The court emphasized the necessity of corroborative evidence, finding the prosecution's case doubtful due to reliance on an interested witness and prior delivery of documents, leading to the acquittal of the appellant.

JUDGMENT :

K.SURENDER, J.

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.45 of 2004 dated 29.10.2009, passed by the Principal Special Judge for SPE & ACB Cases, City Civil Court, 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 approached the DSP, ACB, and lodged a complaint on 29.04.2003. According to P.W.1, he purchased two plots in the year 2003, admeasuring 166.66 sq.yds. The sale deed was registered in the office of the Sub-Registrar, Adilabad. On 19.04.2003, P.W.1 met the appellant, and requested him to return the original sale deeds Exs.P1 and P2, for which, the demand for Rs.500/- was made by the appellant. Again on 21.04.2003, P.W.1 met the appellant, and requested him to give the sale deeds. However, the appellant reiterated his demand and informed that he would not give Exs.P1 and P2 unless the demand for a bribe was fulfilled.

3. On 29.04.2003, P.W.1 met DSP, ACB/P.W.6, and lodged a complaint. P.W.6 asked P.W.1 to come the next day, i.e., on 30.04.2003, on which day the trap was arranged. The trap party gathered at 1.00 p.m in the Forest Guest House, Adilabad. The pre- trap proceedings were concluded. P.W.1 and his friend P.W.2 were asked to meet the appellant. P.W.2 was instructed to observe what transpires between P.W.1 and the appellant.

4. Both P.Ws.1 and 2 went inside the office around 2.30 p.m. The appellant, on seeing P.W.1, demanded the bribe amount, and the amount was handed over to A2, who was in his chamber. Ten minutes thereafter, P.W.2 came out and signaled to the trap party, indicating the demand and the acceptance of the amount by the appellant. The trap party then entered the office, and the hands of the appellant were tested. The test on both hands proved positive for the presence of phenolphthalein powder. The appellant, when questioned, informed that the bribe amount was with A2. The hands of A2 also tested positive for the presence of phenolphthalein powder.

5. The DSP, ACB seized Exs.P1 and P2 from P.W.1, which are the sale deeds, allegedly handed over by the appellant after accepting the bribe.

6. The statements of P.Ws.1, 2, the appellant, and A2 were recorded in the post-trap proceedings/Ex.P6, and the relevant documents were also seized. Thereafter, the investigation was handed over by P.W.6 to M.Kiran Kumar, Inspector of Police (not examined), who filed the charge sheet.

7. The evidence of P.Ws.1 and 2, and the recovery of Exs.P1 and P2 on the date of the trap, were the reasons for the learned Special Judge finding the appellant guilty. However, the learned Special Judge found that A2 was not complicit along with the appellant in demanding and accepting the bribe, for which reason A2 was acquitted.

8. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant would submit that the appellant never demanded any bribe. On the date of the trap, P.W.1 showed a receipt which was handled by the appellant for verification, and the amount was passed on by placing the amount in the receipt. Though the appellant objected and intended to return the receipt along with the amount, however, such amount was handed over to A2 to return it to P.W.1. The said version was not recorded by the DSP during the post-trap proceedings. Learned counsel further argued