Proof of demand and acceptance is essential to establish charges under the Prevention of Corruption Act; mere possession of tainted currency does not constitute an offence.

ORDER :

Juvvadi Sridevi, J.

This Criminal Petition is filed by the petitioner-accused No.2 seeking to quash the proceedings against him in C.C.No.2 of 2022 pending on the file of the learned I Additional Special Judge for Central Bureau of Investigation Cases, Hyderabad (for short ‘the learned trial Court’) registered for the offences under Sections 120B of the Indian Penal Code (for short ‘ IPC ’) read with Section 7 (a) of the Prevention of Corruption Act (for short ‘the Act’).

2. Heard Sri V.R.Machavaram, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Srinivas Kapatia, learned Special Public Prosecutor for the Central Bureau of Investigation. Perused the record.

3(a). The brief facts of the case are that, based on a complaint dated 11.11.2020 lodged by Shri Kammari Kalappa before the Superintendent of Police, CBI, ACB, Hyderabad, it was alleged that the accused No.1, an Income Tax Inspector, demanded an undue advantage of Rs.1,00,000/- from the complainant for closing a Tax Evasion Petition pending against him before the Income Tax Officer, Unit-I, Income Tax Investigation Department, Hyderabad. The said complaint was verified by Shri Shekhar Dora Babau, Inspector. During the verification, the complainant, accompanied by an independent witness, approached the accused No.1 on the pretext of negotiating the bribe amount, during which the accused No.1 agreed to reduce the demanded amount to Rs.80,000/-, directing the complainant to arrange the money at the earliest and to contact him once the amount was ready. In the presence of the verifying officer and an independent witness, the complainant also spoke to the accused No.1 over phone and requested whether he could pay Rs.40,000/- as the first installment, to which the accused No.1 declined. The said conversation was overheard by the verifying officer and the independent witness.

3(b). It is further alleged that on 12.11.2020, a trap was laid, during which the accused No.1 was caught while demanding and accepting the undue advantage of Rs.80,000/- from the complainant. During the post-trap proceedings, the hand-wash of the accused No.1 in colourless sodium carbonate solution turned pink. Further, an amount of Rs.30,000/-, being part of the trap money, was recovered from the possession of the accused No.1. During the same proceedings, the remaining amount of trap money, i.e. Rs.50,000/-, was recovered from the possession of the petitioner-accused No.2, also an Income Tax Inspector, who was assisting the accused No.1 in handling the verification of the Tax Evasion Petition against the complainant. The hand- wash of the accused No.2 also turned pink, indicating his handling of the tainted currency. Both the accused No.1 and the petitioner-accused No.2 were arrested after completion of all legal formalities and were remanded to judicial custody. During the course of investigation, on 13.11.2020, Shri Itta Upender Rao was arraigned as accused No.2.

4(a). Learned counsel for the petitioner-accused submitted that the petitioner-accused No.2 has no involvement whatsoever with the alleged offences. It is contended that there is no material or evidence to substantiate the allegation of criminal conspiracy between the accused Nos.1 and 2. There is no allegation that the petitioner-accused No.2 ever demanded any money from the complainant. It is further submitted that the verification report of the Inspector of Police, CBI, does not contain any averment regarding the presence of the petitioner-accused No.2 along with the accused No.1 at the time of the alleged demand of bribe.

4(b). It is further submitted that even according to the charge sheet, no official favour of any nature was pending with the petitioner-accused No.2 in relation to the de-facto complainant. It is also submitted that the petitioner-accused No.2 had already been transferred from the said post and had j