THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJU CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 1546 of 2004 BETWEEEN: State: rep. by Inspector of Police … Appellant AND Sri K.Mallesham … Respondent THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU CRIMINAL APPEAL No.1546 of 2004 JUDGMENT: The accused/respondent was working as Record Assistant in Warangal Municipality. The Principal Special Judge for SPE and ACB cases, Hyderabad by judgment dated 10.02.2004 in CC.No.18 of 1994, acquitted the accused of the charges under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d)/13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (in short, the Act). Questioning the same, the State filed this appeal. It is alleged that when PW1 applied for certified copies of documents in the Municipal office, Warangal, the accused demanded bribe of Rs.600/- for issuing the said certified copies and that on the date of trap, on 13.10.1992 at about 4:30 PM, the accused was successfully trapped while receiving demanded bribe amount of Rs.600/- from PW1. Plea of the accused was one of denial and not guilty. 2. During trial in the lower Court, PW1/defacto complainant and PW2/accompanying witness turned hostile to the prosecution. When PW1 was having property disputes with his neighbour PW4, his advocate advised PW1 to apply for and obtain plan etc. relating to PW4’s property. PW1 gave Ex.P1 application in the municipality for certified copies of documents, along with Ex.P2 affidavit. PW1 says that he paid necessary challan for Rs.80/- in the municipal office. PW1 says that some Attenders in the municipal office asked him to pay some amount to the accused for getting necessary paper. It is his evidence that he arranged Rs.600/- and went to municipal office and met Senior Assistant by name Ramulu to whom he offered Rs.200/- and that Ramulu refused to receive the amount and asked him to pay the amount to the accused and that he went to the accused who was looking at his shelf and that the Attender who was present there asked him whether he brought the amount and when he answered in the affirmative, the Attender asked him to keep the amount in the book and that he kept the amount in the book which was on the table and that the Attender gave certified copies and obtained his signature and that he came out with certified copies. Evidence of PW1 reads as if he gave report to Anti Corruption Bureau (ACB) thereafter. PW1 denied having given Ex.P10 report to the Deputy Superintendent of Police, ACB, Warangal. He only admitted his signature therein as Ex.P3. With regard to the trap, it is evidence of PW1 that he went into office of the accused and came out and gave pre- arranged signal to the trap party. He did not speak to payment of the bribe amount or MO.1 tainted cash of Rs.600/- by him to the accused. In cross-examination by the Special Public Prosecutor in the lower Court, though PW1 admitted about the accused demanding Rs.600/- as bribe for himself and two others, denied demand for the bribe and acceptance of the same during trap. 3. PW2 accompanied PW1 on the date of trap after Ex.P6 First mediators Report relating to pre-trap proceedings. It is evidence of PW2 that after entering into the municipal office, PW1 went to one table to one person and that he (PW2) stayed at some distance and that PW1 kept the amount on the table and gave hand shake to that person. It is contended by the Special Public Prosecutor that evidence of PW2 reveals that PW1 paid the tainted cash MO.1 to the accused by way of placing the same on his table to his knowledge. PW2 did not say that he heard the talk between PW1 and the accused during the course of trap. He is silent with regard to the accused making any demand for bribe from PW1 during the trap. In case PW1 made any payment of Rs.600/- to the accused as voluntary payment without any demand, it may not amount to passing of bribe. PW1 himself did not say that he paid any amount to the accused during the course of trap. 4. It is contended by the Special Public Prosecutor that Ex.P8, second mediators report relating to post-trap proceedings and the evidence of PW3, who is the mediator and PW7, who is the trap laying officer, are to the effect that MO.1 tainted cash was seized from a book on the table of the accused. PW1 did not say that he gave MO.1 tainted cash to the accused during the course of trap. PW2 deposed that PW1 placed the cash on the table of the accused. PW2 was also treated as hostile to the prosecution. In the absence of proof of demand for bribe and acceptance of the bribe in pursuance of the demand, the question of attracting liability under Section 7 of the Act or under Section 13 of the Act may not arise at all. The presumption under Section 20(1) of the Act also does not come into play in the absence of proof of demand and acceptance of bribe. The prosecution was not able to preserve the evidence of trap and present the same successfully before the trial Court. Having regard to the evidence on record, the lower Court rightly recorded finding of not guilty against the accused. There are no circumstances to come to a different conclusion in this appeal. 5. Accordingly, the Criminal Appeal is dismissed. _____________________________ SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU, J Dated:22.06.2011 ysk THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU CRIMINAL APPEAL No.1545 of 2004 DATED:22.06.2011 ysk