IMPORTANT POINT
The necessity of proving both the demand for a bribe and the execution of works is essential for a conviction under the Prevention of Corruption Act.

JUDGMENT :

K. Surender, J.

1. The appellant aggrieved by the conviction recorded by the I Additional 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 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.28 of 2008 dated 31.05.2013, the present appeal is filed.

2. P.W.1 defacto complainant approached the ACB and filed Ex.P1 complaint, alleging that he was a contractor in the Water Works Department. He did leakage maintenance and chowkage of walls in Jeedimetla Section, which works were within the control of the appellant. As and when works were entrusted by the appellant, the works used to be taken up and completed. After execution of the work, the appellant used to give permission letter and send the same to D.G.M and G.M. After that it would be sanctioned by the General Manager. After obtaining such sanction from the GM, estimate of the work would be prepared and details would be entered in the measurements book. Total eight works were entrusted by the appellant in the year 2006 and completed by PW1. In December, 2006, P.W.1 met the appellant and requested to record his work in the M Book of all the 8 works for claiming amount and preparation of bills. On 26.12.2006, the appellant demanded Rs.20,000/- for preparing estimates and bills. However, on repeated requests, bribe amount was reduced to Rs.16,000/- on 27.12.2006.

3. P.W.1 approached the DSP, ACB on 02.01.2007 and filed complaint Ex.P1. The DSP/P.W.7 asked P.W1 to come to the office on 03.01.2007 at 6.00 a.m. on which date trap was arranged.

4. Accordingly, on 03.01.2007, the trap party gathered in the office of the DSP, ACB. FIR was registered and pre-trap procedure was followed. What all transpired during the pre-rap proceedings were drafted as Ex.P3.

5. The trap party then went to the office of the appellant. Around 9.20 am, PW1 entered into the office to meet the appellant. Nearly after an hour i.e., 10.15 a.m., P.W.1 came out of the office and signaled to the trap party indicating acceptance of bribe by the appellant. The trap party entered into the room and found the appellant. His hands were tested to know whether he has handled the amount and the tests on both the hands turned positive. The amount was recovered from the left side shirt pocket and handed over to the trap party. Ex.P4 is the set of documents pertaining to the works of P.W.1 and same were seized at the instance of P.W.3/mediator who searched the table drawer, almirah and motor cycle of the appellant and other documents were also seized. The post trap proceedings, which is Ex.P6 was drafted after seizure of the documents, examining complainant, appellant and other relevant witnesses.

6. The investigation was handed over by P.W.7 to P.W.8. P.W.8 having concluded investigation filed charge sheet for the offences under Section 7 and Section 13(1)(d) r/w 13(2) of the Act. Charges were also framed for the said offences. Prosecution produced eight witnesses P.Ws.1 to 8. Further, Exs.P1 to P10 documents were also marked by the prosecution. In defence, D.W.1, who is an independent person, was examined to state that the bribe amount was thrust by P.W.1 on the date of trap. Further, the appellant also filed Ex.D1 which is a copy of an explanation submitted by the appellant to P.W.8. The said explanation also states that at no point of time, any bribe was demanded and the amount was deliberately thrust on to him on the date of trap, since P.W.1 was giving illegal tap connections, which was confronted by the appellant leading to false implication.

7. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant would submit that the prosecution has not produced any evidence to show that P.W.1 had executed eight works which he had mentioned in the complaint. According to the official witness, P.W.6, who is the General Manager, w