THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GOPALA KRISHNA TAMADA CRIMINAL APPEAL Nos.996 and 971 of 2008 COMMON JUDGMENT: These two appeals are directed against the judgment dated 25.07.2008 in C.C.No.22 of 2005 passed by the learned Special Judge for SPE and ACB Cases, Vijayawada, whereby the appellants-A1 and A2 were convicted of the offences under Sections 7 and 13 (1) (d) read with Section 13 (2) of Prevention of Corruption Act and sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of One year under each count and to pay a fine of Rs.1000/- under each count, in default to suffer simple imprisonment for three months under each count. The sentences imposed under both the counts were directed to be run concurrently. The case of the prosecution, according to the evidence let in during the course of trial, is that the accused officer No.1 was working as Mandal Revenue Inspector in the office of Mandal Revenue Officer, Guntur, and accused officer No.2 was working as Village Servant of Jonnalagada village, Guntur Ditrict. P.W.1 is the complainant and P.W.2 is his mother. The father of P.W.1 worked in Army and retired from service in 1985 and was getting pension during his life time. Subsequently, after his death to avail family pension, they were required to get a legal heir certificate from the revenue authorities. For that purpose, on 24.08.2004, P.Ws.1 and 2 visited the Mandal Revenue Office, Guntur, and on the advice of the Mandal Revenue Officer (P.W.5), an application was presented before him along with required enclosures and that P.W.5 forwarded the same to the Mandal Revenue Inspector (Accused Officer No.1). On the next day Accused Officer No.1 along with Accused Officer NO.2 visited the house of P.Ws.1 and 2, enquired about the truthfulness of their application and obtained their signatures. Thereafter, one Subba Rao informed P.W.1 that the matter could be delayed if procedure is followed and the work has to be done by paying the money and that on 26.08.2004 at about 9 A.M., P.W.1 lodged a report Ex.P13 before P.W.8, the then Inspector, Range-I, Anti Corruption Bureau,, Vijayawada. On that P.W.8 made preliminary enquiries with regard to the genuineness of the report and the antecedents of Accused Officers and informed P.W.1 to visit the office next day by 10 A.M. along with the purported bribe amount of Rs.1,100/-. On 27.08.2004 at about 11 A.M., P.W.8 registered the same as a case in Cr.No.19/RCT-VJA/2004 under Section 7 of Prevention of Corruption Act and issued Ex.P14 F.I.R and took up investigation. P.W.4, Deputy Commercial Tax Officer and one Jamalayya were called to act as mediators and both of them were introduced to P.W.1 and the contents were read over to them. Ex.P7-pre-trap proceedings were conducted in the presence of mediators in the office of the Anti Corruption Bureau. Thereafter, at about 4.15 P.M. the trap party left the A.C.B, office and reached the M.R.O. office by 5.15 P.M. At about 5.20 P.M. P.W.1 entered into the M.R.O. Office and at about 6.30 P.M. he came out and gave a pre-arranged signal. Then the trap party entered into the M.R.O. Office and found Accused Officer No.1 was sitting and Accused Officer No.2 was standing near the table of Accused Officer No.1. Then P.W.8 disclosed his identity to Accused No.1 and made the Accused Officer NO.1 to rinse his fingers in the S.C. solution and there was no change in the colour. Thereafter, the hand fingers of Accused Officer No.2 were subjected to chemical test and they proved positive result and P.W.8 asked the Accused Officer No.2 to produce the tainted amount and then he produced the same from his left side pant pocket and he verified the serial numbers of currency notes which were noted in the pre- trap proceedings and the same were tallied. P.W.8 seized the tainted amount and arrested the accused Officers Nos.1 and 2 and after completion of investigation, P.W.8 filed charge sheet against the accused. The prosecution in order to prove its case against the accused examined P.W.1 to P.W.8 and got marked Exs.P1 to P14, Ex.X1 and M.Os.1 to 10. On behalf of the accused, D.W.1 was examined. The trial Court on appraisal of entire evidence, both oral and documentary, held that the prosecution has proved the offences under Sections 7 and 13 (1) (d) read with Section 13 (2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 against the accused and accordingly convicted and sentenced them as stated supra. Aggrieved by the said conviction and sentence, Accused No.1 preferred Crl.A.No.996 of 2008 and Accused No.2 preferred Crl.A.No.971 of 2008. Learned Counsel for the appellant-A1, Sri C.Praveen Kumar, and learned Counsel for the appellant-A2, Sri N.Ravi Prasad, submit that there was no valid sanction for initiating prosecution against the accused and the alleged sanction which was issued by the Principal Secretary to Government is in a routine and mechanical manner without application of mind. They further submit that the alleged sanction was given by one J.P.Murty, Principal Secretary to the Government, but the signature appearing in the note file of J.P.Murthy (Sanctioning authority) is not tallying with the signature mentioned in Exs.P11 and P12. They further submit that one A.Rajesh, who was examined as P.W.1 at whose instance the alleged trap was organised; P.W.2, mother of P.W.1, who made the application for issuance of legal heir certificate and the alleged eye witness P.W.3, who was working along with the accused, did not support the case of the prosecution and were treated hostile and as such the Court below ought not to have passed conviction basing on the testimony of P.W.4-mediator and P.W.8-Investigating Officer. On the other hand, the learned Special Public Prosecutor for A.C.B, appearing for the State, while supporting the judgment of the trial Court, contended that the trial Court rightly concluded that the evidence of P.W.4-mediator and P.W.8-Investigating Officer is sufficient to base a conviction against the appellants- accused. In the light of the aforesaid submissions, this Court looked into the record and as rightly contended by the learned Counsel for the appellants-A1 and A2, P.Ws.1 to 3 did not support the case of the prosecution and they were declared hostile. In a case falling under the provisions of Prevention of Corruption Act, heavy burden is cast upon the prosecution