ORDER:

This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short ‘Cr.P.C.’) to quash the proceedings against the petitioner in C.C.No.65 of 2021 on the file of the learned Principal Sessions Judge for SPE and ACB Cases, Hyderabad, registered for the offences punishable under Section 7a of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (for short ‘the Act’).

2. The brief facts of the case are that the respondent lodged a complaint against the petitioner stating that the complainant was working as Priest at Sri Peddamma Temple, Jubilee Hills, Hyderabad on temporary basis at monthly salary of Rs.10,000/- for the last 15 years. In the month of July 2017, the then Executive Officer removed him from the post of priest as his conduct was not good. After two months, complainant met the then Executive Officer and requested to take him into duty again, but he did not agree. Thereafter, the then Executive Officer transferred from the temple on his promotion. Later, in the month of July, 2018, the petitioner reported to the temple on his promotion as new Executive Officer. In the month of October 2018, when the complainant met the petitioner and requested to take him into duty, the petitioner told him that priests are soon going to get Government salaries and the order is pending for signatures in the office of the Commissioner and that the petitioner demanded a sum of Rs.5,00,000/- as bribe to reappoint the complainant as priest immediately. It is further stated that at the request of the complainant, the petitioner reduced the bribe amount to Rs.4,00,000/- and accordingly, the complainant is ready to pay the said amount. When the petitioner failed to reappoint the complainant as priest on regular basis, the complainant filed a complaint before the respondent.

3. Basing on the said complaint, the Police registered the case in Crime No.14/RCT-CR-1/2019, against the petitioner and after completion of investigation, they filed charge sheet, vide C.C.No.65 of 2021, before the learned Principal Special Judge for SPE and ACB cases, Nampally, Hyderabad.

4. Heard Sri V.R. Machavaram, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner as well as Sri Sridhar Chikyala, learned Special Public Prosecutor for ACB appearing on behalf of the respondent.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the complainant was removed from the service for his misconduct, and there is no evidence to show that the petitioner demanding bribe for reinstatement of the complainant. He further submitted that there is six-months delay in reporting to the ACB Police and there was no documentary proof or financial records in support of the claim of the complainant and the key evidence i.e., video and audio recordings were not filed. He further submitted that the trap setup appears suspicious, suggesting potential manipulation.

6. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that the investigating agency failed to send the hand-wash solution to the chemical analyst which gives rise to suspicion about the authenticity of voice recordings. This omission is crucial, as the case against the petitioner must be proven beyond reasonable doubt. Additionally, the mediator report states that the petitioner did not touch the alleged bribe money and that the complainant placed the money on the table at the request of the petitioner. Further, the petitioner refused to count the money. He further submitted that the phenolphthalein test yields positive result on the left hand fingers of the petitioner is questionable, when the petitioner did not touch the money. Therefore, the allegations leveled against the petitioner are vague and baseless and the proceedings against him are liable to be quashed.

7. On the other hand, learned Special Public Prosecutor for ACB filed counter affidavit stating that a perusal of the audio and video file of the electronic spy gadgets, reveal that the petitioner demanded Rs.1,25,000/- as bribe, which was credited into