In cases under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, mere recovery of money is insufficient to prove guilt; the prosecution must establish a specific demand for a bribe beyond reasonable doubt, especially when the work associated with the accused is already completed.

JUDGMENT:

1. The appellant/A1 filed this appeal. The trap was laid against A1 and A2. However, on account of the death of A2, the case was abated against him in the trial Court.

2. The appellant/A1 was convicted and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of six months and one year under Section 7 and Sections 13(1)(d) r/w 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, respectively, vide judgment in C.C.No.58 of 2005 dated 10.06.2010, passed by the Principal Special Judge for SPE & ACB Cases, Hyderabad. Aggrieved by the said conviction, the present appeal is filed.

3. Briefly, the case of the prosecution is that the complainant/P.W.1 was working as a Driver in APSRTC, Karimnagar-I Depot since 1989. During 1981-85, while he worked as a driver in Asifabad Depot, in the month of November 1985, he was suspended for irregular maintenance of scheduled timings, and a departmental enquiry was conducted. A punishment was imposed by way of postponing four increments. Aggrieved by the same, P.W.1 approached Labour Court, wherein the Labour Court reduced the punishment to postponement of 2 increments. P.W.1 handed over the copy of the same to Depot Manager, Karimnagar, who promised to look into the matter. During 1990, P.W.1 observed a pay difference of Rs.1,300/- between his salary and the salary of his colleague driver Sri Mir Moinuddin, though they were appointed at the same time.

4. It is further the case of the prosecution that P.W.1/complainant approached A1 for rectifying his salary and also for claiming arrears, for which A1/Junior Assistant, who had to process the file, demanded a bribe of R.2,000/-, out of which P.W.1 agreed to pay Rs.1,000/-. A1 processed the file and sent the same to Audit Office, Karimnagar Region. A2/Audit Superintendent had to process it further, and when P.W.1 approached A2, A2 demanded a bribe of Rs.1,000/-. When P.W.1 approached A2, A1 was also present, and when P.W.1 requested to process the file, both A1 and A2 demanded Rs.1,000/- each and directed P.W.1 to pay the bribe amount at Arjun Hotel on 15.09.2003.

5. The complainant/P.W.1 approached the DSP, ACB on 13.09.2003 and gave a Telugu written complainant, which is Ex.P4, to the Inspector of ACB, who in turn informed P.W.7/DSP. The said complaint was scribed by one of the constables in the ACB Office to the narration of P.W.1. P.W.7/Trap Laying Officer asked P.W.1 to come to the ACB Office, Karimnagar on 15.09.2003. The crime was registered and the trap was arranged on 15.09.2003. During the pre-trap proceedings, P.Ws.1, 2, 7 and others were present. All the formalities required before proceeding to the trap were followed. The proceedings were drafted as pre-trap proceedings, which is Ex.P6. The trap party then went to the office of the appellant.

6. P.W.1 went into the office of the appellant, and the other trap party members took positions at a distance. At about 1.00 p.m, the trap party observed that P.W.1, along with A1 and A2, was coming out of the office and going towards Hotel Arjun. The trap party followed them from a distance. Once they reached the Professional Courier shop on the way, all three of them stopped, and it was observed by the trap party that P.W.1, A1, and A2 were talking with each other. The trap party then found that P.W.1 took out a wad of currency notes from his pocket and offered it to the appellant and A2. Both of them received the amount with their right hands and kept it in their right-side pant pockets. On conveying the signal, the trap party