Prosecution must establish demand for a bribe before recovery of money can be deemed evidence of guilt; without proof of demand or authority to act, conviction for corruption cannot stand.

JUDGMENT:

K. SURENDER, J.

1. The appellant was convicted for the offence under Sections 7 and Section 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of three years under each count vide judgment in C.C.No.47 of 2007 dated 01.04.2013 passed by the Principal Special Judge for SPE & ACB Cases, Hyderabad. Aggrieved by the same, present appeal is filed.

2. Briefly, the case of the prosecution is that the defacto complainant/P.W.1 lodged complaint stating that one Kodipaka Vishwanadh Goud, who is his uncle and one Balaram is brother-in-law of his uncle. Both of them owned agricultural land of Acs.49.00 in Sy.Nos.34 to 37 of Ahmedguda village of Keesara Mandal, R.R.District. During the year 2006, both Vishwanadh Goud and Balram made a request to the Government to convert their agricultural land from ‘conservation use’ to ‘residential use’. The file was pending in the office of HUDA. The appellant was working as Assistant Planning Officer in the said office. Since both his uncles were not maintaining good health, P.W.1 was taking care of the processing of land conversion. Though P.W.1 met the appellant number of times and specifically on 13.10.2006 and asked about the pending file, the appellant demanded Rs.1,50,000/- as bribe and informed that he would take care of the entire processing. P.W.1 then expressed inability and offered to pay Rs.75,000/- on 16.10.2006. The appellant threatened that if the amount is not paid, he would pass negative remarks on the file. Both the uncles of P.W.1 asked him to approach ACB when informed about the demand by appellant. Accordingly, P.W.1 handed over written complaint on 13.10.2006 at 6.00 p.m to the DSP, ACB/P.W.9.

3. The complaint was received by P.W.9, DSP/ACB. P.W.9 instructed P.W.1 to come to his office along with Rs.75,000/- on 16.10.2006. FIR was registered on 14.10.2006. The trap party assembled in the office of the DSP at 6.30 a.m on 16.10.2006. Having concluded the formalities prior to proceeding to the trap, pre-trap proceedings were drafted which is Ex.P3. P.W.9, then asked P.W.1 to make a phone call to the appellant to know about his whereabouts. At 9.00 a.m, the trap party left the office and reached the house of the appellant. At 9.50 a.m, P.W.1 entered into the office and after ten minutes, came out and signaled to the trap party indicating demand and acceptance of bribe. Having received the signal, the trap party entered into the house and informed the appellant that they were from ACB. On the instructions of P.W.9, sodium carbonate solution test was conducted on both hands of the appellant to know whether the phenolphthalein powder smeared currency notes of Rs.75,000/- were handled by the appellant. The test on both hands turned positive. The appellant then went into his bed room, opened the almirah and handed over Rs.75,000/- to the trap party. Having concluded the post trap proceedings and also seizing the concerned files, Ex.P12 post trap proceedings were drafted.

4. Thereafter, the investigation was handed over to P.W.10 who concluded investigation and filed charge sheet after obtaining necessary sanction.

5. Learned Special Judge examined P.Ws.1 to 10 and marked Exs.P1 to P19 during the course of trial. Ex.D1 was marked by the appellant. Learned Special Judge found that the hostility of P.W.1/defacto complainant is of no consequences and the other evidence in the case was pointing towards guilt of the appellant and accordingly, recorded conviction.

6. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant would submit that P.W.1, who is the defacto complainant has turned hostile to the