JUDGMENT:

The appellant was convicted for the offence under Section 7, 13(1)(d) r/w.13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act on the allegation of demanding and accepting an amount of Rs.3,500/-

as bribe from the defacto complainant-PW.1.

2. Briefly, the case of the prosecution is that the defacto complainant-PW1 was working as a contractor and has done maintenance work in Mulugu sub-station from August, 2003 to February, 2004. P.W.1 has given a work bill for the work done in the month of February, 2004, for an amount of Rs.13,240/- to the Sub-Engineer Mr.Syed Khaja Nawaz Ahmed/PW.4, who has prepared measurement book and submitted the same to the appellant/accused officer. In the second week of March, 2004 P.W.1 met the appellant and requested him to sign the February bill and forward the same to ADE. Then the appellant stated that P.W.1 has taken 6 months bill without paying any bribe and demanded P.W.1 to pay Rs.500/- as bribe for each month totalling to Rs.3,500/- before forwarding the February month bill to ADE. On 11.06.2004, PW.1 expressed his inability to pay the bribe. The appellant informed that only after the bribe amount is paid, he will forward the bill. PW1 aggrieved by constant demand of bribe, went to ACB office on 11.06.2004 and lodged complaint-Ex.P1 with PW.8-Inspector of Police, ACB, Medak District.

3. P.W.8 having received the complaint on 11.06.2004, arranged the trap on 14.06.2004. According to the prosecution, in the mean time, verification was made regarding the antecedents of the appellant and thereafter permission was obtained from higher authorities and crime was registered.

4. On 14.06.2004 the trap party which included PW.1- complainant, PW.2-independent mediator, PW.8-Trap Laying Officer and others gathered in the office at Sangareddy. All the formalities before proceeding to trap were followed and pre-trap proceedings-Ex.P3 was drafted. The trap party having concluded the proceedings around 10.00 a.m. went to the office of the appellant around 11.30 a.m. PW.1 went into the office around 12 noon and came out as he was informed that the appellant was not present and he was expected to come to the office around 4.00 P.M. The trap party went out for lunch and again went to the appellant’s office around 4.00 P.M. P.W.1 entered into the office and met the appellant. The appellant then demanded the amount to be paid and accordingly the bribe amount was handed over to the appellant who kept it in his pocket. PW.1 came out and signalled the trap party indicating the demand and acceptance of bribe by the appellant.

5. The trap party entered into the office and confronted the appellant regarding the demand and acceptance of bribe from PW.1. Immediately, both hands of the appellant were tested which turned positive. When questioned by Trap Laying Officer-PW.8 regarding the bribe amount, the appellant stated that he did not demand any bribe from PW.1, however, he gave Rs.1,800/-to T.Manohar Reddy-PW.3 and Rs.1,700/- to P.Jagal Reddy (PW.6) who were private operators as they were in need of the money. They promised to return the amount when the salaries would be paid. On further questioning by the Inspector, the appellant informed that the complainant gave amount on behalf of private operators P.Ws.3 and P.W.6, as such, he accepted the said amount.

6. The version of the complainant and the appellant were recorded in the post-trap proceedings- Ex.P7. Thereafter, PW.8- Trap Laying Officer also seized relevant bills which are Exs.P2 to P4. What all transpired during the post-trap proceedings and also the seizure of documents were reflected in Ex.P7. PW.8 thereafter concluded investigation and filed charge sheet before the Special Court.

7. Learned Special Judge on behalf of the prosecution examined PWs.1 to 8 and also marked Exs.P.1 to P14. In support of defence Exs.D1 to D9 were marked and also Exs.X1 to X4. The learned Sessions Judge found favour with the version of PW.1 and the other circumstantial evidence produce