The court affirmed that evidence of demand and acceptance of bribe, corroborated by positive test results, is sufficient for conviction under the Prevention of Corruption Act.

JUDGMENT :

K. Surender, J.

1. The appellant/Accused officer filed the appeal questioning the conviction and sentence recorded by the I Additional Special Judge for SPE & ACB Cases-cum-V Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad, in CC.No.67 of 2013, dated 06.05.2016, for the offences punishable under Sections 7 & 13(1)(d) r/w.13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.

2. Heard Sri Badeti Venkat Ratnam, learned counsel for the appellant and learned Special Public Prosecutor for the respondent State.

3. PW.1 is the defacto complainant. He filed complaint with the ACB on 14.03.2013 at 2.00 p.m. According to PW.1, on 23.02.2013, his wife attempted suicide by consuming poison. She was joined in the hospital and the mother-in-law of PW.1 gave a report against him and his family. After discharge of the wife from the hospital, she started staying with PW.1. Five days after discharge, PW.1 went and met the S.I of Police-Krishna Murthy/Appellant in Kodair Police Station. PW.1 informed the appellant that one Kumaraiah and Niranjan were responsible for the attempt of suicide of his wife. However, the appellant informed that case was registered and PW.1 and his family members will be sent to jail. PW.1, then requested to drop the case. The appellant demanded Rs.15,000/- for dropping the case, however, reduced the amount of bribe to Rs.10,000/- and further threatened that if the bribe amount was not paid, PW.1 and his family members would be sent to jail. The said demand was complained to the ACB Inspector. The S.I of ACB-PW.7 drafted the complaint to the dictation of PW.1. Then the DSP-PW.8 asked PW.1 to come back on 16.03.2013 at 9.00 a.m. along with the bribe amount, on which date the trap would be arranged after enquiry.

4. On 16.03.2013, complaint was registered by the DSP-PW.8.On 16.03.2013, the trap party including PW.1-complainant, PW.7- Inspector, PW.8-DSP, PW.2-independent mediator and others gathered in the office of the DSP. All the formalities were completed that were required before proceeding to trap. The pre- trap proceedings were drafted which is Ex.P3. All the trap members then reached to the police station around 1.30 p.m. and stayed at a distance from the police station. PW.1 entered into police station and waited as appellant was not present. The appellant arrived at the police station at 2.15 p.m. and went into his room. He met some constables and others who were waiting in his room. PW.1, thereafter entered into the room of the appellant and the appellant demanded the bribe amount. The bribe amount was handed over to the appellant, which was kept in the right side table drawer. The appellant promised that the case would be closed by Monday. Immediately, PW.1 came out of the room and signaled to the trap party indicating demand and acceptance of bribe by the appellant.

5. The trap party then entered into the room of appellant in the police station and prepared Sodium Carbonate solution to test whether the appellant handled the bribe amount which was smeared with Phenolphthalein powder. The test conducted on the fingers of right and left hands of the appellant turned positive. The appellant was questioned by the DSP about the bribe amount. The said bribe amount was produced from the wallet of the appellant from his pant pocket. The concerned file of PW.1 was seized which is Ex.P5. Thereafter, the proceedings were concluded and the post-trap proceedings were typed in the laptop which was taken along with the trap party and marked as Ex.P6.

6. PW.8 then handed over the investigation to PW.9, who concluded investigation and filed charge sheet. The learned Special Judge examined PWs.1 to 9 as witnesses and markedxs.P1 to P9. M.Os.1 to 12 were also brought on record by the prosecution during trial. Charge sheets in two different crimes filed against one Lingam Goud were marked as Exs.D1 and D2.

7. The defence of the appellant is that Ex.P1-complaint does not reflect the date of demand and complaint was given to false