to plead and prove the alleged demand. Even if the person who gave the tainted amount does not support the case of the prosecution and if there is an iota of evidence with regard to the said demand then by invoking the provisions as envisaged under Section 20 of the Prevention of Corruption Act the Courts can base a conviction. Keeping the said proposition of law, this Court is of the view that the prosecution has miserably failed in establishing either demand or acceptance of the tainted amount by the appellants- accused. As stated supra, P.W.1 is the decoy at whose instance the alleged trap was arranged by the A.C.B, officials. P.W.2 is the mother of P.W.1, who gave the application requesting the accused officers to furnish a legal hire certificate. P.W.3 is another officer who was working along with the accused officers in Mandal Revnue Office, Guntur. P.W.4 is the mediator who spoke about pre-trap and post-trap proceedings. P.W.5 is the then M.R.O. who received the application from P.W.1 and forwarded the same to Accused Officer No.1. P.W.6 is also the then M.R.O., Guntur, who spoke with regard to procedure for issuance of legal heir certificates. P.W.7 is the Section Officer, Revenue Vigilance Department, Hyderabad, who spoke about the issuance of sanction orders. P.W.8 is the Investigating officer who conducted investigation ad filed charge sheet against the appellants-accused. From a perusal of the evidence of P.Ws.1 to 3, it is clear that none of these witnesses spoke about the alleged demand, acceptance or report to the Anti Corruption Bureau and the pre-trap and post-trap proceedings. It can be presumed that P.Ws.1 and 2 are won over, but it is curious to note that P.W.3, who was working in the very same Mandal Revenue Office, did not support the case of the prosecution. Of course, P.Ws.4 and 8 spoke in so many words about the alleged report received by the Anti Corruption Bureau, organization of trap proceedings etc., In the absence of any evidence with regard to demand or acceptance of bribe amount, can the Court base a conviction on the evidence of the Investigating Officer and mediator by bringing the presumption under Section 20 of the Prevention of Corruption Act. The answer to that question, according to me, is ‘No’. Section 20 of the Prevention of Corruption Act reads as under: “20. Presumption where public servant accepts gratification other than legal remuneration— (1) Where, in any trial of an offence punishable under Section 7 or Section 11 or clause (a) or clause (b) of sub-section (1) of Section 13 it is proved that an accused person has accepted or obtained or has agreed to accept or attempted to obtain for himself, or for any other person, any gratification (other than legal remuneration) or any valuable thing from any person it shall be presumed, unless the contrary is proved, that he accepted or obtained or agreed to accept or attempted to obtain that gratification or that valuable thing, as the case may be as a motive or reward such as is mentioned in Section 7 or, as the case may be, without consideration or for a consideration which he knows to be inadequate. (2) Where in any trial of an offence punishable under Section 12 or under clause (b) of Section 14, it is proved that any gratification (other than legal remuneration) or any valuable thing has been given or offered to be given or attempted to be given by an accused person, it shall be presumed, unless the contrary is proved, that he gave or offered to give or attempted to give that gratification or that valuable thing, as the case may be, as a motive or reward such as is mentioned in Section 7, or, as the case may be, without consideration or for a consideration which he knows to be inadequate. (3) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-sections (1) and (2), the Court may decline to draw the presumption referred to in either of the said sub-sections, if the gratification or thing aforesaid is, in its opinion, so trivial that no inference of corruption may fairly be drawn.” From the above provision of law, it is clear that it is only when demand and acceptance of bribe amount is established by some sort of evidence, the Court can draw the presumption as provided for under Section 20 of the Act. Here is a case where, as stated supra, neither demand nor acceptance of the bribe amount is proved and the same cannot be established from the evidence of P.W.4-mediator and P.W.8-Investigating Officer. The sanction orders for prosecuting the appellants-A1 and A2, which have been issued by the Principal Secretary to Government, Revenue Department, are marked as Exs.P11 and P12. From a perusal of the said sanction orders, it is clear that the sanctioning authority had not applied his mind. In the cross-examination of P.W.7, through whom the said sanction orders were marked as Exs.P11 and P12, it is elicited that the said sanction orders do not disclose the material that was placed before the sanctioning authority and also what was the material perused by the sanctioning authority. P.W.7 further stated that the signature appearing in the note file of J.P.Murthy (Sanctioning authority) is not tallying with the signature mentioned in Exs.P11 and P12. When the sanctioning authority issues the sanction, the file showing the involvement of the accused officers shall be produced and the sanctioning authority after perusing the said material only shall issue the sanction order. But in this case the sanctioning authority has not applied his mind and he issued the sanction orders for prosecuting the appellants-A1 and A2 in a routine and mechanical manner. For the aforementioned reasons, this Court is of the view that the Court below erred in coming to the conclusion that the appellants-A1 and A2 are guilty of the offences punishable under sections 7 and 13 (1) (d) read with Section 13 (2) of Prevention of Corruption Act and as such the conviction and sentence imposed on the appellants-A1 and A2 by the Court below for the said offences are hereby set aside and the appellants-A1 and A2 are acquitted of the said charges and they shall be set at liberty forthwith if they are not required in any other case. The fine amount, if any, paid shall be refunded to the appellants-A1 and A2. Both the Criminal Appeals are accordingly allowed. ___________________________ (GOPALA KRISHNA TAMADA, J) 14-12-2010 Gsn.