IMPORTANT POINT
Illegal gratification – Proof of demand of bribe by a public servant and its acceptance by him is sine quo non for establishing offence under Section 7 of PC Act, 1988.

JUDGMENT :

ABHAY S. OKA, J.

Leave granted.

1. The Special Court under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (for short ‘the PC Act’) convicted the appellant for the offences punishable under Sections 7 and 13 (1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of the PC Act. The order of conviction has been confirmed in appeal by the High Court of Telangana.

2. The prosecution case, in brief, is that the appellant was working as a Commercial Tax Officer at Secunderabad. PW-1 Shri R. Seetharamulu @ Sharma is the complainant. PW-1 was working at the relevant time as a supervisor in Farmers’ Service Co-operative Society (for short ‘the said Society’). He was doing the work of filing returns of commercial tax of the said Society. Though the assessment of the said Society for the year 1997-98 was completed, till February 2000, the returns of the said Society for the year 1996-97 remained pending for assessment. The appellant issued a notice dated 14th February 2000 calling upon the said Society to produce cash book, general ledger, and purchase and sales statements for the year 1996-97. In February 2000, on the instructions of the Managing Director of the said Society, PW-1 attended the office of the appellant along with the concerned record. After PW-1 showed the documents to the appellant, she called PW-4 Ahmed Moinuddin, ACTO, and directed him to verify the records. The case of PW-1 is that on 24th February 2000, when he met the appellant, she demanded a bribe of Rs. 3,000/- for issuing an assessment order. Though he showed unwillingness to pay the amount, for consecutive three days, the appellant reiterated the demand. On 29th February 2000, PW-1 requested the appellant to issue final assessment order. At that time, the appellant informed PW-1 that unless the bribe as demanded is paid, she will not issue final assessment order. On 23rd March 2000, PW-1 again approached the appellant when she scaled down her demand to Rs. 2,000/-.

3. On 27th March 2000, PW-1, along with the Managing Director of the said Society, visited the office of the Anti-Corruption Bureau (ACB) at Hyderabad. PW-1 filed a written complaint to the Deputy Superintendent of Police, ACB. Accordingly, a trap was laid. The allegation of the prosecution is that when PW-1 tendered the tainted currency notes of Rs. 2,000/- to the appellant in her office, instead of taking the amount directly, she took out a diary from her table drawer and opened the same. She asked the appellant to keep the currency notes in the diary. Accordingly, PW-1 kept the notes in the said diary. After closing the diary, the appellant kept the same in her table drawer. She locked the table drawer and kept the key in her handbag. After that, she called ACTO along with the record. The appellant signed on the last page of the ledger and cash book by putting the date as 26th February 2000. Thereafter, the appellant directed the attender to affix an official rubber stamp below her signature. Accordingly, a rubber stamp was put by the attender. PW-1 collected the general ledger and cash book from the attender, and after coming out of the office, he gave a signal to the trap party. Then the trap party entered the office of the appellant. When the appellant was questioned by the Deputy Superintendent of Police, she showed her right-hand side table drawer. She took out the key of the drawer from her handbag and opened the table drawer. She took out the diary from the drawer and placed the same on the table. After the diary was opened by the Deputy Superintendent of Police, he found a wad of currency notes. The numbers on the currency notes tallied with the serial numbers of currency notes described in pre-trap proceedings. After that, the seizure was carried out, and necessary formalities were completed. The Special Court found that the demand of bribe and acceptance of bribe was proved by the prosecution. The High Court has affirmed the said finding.

4. Mrs. V. Mohana, the learned Senior counsel appearing for the appellant, ha