The prosecution must prove its case beyond reasonable doubt; if the accused proves his defence by preponderance of probability, the charge may not stand.

JUDGMENT : 

K.Surender, J

1. The appellant/accused was convicted under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) r/w Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (for short ‘the Act’) and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year under both counts vide judgment in C.C.No.4 of 2010, dated 31.03.2011 passed by the II Additional Special Judge for SPE & ACB Cases, Hyderabad. Aggrieved by the same, present appeal is filed.

2. During the pendency of the appeal, the appellant died. By order dated 04.04.2024 in I.A.No.2 of 2023, this Court permitted the legal heirs of the appellant to come on record.

3. Briefly, the case of the prosecution is that P.W.1 is a contractor with the R&B department, who completed four works during 2002-03 and submitted bills for the works. (1.) SR for Gajwel to Dhoulthabad road 21/2 to 22/5 km; (2.) SR for Vargal to Gajwel road 1/10 to 13/4 km; (3.) SR for Gajwel to Chegunta Road 19/0 to 21/0 km; and (4.) SR for SNT GJ Road 74/0 to 75/5 km, during 2002- 2003, to the Executive Engineer at R&B Siddipet (AO) for forwarding them to the Assistant Pay Accounts Officer (APAO) in Medak.

4. Upon receiving the bills, the appellant demanded 2% bribe on each bill for forwarding them to the APAO. P.W.1 expressed his inability to pay the full 2% immediately and requested that he would pay 1% per bill after receiving payment. However, the said request was refused by the appellant and insisted to pay the full 2% on each bill.

5. After P.W.1 assured payment of the bribe, the appellant forwarded the bills and M Books to the APAO but threatened that if PW1 did not pay the bribe upon receiving the cheque, future bills, particularly for the Vargal-Gajwel BT Road work, would not be entertained.

6. On February 27, 2003, PW1 received a total of Rs. 46 lakhs through two cheques i.e., one for Rs. 18,42,928 dated February 22, 2003, and another for Rs. 27,77,651 dated 27.02. 2003. P.W.1 claimed that on March 4, 2003, the appellant demanded bribe of Rs. 92,000 (2% of Rs. 46 lakhs) and threatened to harass him if he failed to pay. On March 11, 2003, P.W.1 contacted the appellant stating that he would initially pay Rs. 30,000 due to shortage of funds and the rest of the amount would be paid after receiving payment for the Vargal- Gajwel BT Road work. Unwilling to pay the bribe, P.W.1 lodged complaint with the DSP of ACB on the same day.

7. Trap was arranged on 12.03.2003 by P.W.8/DSP, having received the complaint on 11.03.2003. P.W.1 was asked to come on the next day along with the proposed bribe amount of Rs.30,000/-.

8. The trap party gathered in Vijaya lodge. Before proceeding to trap, all the formalities to be followed prior to proceeding to the trap were undertaken. What all transpired before proceeding to trap was reduced into writing which is Ex.P3/pre-trap proceedings.

9. The trap party then proceeded to the office of the appellant. P.W.2 who is also contractor and relative of P.W.1 was asked to accompany P.W.1 and observe what transpires in between P.W.1 and the appellant. Further, he was instructed to relay signal after the appellant accepts bribe amount from P.W.1. After both P.Ws.1 and 2 entered into the office, they waited for some time, since some others were present in the chambers of the appellant. Thereafter, P.W.1 entered into appellant’s chamber and having discussed about the ongoing works, P.W.1 handed over the amount to the appellant, who received it with his right hand and kept in his pant pocket. P.W.2 went outside and gave the signal to the trap party indicating demand and acceptance of bribe amount from P.W.1.

10. The trap party entered into the chamber of the appellant and conducted sodium carbonate solution test on the hands of the appellant to ascertain whether the bribe amount which was smeared with phenolphthalein powder during pre-trap proceedings was handled by the appellant. The test on both the hands turned positive. The DSP/P.W.8 questioned regarding the bribe amount and the appellant explained