THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU CRIMINAL APPEAL No.1537 of 2004 BETWEEN: State: Range Inspector, Anti-Corruption Bureau, Vijayawada Range, Guntur. … Appellant AND Sri K.Prasada Rao … Respondent THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU CRIMINAL APPEAL No.1537 of 2004 JUDGMENT: The respondent/accused was acquitted by the Special Judge for SPE and ACB Cases, Vijayawada in C.C.No.2 of 1996 by judgment dated 17-03-2004, of the charges under Sections 7 and 13 (1) (d)/13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (in short, the Act). 2. The accused was working as Village Administrative Officer of Kovelamudi group of villages in Vatticherukuru Mandal of Guntur District. 3. PW.1 was sanctioned loan of Rs.48,700/- under a scheme for doing business. Backward Classes Corporation, Guntur, issued application through Mandal Development Officer, Vatticherukuru to PW.1 for re-submitting the application for release of margin money and term loan as per the said scheme. It is alleged that the accused demanded PW.1 for a bribe of Rs.500/- for certifying the Caste and issuing Income Certificate in the application and for recommending for issuing of Land Enjoyment Certificate favourably. PW.1 thereupon gave Ex.P-2 report to the Inspector, Anti Corruption Bureau (ACB) Guntur, against the accused. The Deputy Superintendent of Police, ACB, Vijayawada Range, arranged a trap for the accused on 29-04- 1995. It is alleged that the trap was successful and the accused was caught redhanded with bribe amount of Rs.300/- covered by MO-3. Ex.P-17 is the mediators report relating to pre-trap proceedings. Ex.P-18 is the mediators report for post trap proceedings. There is no dispute about the accused receiving MO-3 tainted cash of Rs.300/- from PW.1 at the time of trap. It is the explanation of the accused that he did not demand any bribe and that PW.1 paid MO-3 cash of Rs.300/- to him for the purpose of procuring Encumbrance Certificate and other Certificates. 4. During trial in the lower court, the defacto- complainant/PW.1 turned hostile to the prosecution. PW.2, who is an accompanying witness for PW.1 also turned hostile to the prosecution. They did not support the prosecution case with regard to the alleged demand of bribe for issuing of Caste Certificate and Income Certificate and for recommending for issue of Land Enjoyment Certificate. The trap laying officer viz., the Deputy Superintendent of Police, ACB, Vijayawada, could not be examined in the lower court as he was in a critical health condition. PW.7 is the Inspector of Police, ACB, who accompanied the trap laying officer. PW.6 is one of the mediators in Exs.P-17 and 18. PWs.6 and 7 spoke to the details of pre-trap proceedings covered by Ex.P-17 as well as post-trap proceedings covered by Ex.P-18 through which, MO3 tainted cash of Rs.300/- was seized by the trap laying officer from the possession of the accused. In Ex.P-18 itself it was noted that the accused gave spot explanation during post trap proceedings to the effect that he received the amount for procuring Encumbrance Certificate etc. for PW.1 for being enclosed along with his application for release of loan and subsidy amount. PWs.1 and 2 gave evidence in tune with the said spot explanation given by the accused and incorporated in Ex.P-18. 5. It is contended by the Special Public Prosecutor that explanation offered by the accused is incorrect inasmuch as Ex.P-12 Encumbrance Certificate was obtained long prior to the date of trap. It is pointed out that the date of trap was 29-04-1995 whereas Ex.P-12 Encumbrance Certificate was dated 20-04-1995. In my opinion, falsity of the defence version will not prove truth of the prosecution version. It is for the prosecution to prove that there was demand for bribe for doing the official favour and that the accused received the tainted cash by way of acceptance of the bribe amount. In the absence of proof of the said requirements of law, it cannot be said that the prosecution had proved its case. It is pointed out that PW.1 in the initial instance deposed that the accused demanded bribe of Rs.400/- for completing his work. But, PW.1 did not adhere to the said version. In examination in chief itself, PW.1 stated that the accused asked him to pay the amount for procuring Encumbrance Certificate and other requisite forms and that he told the accused that he brought Rs.300/- and handed over the said sum of Rs.300/- to the accused for procuring necessary Encumbrance Certificate and other forms. PW.1 further deposed that during post trap proceedings, he informed to ACB authorities that the accused neither demanded nor received any bribe amount and that he paid Rs.300/- towards expenditure for procuring document. In the absence of proof of demand and acceptance of bribe, demonstrating falsity of the defence version, will not advance the prosecution case. 6. It is contended by the Special Public Prosecutor that PWs.1 and 2 gave Exs.P-3 and P-10 statements under Section 164 Cr.P.C. before the Magistrate in support of the prosecution case. But, Exs.P-3 and P-10 are not substantive pieces of evidence in law. They can be used only for the purpose of contradicting evidence of the respective makers thereof when they are examined in Court. So, Exs.P-3 and P- 10 are not helpful to the prosecution to prove its case. 7. In the absence of proof of demand and acceptance of bribe by the accused from PW.1, mere recovery of MO-3 tainted cash of Rs.300/- from the possession of the accused is not sufficient to attract the presumption under Section 20 (1) of the Act. (See Banarsi Dass Vs. State of Haryana[1]). 8. In the light of the above state of affairs, the lower court is justified in recording acquittal of the accused. 9. In the result, the Criminal Appeal is dismissed. ____________________________ SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU, J Dated: 20-06-2011 Prv [1] AIR 2010 SUPREME COURT 1589