Demand and acceptance of illegal gratification is a sine qua non for constituting an offence under the Prevention of Corruption Act, and mere recovery of tainted money is not sufficient to convict the accused. The evidence must establish the demand and acceptance beyond all reasonable doubt, and the prosecution must provide corroborative evidence to support the allegations.

JUDGMENT :

This appeal is filed by the appellant/accused challenging the judgment and order of conviction and sentence rendered by the Principal Sessions Judge & Special Judge at My sore in Spl.Case No.140/2004 dated 29.10.2010, convicting the appellant/accused for the offence punishable under Sections 7, 13(1)(d) r/w Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.

The accused was sentenced to undergo imprisonment for a period of two years and to pay fine of Rs.5,000/- for the offence punishable under Section 7 and in default to pay the fine amount, to undergo imprisonment for six months. For the offence punishable under Section 13(2), the accused was sentenced to undergo imprisonment for a period of three years and to pay fine of Rs.15,000/- and in default to pay the fine amount, to undergo imprisonment for one year. The sentences were ordered to run concurrently.

2. Heard Sri Chandrashekar. P., learned counsel for Smt. Vijetha R.Naik, learned counsel appearing for appellant and Sri B.S. Prasad, learned Spl.PP for respondent – Lokayukta.

3. The factual matrix of the appeal is as under:

It is stated in the complaint that on 22.12.2003, accused said to a public servant working as Deputy Commissioner of Excise, Mysore, demanded Rs.1,50,000/- from one Muneer Ahamad who is the complainant, as an illegal gratification other than legal remuneration for showing official favour, that is to issue transport permit for transporting 1000 Metric Tonnes of Molasses. It is alleged that an amount of Rs.85,000/-was already paid and the accused was demanding remaining amount of Rs.65,000/-to issue the remaining permit for three factories or otherwise he will not issue the permit and because of which they have incurred heavy loss and damages in their business. The complainant not interested to give the bribe money demanded by the accused, lodged a complaint before the Inspector General Police, Karnataka Lokayukta at Bangalore as per Ex.P6. Along with the complaint he also produced the bribe amount of Rs.65,000/- in the denomination of 36 currency notes of Rs.1,000 and 58 currency notes of Rs.500/-. Subsequent to filing of complaint, the FIR was recorded as per Ex.P16. Thereafter, the case was handed over to PW.5 – A.N.Rajanna, who was working as Dy.SP at Lokayukta office of Bangalore by the IGP and he was instructed to conduct the investigation. Accordingly, he registered the case and sent FIR to Special Court at Bangalore and laid charge sheet against the accused by collecting the material evidence. He secured PW.1 – A.N.Ramesh and one Gopal to act as a panch witnesses. In the presence of those panch witnesses, PW.5 / Investigating Officer conducted the pretrap mahazar as per Ex.P2. During the pretrap mahazar, PW.2 complainant had produced MO.6 tainted currency notes amounting to Rs.65,000/- . In their presence the demonstration was held. The sodium carbonate solution was prepared in the presence of panch witnesses and phenolphthalein powder was applied on the currency notes. PW.5 briefed those panch witnesses and the complainant, that if the accused who is said to be the Government servant when comes into contact with the tainted currency notes, his fingers will be washed with sodium carbonate solution which turns into pink colour.

Subsequent to drawing of the pretrap mahazar as per Ex.P2, PW.5 led the team consisting the other staff members in a police jeep to Mysore where the accused was working as a Deputy Commissioner of Excise in order to lay the trap. As per the instructions of Lokayuktha Police and in the presence of PW.1 who is a shadow witness, the accused received amount from the complainant from his right hand and exchanged the said amount to his left hand. Again he took the said amount to his right hand and kept the said amount in his right side pant pocket and thereafter, the complainant came outside and gave a signal and at that time, the brother of the complainant was with the accused and immediately, the Lokayuktha Police ca