IMPORTANT POINT
IMPORTANT POINT
The prosecution must prove both the demand for a bribe and the existence of an official favor pending; mere recovery of tainted currency is insufficient for conviction.

JUDGMENT:

The State filed the appeal aggrieved by the acquittal of the respondent/Accused Officer (public servant). Accused was investigated and charge sheeted for the offence under Section 7 & 13(1)(d)r/w.13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act.

2. Briefly, the case of the ACB against the respondent/accused officer is that he was working as Panchayath Secretary. The defacto complainant was examined as PW.1 who was an agriculturist and also taking up small contracts. During 2003- 2004, PW.1 took up contract work of constructing side drains and water tubs at S.C.Colony of Nagireddypally under SGRY scheme. Having completed the work, the department had to pay some amount and also rice to PW.1. PW.1 informed the Assistant Executive Engineer-PW.3 about the completion of work. Then PW.3 went to the place where the work was undertaken and entered in the M-Book and also issued coupons for 16 Quintals of rice. PW.1 thereafter met PW.5 who was the MRO. PW.5 instructed PW.1 to meet the accused.

3. On 26.04.2004, PW.1 met accused and handed over the rice coupons of 16 quintals and requested him to issue the rice for which the accused allegedly demanded Rs.3,000/- as bribe. Several times PW.1 met the appellant for the rice, however, the accused did not heed to the request of PW.1, however the bribe amount was reduced to Rs.2,000/-. On 27.07.2004, PW.1 met accused and since the accused refused to give rice, PW.1 approached the ACB and lodged Ex.P1-complaint on 28.07.2004. The trap was arranged on 30.07.2004. According to the prosecution, PW.1 met the accused in a hotel and the accused asked PW.1 whether he brought the demanded amount and immediately the accused handed over the demanded amount of Rs.2,000/- to the accused. The trap party who were waiting for the signal of PW.1 went inside the hotel and apprehended the accused after receiving signal from PW.1. The trap party conducted test to ascertain whether the bribe amount was handled by the accused and thereafter the amount was handed over by the accused from his back side pant pocket. The investigation was completed and charge sheet was filed.

4. The learned Special Judge having taken cognizance of the charge sheet, framed charges and examined the defacto complainant as PW.1 and also other witnesses who are PWs.2 to 7. Exs.P1 to P15 were marked. M.Os.1 to 8 were also brought on record by the prosecution. The accused in defence examined one witness DW.1.

5. The learned Special Judge having considered the evidence on record found that;

1) The rice coupons which were given to PW.1 i.e. Ex.P6 filed by the prosecution does not pertain to the work that was completed by PW.1, as such, delivery of rice under the coupons does not arise.

2) PW.1 wanted to make use of old coupons with the connivance of PW.3 and the accused refused to cooperate.

3) The plea of thrusting bribe amount in the back pocket of the accused was convincing.

4) There is any amount of discrepancy regarding the dates on which the coupons were entrusted to PW.1 and also PW.1 meeting the accused, as such, the alleged demand cannot be believed.

5) Other than the discrepant evidence of PW.1 there is no other evidence to substantiate that a demand was made.

6) The accused was not in a position to do any official favour to PW.1, as such, the question of demanding bribe for doing any official favour does not arise.

7) In the background of there being no work that was pending with the accused, the alleged allegation of PW.1 meeting the accused on 24.04.2004 or 26.04.2004, cannot be believed.

8) Mere recovery of the tainted currency is not sufficient to infer allegation of demand.

9) The Sarpanch of the village is the wife of PW.1, as such, PW.1 and accused were acquainted. The accused was subordinate of the wife of PW.1. PW.1 not complaining to his wife regarding the alleged demand by accused cannot be believed and in the background of there being no work pending, PW.1’s evidence is not trustworthy.

10) Since PW.1 was the husband of the ‘Sarpanch’