1 and other family members with respect to their portions of the land, appellant demanded Rs.10,000/- for issuing passbooks. Though, P.W.1 met the appellant several times, the appellant insisted to pay the bribe amount, failing which, their work would not be attended.

3. On 02.02.2007 again P.W.1 met the appellant in his office in Deverakonda. The appellant insisted for paying Rs.10,000/-. However, reduced the bribe amount to Rs.8,000/-. P.W.1 went to the DSP, ACB with the grievance of appellant’s demand for bribe and lodged Ex.P1 complaint on 03.02.2007. Having received the complaint, DSP asked P.W.1 to come on 05.02.2007 on which date trap was arranged.

4. The DSP summoned independent mediator P.W.2 and another to witness the trap proceedings. In the presence of the independent mediators, other trap party members and P.W.1, the pre trap formalities were undertaken. What all transpired during the pre-trap proceedings were drafted as Ex.P4. The trap party proceeded to Devarakonda and went to the office of the MRO. While the other party members stayed outside, P.W.1 went inside the office. It was informed that the appellant would come around 3.30 p.m. The trap party went out, had lunch and came back to the MRO office at 4.00 p.m. P.W.1 went inside the office. On seeing P.W.1, appellant demanded bribe amount. P.W.1 questioned about the pass books and the appellant promised to deliver the same within two days and asked P.W.1 to handover the amount of Rs.8,000/-. Accordingly, the said amount was given to the appellant. P.W.1 then came out of the office and signaled to the trap party indicating passing of bribe amount to the appellant.

5. Having seen the signal, the trap party entered into the office and questioned the appellant. The bribe amount was found in the hand of the appellant when the trap party entered into the office. On seeing the trap party, the appellant dropped the currency notes on the floor. His hands were tested for the presence of phenolphthalein powder with sodium carbonate solution. Phenolphthalein powder was smeared to the currency notes during pre-trap proceedings. The colour on the right hand of the appellant turned positive. When questioned regarding the demand of bribe, the appellant stated that he had never demanded any bribe. The amount which was on the floor was collected and picked up by the mediator. It was further informed by appellant that the work of the complainant was completed and the passbooks were handed over to P.W.4 two months prior. The work was kept pending for signature of MRO for completing the other formalities.

6. Having recorded the version given by the complainant, appellant and wh