In bribery cases, both demand and acceptance of the bribe must be established for conviction; mere recovery of bribe without proof of demand is insufficient.

JUDGMENT :

K. SURENDER, J.

1. The appellant is A1 and A2 (acquitted) both were tried for the offences under Sections 7 and Section 13(1)(d) r/w 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act and the appellant/A1 was convicted and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for a period of two years under each count vide judgment in C.C.No.22 of 2006 dated 30.11.2009 passed by the Additional Special Judge for SPE & ACB Cases, Hyderabad. A1 filed the present appeal aggrieved by the conviction.

2. Briefly, the case of the prosecution is that P.W.1/defacto complainant lodged complaint on 05.08.2004, which is Ex.P1. In the said complaint, he narrated that his father purchased a plot of 105 sq.yds at Bagh Ameer, Kukatpally and wanted to obtain permission for construction of house from the Municipality, Kukatpally. Further for applying bank loan, a copy of the sale deed, link documents and certificate from the concerned MRO that the land falls under ‘Gramakantam’ had to be provided. On 29.07.2004, application was filed by P.W.1 in the MRO office on behalf of his father for issuance of certificate. The M.R.O signed on the application and directed it to be handed over to the appellant, who was then working as Senior Assistant in the office of the M.R.O. Accordingly, A1 demanded an amount of Rs.10,000/- to be paid as bribe for issuing the said certificate. Again on 05.08.2004, P.W.1 met A1 at M.R.O office and requested to issue certificate, however, A1 insisted for payment of bribe. On repeated requests, the amount of bribe was reduced to Rs.8,000/-. A1 also showed that the certificate was already prepared and signed by the M.R.O. However, A1 kept the certificate with him asking P.W.1 to get the amount of Rs.8,000/- and after payment, the certificate would be handed over.

3. P.W.1 then approached the ACB on the same day i.e., 05.08.2004 and filed typed complaint Ex.P1 at 2.10 p.m. The DSP/ACB-P.W.8 received the complaint and arranged for the trap on the next day i.e., on 06.08.2004.

4. The trap party assembled in the office of the DSP. The independent mediator/P.W.2 and another also formed part of the trap party including complainant P.W.1, DSP/P.W.8 and others. The bribe amount of Rs.8,000/- was smeared with phenolphthalein powder. All the other formalities were completed and the pre-trap proceedings were drafted which is Ex.P4.

5. The trap party proceeded to the office of the appellant. P.W.3 was asked to accompany P.W.1 and observe as to what transpires in between P.W.1 and A1. While the trap party stood at a distance, P.Ws.1 and 3 went to the Section-B, wherein A2 was present. When they enquired about A1, A2 informed that A1 was in the computer room. P.Ws.1 and 3 met A1 in the computer and on seeing them, A1 came out of the computer room, opened almirah in his room and showed the certificate to P.W.1. A1 asked about the person accompanying P.W.1 and P.W.1 informed that P.W.3 is his father. A1 then enquired whether the demanded bribe amount was brought. P.W.1 stated that he brought the amount. A1 obtained signatures of P.W.3 as acknowledgment and handed over certificate to P.W.3. A1 asked P.W.1 to handover the bribe amount to A2 and handed over the certificate. A2 asked P.W.1 to take him towards the Bank of Maharashtra on the bike of P.W.1 and on the way A2 asked P.W.1 to stop the vehicle and handover the amount. The tainted bribe amount was handed over to A2. The trap party having seen PWs.1 and A2 coming out of the office and going on the bike, followed them. P.W.1 gave signal to the trap party indicating handing over of the bribe amount. The trap party then questioned A2 regarding the bribe amount. Then A2 informed that A1 had asked h