JUDGMENT :

The appellant faced trial for the offences punishable under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act,1988 (referred to as ‘Act’ for short) as accused no.2 in Spl. Case No.19/2007 on the file of III Addl. District and Sessions Judge, Mysore. The court acquitted him of the offence under Section 7, but convicted him for the offence under Section 13(1)(d) r/w 13(2) of the Act and sentenced him to simple imprisonment for a period of one year and fine of Rs.10,000/with a default sentence period of three months. Hence this appeal by accused no.2.

2. The prosecution case is that PW.1 K.Ramaswamy, his children and brothers made an application to accused No.1 i.e., the Assistant Commissioner of Mysore SubDivision seeking conversion of their agricultural lands into nonagricultural purpose. PW1 alleged that accused no.1 demanded of him a bribe of Rs.1,50,000/for passing conversion order and pursuant to said demand, PW1 gave him Rs.30,000/and assured him of paying the balance. Thereafter PW1 approached the Lokayukta Police, Mysore and made a report to the latter about the demand made by accused no.1 for bribe. They laid a trap on 21.02.2000. On that day when PW1 approached accused no.1 with money of Rs.20,000/, the latter asked him (PW1) to hand over that money to accused No.2 who was working as second division assistant in his office. Accordingly PW1 handed over that money to him and immediately the latter was trapped. When phenolphthalein test was conducted, his hand wash answered positive for the presence of phenolphthalein and therefore both were charge sheeted by the Lokayukta Police.

3. Accused no.1 came to be discharged by the court below because the prosecution had not obtained sanction from the government. The prosecution did not think of applying for sanction once again and accused no.1 was not prosecuted at all thereafter. Only accused No.2 faced trial.

4. The learned judge of the trial court has recorded reasons that although accused no.2 did not demand PW1 for money, he was acting as a front man for accused no.1 for the purpose of attending the official work of passing conversion order. Seizure of tainted currency notes from accused No.2 would prove his criminal misconduct which is an offence envisaged under Section 13(1(d) of the Act. Discharge of accused no.1 cannot be a ground for acquitting accused no.2 since there is evidence to show that he had joined hands with accused no.1 for receiving bribe from PW.1.

5. Assailing the findings of the trial court, Sri. P.N.Hegde, learned counsel for accused No.2 argued that the trial court has grossly committed an error in convicting accused No.2. The prosecution case is that it was accused no.1 who demanded for bribe; accused No.2 only received the money. There was no demand by him for bribe. In fact he did not know that accused no.1 had demanded for bribe. