JUDGMENT:

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 2005, dated 11.12.2008 passed by the Additional Special Judge for SPE & ACB Cases, Hyderabad.

Aggrieved by the same, present appeal is filed.

2. Briefly, the case of the prosecution is that P.W.1 is the scribe of complainant and relative of Rathan Mairam-defacto complainant (hereinafter referred to as ‘deceased’). He was not examined since he died prior to commencement of trial. According to P.W.1, the appellant was working as Panchayat Secretary of Kodangal Grampanchayat. The deceased was working as scavenger in the said Grampanchayat. On 07.04.2003, deceased informed P.W.1 that the appellant was asking him to do Kamati work and when he refused, the appellant demanded Rs.15,000/- as bribe and threatened that if he is not going to pay Rs.15,000/-, three months salary which was due to the deceased would not be paid. The deceased further informed that the appellant threatened that he would see to that the deceased would be suspended if bribe is not paid. Further, when the deceased requested the appellant, the appellant demanded that at least Rs.4,000/- should be paid and remaining amount would be collected from the salary which was due to be paid to the deceased. Since the deceased was not inclined to pay bribe, he took P.W.1 to the ACB office and Ex.P1 complaint which was in hand writing of P.W.1 was filed. Ex.P1 was drafted to the dictation of the deceased. The deceased went to the office of the DSP, ACB and gave complaint and informed that P.W.1 that he has to accompany deceased on 08.04.2003 to the DSP office, on which date the trap would be arranged. The trap party gathered in the office of the DSP on 08.04.2003. The DSP explained to the complainant/deceased, P.W.1 and others the manner in which the trap would take place and also asked the deceased not to handover the amount unless demanded by appellant. Having concluded pre-trap proceedings, Ex.P3 was drafted. The trap party went near to the office of the appellant. The deceased and P.W.1 went into the office of the appellant. P.W.1 accompanied the deceased and on the demand of the appellant, Rs.4,000/-

was handed over. The appellant took the amount, kept in his pant pocket and informed that he would not initiate any action against the deceased. P.W.1 then came out and signaled to the trap party indicating demand and acceptance of bribe by the appellant. P.W.8/DSP and other trap party members entered into the hall. Sodium carbonate solutions were prepared and the appellant was asked to rinse his fingers in the solutions. The solution of right hand turned pink in colour and the bribe amount was handed from his pant pocket. The right side pant pocket of the appellant was also subjected to test. Thereafter, the version of the appellant and the deceased was recorded in the post-trap proceedings. After conclusion of the post-trap proceedings, investigation was handed over by DSP/P.W.8 to Inspector/P.W.9. P.W.9 concluded investigation and filed charge sheet.

3. The defence of the appellant is that his son got an admission in Engineering Course and he requested the deceased for payment of loan of Rs.20,000/- to enable him to pay college fees for his son. The deceased had landed properties as well as two Tractors and he was giving loans to various persons which is evident from P.W.1’s statement namely Balrajsingh, who is the nephew of the deceased.

4. Learned Special Judge, having examined the evidence placed on record by both the prosecution and the appellant, found the appellant guilty and convicted him accordingly.

5. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant submits that there must be official work to be complied in favour of the deceased. The deceased was working as Scavenger and the post of the Scaveng