IMPORTANT POINT
IMPORTANT POINT
The absence of corroboration and completion of official duties by the accused led to the acquittal, emphasizing the need for clear evidence in bribery cases.

JUDGMENT :

(K. Surender, J.) :

The appellant is questioning the conviction 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”) on the allegation of demanding and accepting bribe of Rs.1000/- from the defacto complainant for issuing Pattedar Pass Books. Aggrieved by the said conviction, present appeal is preferred.

2. The defacto complainant is P.W.1. According to him, the ancestral property was partitioned amongst his uncles and their sons. Since P.W.1 was having a right over the lands, he approached office of the MRO during April, 2003 and gave Ex.P1 application for issuance of pattedar passbook in his name. Ex.P1 is the said application dated 02.04.2003. Both the MRO and the Superintendent of the office of the MRO asked P.W.1 to meet the appellant. For five months, P.W.1 went around the appellant to get the pass book. On 05.09.2003, when P.W.1 enquired about his work, the appellant allegedly demanded an amount of Rs.5,000/- to process his application and issue passbooks. P.W.1 pleaded that he was not in a position to pay Rs.5,000/- and as such, the appellant informed that Rs.1,000/- has to be paid to him and he has also to take care of other officers. On 12.09.2003, P.W.1 met the appellant and the appellant insisted that Rs.1,000/- had to be paid on 17th or 18th of September, 2003 in the office or at his house. P.W.1 then went to the DSP (P.W.9) on 13.09.2003 and lodged the written complaint Ex.P2. DSP asked P.W.1 to come on 17.09.2003 on which date the trap would be arranged.

3. The trap party gathered in the office of the DSP at 8.00 a.m. which included P.W.1-complainant, P.W.2-independent mediator, P.W.9-DSP and other trap party members. The complainant explained to the independent mediators regarding the complaint and thereafter, all the formalities that have to be followed before proceeding to a trap were completed. Having concluded the pre-trap proceedings drafted under Ex.P5, the trap party proceeded to the MRO office.

4. P.W.1 went inside the MRO office around 12.30 p.m. The appellant was not present in the office, as such, P.W.1 came out and sat under a tree. Around 1.30 p.m, the appellant went to the office premises and P.W.1 followed the appellant inside the office. He enquired from the appellant about the work when the appellant demanded for the bribe. P.W.1 handed over the amount. The appellant took it and placed in his shirt pocket. P.W.1 then came out of the office and signaled to the trap party indicating the acceptance of bribe by the appellant. Trap party entered the office. The sodium carbonate solution test was conducted on the hands of the appellant. The appellant when questioned regarding the acceptance of bribe during post-trap proceedings, he informed the DSP and the other trap party members that the amount was forcibly thrust into his pocket (as stated by P.W.2 during trial) and then handed over the amount to DSP from his pant pocket. The file relating to P.W.1 which is Ex.P6 was summoned from P.W.3 in whose possession the file was.

5. Having concluded the post-trap proceedings, what all transpired was reduced into writing which is Ex.P9. P.W.9 conducted further investigation and filed charge sheet after receipt of sanction order Ex.P10 from the Government.

6. The learned Special Judge examined P.W.1-complainant, P.W.2-independent mediator, P.W.3-Senior Assistant, P.W.4-MRO, P.W.5-MRO, P.W.6-Section Officer from Secretariat, who brought the sanction file, P.W.7 relative of P.W.1, P.W.8, Panchayat Secretary and P.W.9-Trap Laying and Investigating Officer. The learned Special Judge found that as alleged by the complainant-P.W.1, the appellant demanded bribe and pursuant to his demand, the bribe amount was accepted on the date of trap. The learned Special Judge dismissed the version of the appellant that no work was pending with him as on the date of trap. Accordingly, the appellant was convicted.

7. Learned counsel appe