The main legal point established in the judgment is that the acceptance of illegal gratification without disclosing the completion of work constitutes criminal misconduct under Section 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.

A.S. PACHHAPURE, J.—The State by Lokayukta Police have filed this appeal challenging the acquittal of the respondent for the charge under Section 7, 13(1)(d) read with 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (hereinafter called as ‘the Act’ for short).

2. Sans unnecessary details, the prosecution version unfolded during the trial is as under:

It is the case of the prosecution that the respondent who was the public servant working as 2nd Division Surveyor in the office of the Assistant Director of Land Records Nagamangala demanded illegal gratification of Rs. 500/- from the complainant-Ramesh (P.W. 1) to measure Sy. No. 255 of Hullenahalli village and to issue a survey sketch. In pursuance of the demand made, it is claimed by the prosecution that on 18.2.2000 in between 10.45 a.m. and 11.00 a.m., the accused received the illegal gratification of Rs. 500/- and, therefore, is guilty of the offences referred to supra.

P.W. 1-Ramesh submitted the complaint at Ex. P1. P.W. 2 to P.W. 4 are the witnesses who were said to be present at the time of the entrustment mahazar Ex. P2. During the course of the trial, the prosecution examined P.Ws. 1 to 4 and got marked documents at Exs. P1 to P10 and M.Os. 1 to 10. The statement of accused was recorded under Section 313 Cr. P.C. He has taken the defence of total denial and claimed that the survey work was done much earlier to the date and there was no pending work of the complainant with him. He got marked Exs. D1 to D3 in the evidence of the prosecution witnesses.

The trial Court after hearing the prosecution and the Counsel for the accused and on appreciation of the material on record held that the prosecution has failed to prove the demand of remuneration of Rs. 500 from P.W. 1 for doing an official favour and that no work of the complainant was pending with the accused as on 18.2.2000. In the circumstances, it held that there was no question of showing any official favour to the complainant and hence it granted an order of acquittal. Aggrieved by the order of acquittal, the State by Lokayukta Police has preferred this appeal.

3. I have heard the learned Counsel for the appellant and also the respondent.

4. The points that arise for my consideration are:

(i) Whether the prosecution proves beyond reasonable doubt that the accused had demanded illegal gratification of Rs. 500/- from P.W. 1- Ramesh to do official favour?

(ii) Whether the prosecution has proved beyond reasonable doubt that the accused is guilty of criminal misconduct?

(iii) Whether the trial Court was justified in granting the order of acquittal?

5. It is the contention of the learned Counsel for the appellant that the trial Court has committed an error in granting the acquittal solely because the complainant turned hostile, though there was ample material on record about the receipt of illegal gratification by the accused-respondent.

So also it is his contention that even in the evidence of the complainant who has turned hostile, there is material to show that there was a demand for an amount of Rs. 500/- for giving the survey sketch (durasti patra) after survey of the land bearing Survey No. 255 of Hullenahalli village of the complainant. He submits that despite the fact that no work was pending with the accused on the date, the conduct of the accused in receiving the amount, of Rs. 500/- from the complainant without disclosing him that the file has been sent to Tahasildar or the Assistant Director of Land Records, amounts to criminal misconduct punishable under Section 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of the Act. On this aspect of the matter, the learned Counsel relied upon the decision of this Court reported in the case of Thammanna vs. State of Karnataka, ILR 2001 Kant. 3636.

6. The learned Counsel for the respondent submits that this is an appeal against acquittal and the Appellate Court will be slow in interfering with the orders of the acquittal and further he submits that even if a second view is possible, the one