The prosecution must prove both the demand and acceptance of a bribe; mere recovery of money is insufficient for conviction without evidence of demand.

JUDGMENT :

1. The appellant was convicted and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of six months and one year under Section 7 and Sections 13(1)(d) r/w 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, respectively, vide judgment in C.C.No.17 of 2010 dated 30.06.2011, passed by the II Additional Special Judge for SPE & ACB Cases, Hyderabad. Aggrieved by the said conviction, the present appeal is filed.

2. Briefly, the case of the prosecution is that P.W.1 is the defacto complainant. He was working as Assistant Engineer in the office of Agriculture Marketing Committee, Warangal. The appellant worked as Executive Engineer in the said office and he was superior to P.W.1. The contract work was awarded to M/s. Satyamurthy Constructions for laying cement concrete at Chilly Sabad at part-III at Market Yard Ennmamula, and balance cement concrete work at Chilly Sabad Part-IV, Market Yard Enmamula. The contract work was awarded to Satyamurthy Constructions on a tender basis. The said construction work was represented by P.W.4/Srinivas Reddy. After entering into the contract, the contract work was executed within the stipulated time. In all, P.W.1 prepared 8 bills for making payment to the contractor. Out of 8 bills to be paid to M/s. Satyamurthy Constructions, the 8^th bill was due to be paid to the construction company. The remaining seven bills were already paid. The final bill i.e., Ex.P10, (8^th bill) which is dated 16.09.2003, was to be paid and was pending.

3. Another contract work was awarded to Sri R.Bala Narasimha Reddy for construction of a rural Godown in the Market Yard of Ennmamula. Two bills were prepared by P.W.1. Out of two bills, one bill, Ex.P13, was paid and the 2^nd bill, Ex.P14, which is dated 20.09.2003, was not paid.

4. On 17.09.2003, P.W.1 met the appellant in his office. The appellant instructed P.W.1 to collect a percentage of the bills claimed by the contractors. In respect of the bills covered under Exs.P10 and P14, P.W.1 informed that he would inform the contractors. On 19.09.2003, when P.W.1 met the appellant, the appellant insisted for collecting the percentage from the contractors and paying him the amount since he would be on leave from 27.09.2003. P.W.1 then informed the contractors, who are P.Ws.4 and 5. P.W.4 gave an amount of Rs.3,000/- to P.W.1 and P.W.5 gave an amount of Rs.10,000/- to P.W.1. According to both P.Ws.4 and 5, when they met the appellant, he demanded Rs.10,000/- as bribe.

5. On 20.09.2003, when P.W.1 met the appellant, the appellant insisted on payment of Rs.20,000/- for passing the bills covered under Exs.P10 and P14, which pertain to P.Ws.4 and 5, respectively. The appellant further threatened that he would spoil the career of P.W.1 if the percentage was not collected. P.W.1 stated that he would collect the amount and passed on Rs.3,000/- which was given by P.W.4. However, the appellant was angry and directed P.W.1 to pay from his pocket. The appellant then insisted P.W.1 to pay Rs.10,000/- initially and Rs.10,000/- thereafter.

6. P.W.1 then approached the ACB authorities and lodged a written complaint/Ex.P15 on 20.09.2003. The Inspector, ACB informed P.W.1 to come after three days since the DSP, ACB, was not available. The trap was arranged on 26.09.2003. P.W.1/complainant, P.W.2/independent mediator, Umakanth Reddy/DSP (died), P.W.7/Inspector of Police, who assisted the DSP in pre and post-trap proceedings, and others formed the trap party. The pre-trap proceedings were conducted by following formalities before proceeding to lay the trap. The trap party members then went to the office of the appellant and reached at 12.00 noon.

7. One Sri S.Venugopal (not examined), who was one of the independent mediators, was asked to accompany P.W.1 inside the office of the appellant. P.W.1, along with said Venugopal, went inside the office. When P.W.1 entered, the appellant was interacting with one Chandrasekhar (examined as D.W.2). After Chandrasekhar left, P.W.1 entered the room of t