IMPORTANT POINT
IMPORTANT POINT
The mere recovery of a bribe amount does not suffice for conviction; the prosecution must prove the demand for the bribe beyond reasonable doubt.

JUDGMENT:

1. The appellant was convicted 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. Aggrieved by the said conviction, present appeal is preferred.

2. Briefly, the case of the prosecution is that the defacto complainant/P.W.1 was running a sawmill and timber depot namely Vinayaka Sawmill and Timber Depot. His licence expired on 31.12.2002 as such, he submitted application (Ex.P2) along with challan (Ex.P3) for renewal on 01.01.2003 addressed to the Divisional Forest Officer (DFO). His licence was not renewed till 10.03.2003, as such, he met the appellant, who was working as Forest Range Officer (FRO). The appellant allegedly demanded Rs.10,000/- for processing the file and also informed that Sub- Divisional Forest Officer (SDFO)-P.W.4 had made remarks in the application. On 23.03.2003, P.W.1 again met the appellant for forwarding the renewal application for licence. However, the amount was again demanded. Four days thereafter i.e., on 27.03.2003 when P.W.1 met appellant, P.W.1 was asked to pay an amount of Rs.5,000/- initially and thereafter Rs.5,000/- after renewal.

3. Vexed by the continuous demand of bribe, P.W.1 lodged Ex.P4 complaint with the DSP namely P.Umakanth Reddy (died prior to trial). The trap was arranged on 29.03.2003. The trap party including P.W.1, independent mediators, DSP, Inspector and others gathered in the office of DSP around 3.00 p.m. All the formalities that were required to be completed before proceeding to trial were completed. The said proceedings were drafted as Ex.P9 first mediators report.

4. The trap party reached the house of the appellant around 4.30 p.m and P.W.1 and another independent mediator-Ahmed Khan (not examined) went to the house of the appellant. The appellant and his staff were present. Both P.W.1 Ahmed Khan sat in the front room whereas the appellant and others were sitting in the other room. The appellant asked P.W.1 to get cool drinks for the staff members, as such, P.W.1 went outside and brought the cool drinks. The mediator went out of the house and informed the trap party regarding the other officials being present with the appellant. By the time, P.W.1 came back, Ahmed Khan was not present in the room. P.W.1 supplied cool drinks to the staff and then the staff members left the appellant’s house. The appellant enquired whether P.W.1 brought the amount and when P.W.1 gave the said amount, Appellant received it and kept underneath the pillow in between the folds of shawl.

5. P.W.1 then went outside and signaled to the trap party regarding the demand and acceptance of bribe by the appellant. The trap party entered into the house. Sodium Carbonate solution test was conducted on both the hands of the appellant to confirm whether the appellant handled the phenolphthalein smeared bribe amount. Both the solutions turned positive. When asked by the DSP, the appellant handed over the amount from the folds of the shawl which was underneath the pillow. Thereafter, the DSP enquired about the file of P.W.1. P.W.2, who was working as Senior Assistant and present in the house of appellant went and brought the files - Exs.P6 and P7 pertaining to P.W.1. During the post-trap proceedings, explanation was given by the appellant that when P.W.1 offered the amount, the appellant refused, however, P.W.1 tried to thrust the amount into his hands but appellant refused. He was not aware about the amount found in the folds of the shawl underneath the pillow. Further, according to P.W.3 and the Inspector, it was the appellant who informed about the amount, which was in between the folds of shawl underneath the pillow.

6. The version given by P.W.1-complainant and what all transpired during the post trap proceedings was reduced into writing which is Ex.P11.

7. DSP handed over investigation to P.W.6, who was present from the beginn