TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2015 (5) TMI 1255
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... demanded a sum of Rs. 1000/- for the said registration work. After some bargain the demand was reduced to Rs. 500/-. Since the complainant was not willing to pay the said bribe amount, he approached the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Anti Corruption Bureau, Warrangal (P.W. 8) and lodged a complaint on 20.3.1995, who registered a case in Crime No. 1/ACB-WKH/95 Under Sections 7 and 11 of Prevention of Corruption Act, issued FIR and took up investigation. Thereafter, P.W. 8 requested the complainant to come to Neeladri Guest House at Penuballi on 21.3.1995 with the necessary amount. Accordingly the complainant along with his friend, namely, V. Edukondalu (P.W. 1), went to Neeladri Guest House at Penuballi on a motorcycle at about 1.00 P.M. and P.W. 8 introduced the complainant to one V. Yugender (P.W. 7) and another. Thereafter, the complainant was asked to give the money only when the officer demanded it. The trap party consisting of P.W. 8, two mediators, two inspectors and two constables, left the Guest House in a Jeep while the complainant, P.W. 1 and P.W. 2 went on a motorcycle. The raid party stopped the Jeep at a little distance from the office of the Respondent at Sattupall....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....n bail. After completion of investigation, the Inspector of Police filed the charge-sheet. During the pendency of the trial, the de facto complainant Burra Venkateshwar Rao died on 10.6.1997. 3. In the Court of the Principal Special Judge for SPE & ACB cases, at Hyderabad, the learned judge after considering the material facts and evidence, found the accused guilty Under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act. He was awarded conviction Under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act and sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for one year under each count and also to pay a fine of Rs. 1000/- under each count, and in default, he would suffer simple imprisonment for 2 months. 4. On appeal by the Respondent before the High Court, the learned Single Judge was of the view that the lower Court erred in coming to the conclusion that the accused was guilty of the offences under the above mentioned Sections of the Prevention of Corruption Act and the conviction and sentence imposed on the accused by the Court below were set aside and the accused was acquitted of the charges against him. The reasons adduced by....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ir cross examination. As per the prosecution, the High Court in the impugned judgment had given more weightage to the evidence of defense with regard to cancellation of the license of document writers than the evidence of prosecution with regard to the test conducted by P.W. 8. Also the High Court failed to appreciate that non-recording the statement of the complainant Under Section 164 is not fatal to the case of the prosecution. The High Court also failed to appreciate that the evidence of D.W. 1 and D.W. 2, who are subordinates to the accused Respondent, would naturally be in support of their colleague. 7. Learned Counsel appearing for the Respondent, on the other hand, argued that mere recovery of money by itself cannot prove the charge of the prosecution against the accused Respondent in the absence of any evidence to establish payment of bribe or to show that the accused Respondent voluntarily accepted the money. The positive phenolphthalein test is not the conclusive proof that the accused Respondent took the bribe. The learned Counsel cited a number of cases in support of the respective contentions raised by them. In addition, it was submitted that the complainant in a tra....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ns 7, 11 and 13 of the Act. This Court has observed in Narendra Champaklal Trivedi v. State of Gujarat (2012) 7 SCC 80, that there has to be evidence adduced by the prosecution that bribe was demanded or paid voluntarily as bribe. The demand and acceptance of the amount as illegal gratification is a sine qua non for constituting an offence under the Prevention of Corruption Act. The prosecution is duty bound to establish that there was illegal offer of bribe and acceptance thereof and it has to be founded on facts. The same point of law has been reiterated by this Court in State of Punjab v. Madan Mohan Lal Verma (2013) 14 SCC 153. In the present case the factum of demand and acceptance has been proved by the recovery of the tainted amount and the factum of there being a demand has also been stated. The essential ingredient of demand and acceptance has been proved by the prosecution based on the factum of the case. It has been witnessed by the key eye witnesses and their testimonies have also been corroborated by other material witnesses. The offence Under Section 7 of P.C. Act has been confirmed by the unchallenged recovery of the tainted amount. Thus, it is our obligation to rais....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... of the view that the probability of his not being present cannot be considered. 13. One of the suggestions given by the accused Respondent is that the entire trap was laid down due to the inimical relations with document writers, Chepu Chennaiah and his son-in-law Nageshwar Rao. The defense also suggests that the complainant was a petty vendor who has no children and the second wife alone is in existence, and therefore, execution of the Will Deed was not required. Another possibility as stated by the defense was that the complainant was carrying two sets of amounts, one in his banian pocket and other in the shirt pocket. The amount of Rs. 81/- he was carrying in the banian pocket, whereas the tainted amount he was carrying in the shirt pocket and he could have touched the tainted amount at the time of taking out the registration fee. The suggestion as to Nageshwar Rao and Chepu Chennaiah setting up the trap to implicate the accused seems to be very farfetched. All the remaining above mentioned suggestions are not adduced by any direct or circumstantial evidence, as required under law. 14. Thus, the accused Respondent has not successfully rebutted the presumption Under Section 20....