The prosecution must prove the existence of a pending application for work to establish a bribery charge; failure to do so results in acquittal.

JUDGMENT :

K.SURENDER, J.

The appellant who worked as Mandal Revenue Inspector was convicted for the offence under Sections 7 & 13(1)(d) r/w. Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and sentenced to undergo one year Rigorous Imprisonment under both counts.

Questioning the said conviction, present appeal was filed.

2. Heard Sri A.Viswanath, learned counsel for the appellant and Special Public Prosecutor for ACB appearing for the respondent-State.

3. PW.1 is the defacto complainant. According to him, he approached the appellant-Accused Officer on 02.02.2002 and requested to enter his name and his brothers names in the Pahanis, RoR register, on the basis of Civil Court’s order. Appellant then allegedly demanded Rs.18,000/- as bribe for making relevant entries into the RoR register and also for issuance of Pattedar Pass Books and Title Deeds. PW.1 again met the appellant on 06.02.2002 at his house and appellant insisted that an amount of Rs.10,000/- had to be paid at his office on 08.02.2002 and the remaining amount after completion of the entries in the revenue records.

4. PW.1 then approached the DSP, ACB-PW.6 and narrated his grievance to the DSP. Since PW.1 is illiterate, the complaint was scribed by a constable-PW.3. The complainant was asked to come on 08.02.2002 with the bribe amount and meanwhile, PW.6 caused enquiries into the correctness of the complaint.

5. The complaint was registered on 08.02.2002 at 6.00 A.M. PW.1-complainant, independent mediator-PW.2, PW.6 and others gathered in the office of PW.6. The independent mediators PW.2 and another enquired about the complaint with PW.1. Thereafter, currency notes were smeared with Phenolphthalein powder. Before going to the trap, what all transpired in the office of PW.6 was drafted, which is Ex.P2-pre trap proceedings.

6. The trap party then went to Sangareddy and reached office of the Mandal Revenue Officer, Kowdipalli Mandal at 11.15 A.M. PW.2 was asked to accompany PW.1 into the office of the appellant and watch what transpires in between them. At about 11.30 A.M. both PWs.1 and 2 entered into the office and at 11.45 A.M., PW.1 came out and relayed signal to the trap party indicating the acceptance of bribe by the appellant.

7. PWs.2, 6 and other trap party members went into the office. PW.6 introduced himself to the appellant and then Sodium Carbonate Solution test was conducted on both hands of the appellant. Test on both hands of the appellant proved positive. On questioning, the money was handed over by the appellant from his pant pocket.

8. The complainant, appellant and other office members were examined by PW.6 during post-trap proceedings and their statements were also recorded in the second mediator’s report which was marked as Ex.P6.

9. The appellant on being asked about the relevant documents, handed over Ex.P3-Pahani Register and Ex.P4-Form 17 register of the office, to the DSP, which were seized.

10. The investigation was handed over to PW.7-Inspector, by P.W.6, who concluded investigation and after obtaining sanction from the competent authority filed charge sheet.

11. The learned Special Judge on the basis of the evidence of PW.1, PW.2, Ex.P3, Ex.P4 and also the recovery on the date of the trap, found that the appellant demanded the bribe as he was the officiating officer to do the work of PW.1 i.e., making entries into the revenue records and convicted him accordingly.

12. Learned Counsel appearing on behalf of appellant would submit that the Civil Court passed Judgment, whereby the defendants were restrained from interfering with the peaceful possession of the plaintiff/co