IMPORTANT POINT
The necessity of proving demand for a bribe beyond reasonable doubt is crucial for conviction under the Prevention of Corruption Act.

JUDGMENT :

K.Surender, J.

1. Since the appellant died, the wife of the appellant filed I.A.No.1 of 2022 under Section 394(2) of Cr.P.C to permit her to prosecute the appeal. Permission granted and appeal is heard.

2. The deceased/accused/public servant was convicted for the offence under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) r/w 13(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (for short ‘the Act’) and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of six months and one year respectively, vide judgment in C.C.No.9 of 2007 dated 14.12.2009 passed by the Additional Special Judge for SPE & ACB Cases, City Civil Court, Hyderabad. Aggrieved by the same, present appeal is filed.

3. Briefly, the case of the defacto complainant/P.W.1 is that he is an Advocate by profession. Defence Housing Co-operative Society at Sainikpuri used to allot plots to its members. Only serving or Ex-service personnel of defence forces are eligible for allotment of plots in the said society. On enquiry, P.W.1 came to know that Ex-President and Ex-Secretary of the society allotted plots to ineligible persons and grabbed land meant for public use. To question the said illegalities, he wanted to approach the concerned Courts, for which reason, he approached Sub-Registrar Office for obtaining certified copies of the documents of the properties sold in the said society. The accused was working as clerk in the said Sub-Registrar Office Malkajgiri, who provided certified copies after applications were filed. For the four applications, which were filed by P.W.1, the accused demanded Rs.130/- each total of Rs.520/- for preparing certified copies and handing over it to him. Since P.W.1 was not inclined give bribe, he approached ACB authorities and lodged complaint Ex.P4 on 23.02.2006. The DSP, then asked the complainant to come on the next date i.e., 24.02.2006.

4. On 24.02.2006, the trap was arranged. Pre-trap proceedings were conducted in the DSP office room in the ACB Office, in the presence of P.W.1, P.W.2 accompanying witness, who was working as constable and DSP, independent mediators and others. Ex.P5 is pre-trap mediator’s report, which was drafted in the office of the DSP after conclusion of the formalities that were followed prior to proceeding to trap the accused.

5. The trap party proceeded to the office of the Sub-Registrar at Malkajgiri around 1.00 p.m. P.W.1 was accompanied by P.W.2 to witness what transpires in between P.W.1 and the accused. The other trap party members stood at a distance of nearly 300 yards from the office. P.W.1 went inside the office and met the accused. Accused demanded the said amount and accordingly Rs.520/- trap amount was handed over to P.W.1. Having handed over the said amount and taking certified copies, P.W.1 came out and signaled to the trap party confirming receipt of bribe amount by the accused.

6. The trap party entered into the office and questioned the accused regarding bribe. Tests were conducted on the hands of the accused to verify whether he handled the bribe amount. Tests on both the hands turned positive. On persistent questioning by the DSP regarding demand and acceptance of the bribe amount, the accused opened his table drawer and handed over the amount of Rs.520/- to the DSP. Post trap formalities were followed and having examined P.Ws.1 and 2, and accused during pre-trap proceedings, relevant documents were also seized. What all transpired during post-trap proceedings were drafted as mediators report-II which is Ex.P9.

7. The DSP/P.W.6 after conclusion of post trap proceedings handed over investigation to inspector/P.W.7 who was also part of the pre and post trap proceedings. Having obtained sanction from the competent authority and concluding investigation, P.W.7 filed charge sheet for the offence under Section 7 and Section 13(1)(d) R/W 13(2) of the Act.

8. Learned Special Judge framed charges for the said offences and examined witnesses P.Ws.1 to 7 and marked Exs.P1 to P14 on behalf of the prosecution. MOs.1 to 8 were also