The court emphasized the necessity for credible evidence to support bribery allegations, extending the benefit of doubt to the accused due to significant inconsistencies in the prosecution's case.

JUDGMENT :

K.SURENDER, J.

1. The appellant was convicted for the offences under Section 7 and Sections 13 (1)(d) r/w 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for a period of six months and one year, respectively, vide judgment in C.C.No.43 of 2005, dated 07.12.2010. Questioning the said conviction, present appeal is filed.

2. Heard Sri M.B.Thimma Reddy, learned Counsel for the appellant and Sri T.Bala Mohan Reddy, learned Special Public Prosecutor for ACB.

3. Briefly, the case of the prosecution is that the appellant worked as the Special Revenue Inspector in the office of the Mandal Revenue Officer (MRO), Himayatnagar Mandal. The complainant/P.W.1 was the GPA holder of Nawab Mohd.Kabiruddin Khan. He submitted an application along with requisite documents on 04.08.2003 in the MRO office for the issuance of Fasil Pahani copies Nos.1355 and 1356 in Sy.No.2002/2 at Bagh Lingampally. P.W.1 approached the office of the MRO after one month. Since the MRO was not available, he approached the Dy.MRO-T.Damodar Reddy/P.W.4 and enquired about his application. P.W.4 directed the appellant to attend the work of P.W.1. As such, P.W.1 approached the appellant, who asked him to come after three days. When P.W.1 approached the appellant after three days, the appellant allegedly demanded Rs.500/-.

4. On 03.11.2003, at about 11.00 a.m, when P.W.1 approached the appellant, he enquired about the amount. P.W.1 informed him that he would come with the money the next day. Unwilling to pay the bribe amount, P.W.1 approached the DSP, ACB/P.W.7 and gave Ex.P1/complaint. P.W.7 instructed P.W.1 to come to the office on 04.11.2003 at 1.00 p.m along with bribe amount of Rs.500/-. P.W.7, after verifying the genuineness of the complaint, registered an FIR, which is Ex.P7. At about 2.15 p.m, P.W.7 called P.W.1 to his chambers and introduced P.W.5/mediator and another person, namely Acharyulu (not examined), to him. After following the formalities, pre-trap proceedings were conducted under Ex.P2. Then, all the trap party members went to the office of MRO, Himayatnagar at 5.00 p.m. As per the directions of P.W.7, P.W.1 and P.W.2 (who was secured from Gandhi Bhavan Bus Stop), went to the office of the appellant. The appellant asked P.W.1 whether he had brought the amount. Then, P.W.1 paid the amount to the appellant, who kept the same in his left side pant pocket. At that time, P.W.3, who was present in the room, requested the appellant to give Rs.200/-. The appellant took the same from his pant pocket and gave it to P.W.3, who in turn gave it to P.W.4/Dy.MRO. P.W.1 came out and gave the pre-arranged signal. Immediately, all the trap party members rushed to the room of the appellant. P.W.7 disclosed his identity to the appellant and P.W.3. The test on the hands of both the appellant and P.W.3 turned positive. When P.W.7 enquired about the amount, the appellant produced an amount of Rs.300/- and informed that he gave Rs.200/- to P.W.3 towards the hand loan. P.W.7 enquired P.W.3, who informed that he paid the amount to P.W.4. Post-trap proceedings were conducted under Ex.P5. P.W.7 instructed P.Ws.5 and 8, along with the Inspector, to go to the residence of P.W.4/Dy.MRO for the recovery of the amount of Rs.200/-. By the time they reached, P.W.4 was not available at his residence. On contacting P.W.4, he came to his house at 8.30 p.m. Though the sodium carbonate test was conducted on the hands of P.W.4, the same turned negative. However, his right-side pan