The prosecution must prove the demand for illegal gratification as a key element of the offence under the Prevention of Corruption Act; mere recovery of bribe is insufficient for conviction.

JUDGMENT:

The appellant/Accused officer filed the appeal questioning his conviction and sentence recorded by the Prl.Special Judge for CBI Cases, Hyderabad, in CC.No.30 of 2008, dated 28.03.2014, for the offences punishable under Sections 7 & 13(2) r/w.13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 .

2. Heard Sri M.V.Hanumantha Rao, learned counsel for the appellant and Sri Srinivas Kapatia, learned Special Public Prosecutor for CBI.

3. Briefly, the case of the prosecution is that the Appellant, was employed as Junior Engineer at the University of Hyderabad. A case was registered based on a complaint lodged on 08.07.2008 by PW.1 and PW.2, who were the Managing Partner and Supervisor of M/s.Sri Sai Constructions, respectively. The complainant-PW.1 alleged that the appellant had demanded an illegal gratification of Rs.50,000/- for recommending the clearance of pending bills related to civil work executed by their firm at the University of Hyderabad premises. It was further alleged that the appellant had asked for the bribe to be paid on 08.07.2008.

4. Upon registration of the case on 08.07.2008, a CBI team led by PW.9-Inspector B.Shankar Rao, along with PWs.1 and 2 and mediators LW.3 and PW.3, assembled at the office of the Superintendent of Police, CBI. Pre-trap proceedings were conducted and the details were recorded under Ex.P3-the 1^st mediators report.

5. Following the pre-trap proceedings, the trap party, including PWs.1, 2, 3, 9 and LW.3, proceeded to the University of Hyderabad. PW.2 entered the office of the appellant, while PW.1, the CBI team, and other members positioned themselves nearby. It was alleged that the appellant accepted the bribe amount from PW.2 and placed it in the left-side table drawer. PW.2 then exited the office and signaled the trap team. The trap team subsequently entered the office, apprehended the appellant and seized the bribe amount from the top left side table drawer. A hand wash of the appellant resulted in a pink colour for the left hand and a colourless result for the right hand. The serial numbers and denominations of the currency notes seized from the appellant matched those recorded in Ex.P3. Additional items seized included the swab wash of the top left side table drawer, the cotton swab used for the drawer wash and a Citizen SLD 760N calculator found in the same drawer. The trap proceedings were documented in Ex.P4-2^nd Mediators Report.

6. Appellant was arrested on 09.07.2008. The M.Os.2 to 5 were sent to CSFL for examination, which comprised the left hand wash of the appellant in a sealed quarter-size bottle, the swab wash of the appellant’s left-side table drawer (top left) in a sealed quarter- size bottle, the cotton swab used to collect the wash from the appellant’s table drawer in a sealed cover; and the Citizen SLD 760N calculator on which the bribe amount was placed. PW.8, the Expert, opined that MOs.2 to 5 tested positive for the presence of phenolphthalein ions. Furthermore, the presence of sodium and carbonate ions was detected in MOs.2 to 4. It was revealed that the appellant acted as the Site In-charge for the contract work allotted to PW.1’s firm at the University of Hyderabad. The appellant managed the measurement book, which formed the basis for the first payment for the completed work. When the process for the second bill was pending, the appellant allegedly demanded an illegal gratification of Rs.50,000/- from PWs.1 and 2 to clear the bill. The relevant measurement books and bills were seized from the appellant’s office table. Call details for Landline No.23011833, located at the appellant’s residence, wer