The prosecution must prove both the demand and acceptance of a bribe under the Prevention of Corruption Act, mere recovery of money is insufficient for conviction.

JUDGMENT :

K.SURENDER, J.

1. The appellant/A1, who worked as the Sub-Treasury Officer, Shadnagar, Mahabubnagar District, was trapped by the ACB, on the allegation of demanding and accepting the bribe of Rs.5,000/- from the defacto complainant/P.W.1. The prosecution version was believed by the learned Additional Special Judge for trial of SPE and ACB Cases, City Civil Court, Hyderabad, who convicted the appellant/A1 for the offences under Section 7 and Sections 13 (1)(d) r/w 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and sentenced him to rigorous imprisonment for a period of three years under both counts vide judgment in C.C.No.10 of 2008 dated 21.07.2010. Questioning the said conviction, present appeal is filed. A2 was found not guilty for the offences under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) r/w13(2) of the Act.

2. Heard Sri C.Sharan Reddy, learned Counsel for the appellant and Sri M.Bala Mohan Reddy, learned Special Public Prosecutor for ACB.

3. Briefly, the case of the defacto complainant/P.W.1 is that he was working as Sericulture officer at Banswada, Nizamabad. He was deputed to work at Banswada of Nizamabad. His seniority was fixed, and the Assistant Director, Sericulture, Shadnagar submitted his arrears of pay fixation amounting to Rs.1,32,879/- to the Sub-Treasury Office, Shadnagar. P.W.1 requested the appellant to receive the bill, but he refused. P.W.1 asked the appellant to process the bill, however, the bill was not passed. P.W.1 called the appellant three days thereafter, and requested him to pass the bill. On 09.04.2007, the appellant issued a token. On 24.04.2007, the appellant demanded 10% of the total bill amount as a bribe. The said demand was also made on 30.04.2007 when P.W.1 requested the appellant to pass the bill. On 10.05.2007, P.W.1 called the appellant on the phone, and again on 11.05.2007, P.W.1 called the appellant on the phone. On 11.05.2007, P.W.1 called the appellant on the phone again and requested him to pass the bill. However, the bill was not passed. After P.W.1 agreed to pay the demand for bribe, the bill was passed on the same day and the amount was credited to his account. Since P.W.1 did not agree to pay the amount, the three bills relating to increments arrears, pay fixation arrears, and DA, which were presented on 18.05.2007, were kept pending until 04.06.2007 by the appellant. When P.W.1 requested him to pass the bills, the appellant allegedly asked P.W.1 to fulfill the earlier promise of a bribe of 10% in the pay fixation arrears bill. On 04.06.2007, P.W.1 requested the appellant to pass the bills. However, a demand of Rs.5,000/- was made. Again, P.W.1 called the appellant on the phone and enquired about the pending bills. On 16.06.2007, P.W.1 called the appellant again and requested him to pass the bills. However, the appellant insisted on the payment of a bribe of Rs.5,000/-. Aggrieved by the consistent demand for a bribe by the appellant, P.W.1 approached the ACB and lodged a Telugu written complaint/Ex.P1 on 17.06.2007.

4. The complaint was handed over to the DSP, ACB/P.W.6. P.W.6 then asked P.W.1 to come back to the office on 19.06.2007. On the said date, the trap was arranged. The trap party included P.W.1, P.W.3, P.W.6/DSP, ACB, P.W.7, and others. Having concluded the pre-trap proceedings, the trap party then went to the office of the appellant. P.W.1 entered the office around 1.45 p.m. P.W.1 went inside and entered the chambers of the appellant. The appellant then demanded a bribe of Rs.5,000/- and stated that he would not pass the bill unless the amount was paid. Meanwhile, A2 entered the chamber of the appellant and sat in a chair.