Proof of demand and acceptance is essential to establish corruption charges against public servants under the Prevention of Corruption Act.

JUDGMENT:

1. Challenge in this Criminal Appeal is the judgment dated 30.6.2011 rendered in C.C.No.7 of 2010 which stood pending on the file of the Court of II Additional Special Judge for SPE & ACB Cases, Hyderabad.

2. Heard the submissions made by Smt Gayathri, the learned counsel appearing for the appellant-accused officer and also Sri T.L.Nayan Kumar, learned Special Public Prosecutor for ACB Cases. Also gave anxious and due consideration to the written arguments filed on behalf of the appellant and the judgments relied upon by both parties.

3. Sans unnecessary details, the essence of the prosecution case, if narrated phase-wise, is as under:-

Phase-I: The appellant was working as Divisional Accounts Officer in the office of Executive Engineer, R & B Sub- Division, Bodhan, Nizamabad District and by virtue of the post held by him, he falls under the category of ‘public servant’ as defined under Section 2 (c) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (hereinafter be referred as “the PC Act” for brevity). P.W-2 was a Special Class Contractor. P.W-1 was working as an agent of P.W-2. P.W-2 completed about Rupees Ten lakhs worth road work pertaining to Banswada to Bichkunda road and received payment except the security deposit of Rs.60,000/-. Apart from that work, he also attended work worth Rs.10,50,000/- pertaining to Hyderabad-Medak-Bodhan road and he completed work worth Rupees Four lakhs for which measurements were also taken in the M-Book.

Phase-II: The two bills pertaining to the above two works were pending before the appellant. The appellant demanded bribe of Rs.10,000/- for passing those bills. On 27.7.2002 at about 4 pm., P.W-1 went to the appellant and requested him to pass those bills. The appellant informed P.W-1 that unless and until the demanded bribe amount is paid, the bills would not be passed. As P.W-1 was not willing to pay the demanded bribe amount, he lodged a complaint before the DSP, Anti-Corruption Bureau, Nizamabad Range. After due verification, the DSP, Anti-Corruption Bureau, Nizamabad Range registered a case against the appellant on 29.7.2002 and took up investigation. A trap was laid.

Phase-III: In due execution of trap, on the same day i.e., on 29.7.2002, P.W-1 approached the appellant at about 5.10 pm. The appellant demanded and accepted the tainted currency of Rs.10,000/- as bribe. Phenolphthalein test conducted in the presence of the mediators yielded positive result. The tainted amount was recovered and the appellant was arrested.

4. Subjecting the evidence of P.Ws.1 to 11, D.Ws.1 and 2, Exs.P-1 to P-12, Ex.D-1, Exs.X-1 to X-3 and M.Os.1 to 8 to scrutiny, the learned judge of the trial Court came to a conclusion that the prosecution emerged successful in proving the guilt of the appellant for the offences punishable under Section 7 and Section 13 (1)(d) read with Section 13 (2) of the P.C. Act. The appellant was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of six months and to pay fine of Rs.500/- and in default of payment of the said fine, to suffer simple imprisonment for a period of one month for the offence punishable under Section 7 of the P.C. Act. He was also sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year and to pay fine of Rs.500/- and in default of payment of the said fine, to suffer simple imprisonment for a period of one month for the offence punishable under Section 13 (1)(d) read with Section 13 (2) of the P.C. Act. It was ordered that both the said substantive sentences shall run concurrently. Aggrieved by the findings given and the judgment of conviction passed by the trial Court, the appellant is before this Court.

5. Learned counsel for the appellant has strenuously argued and repeatedly urged that the evidence on record is patentl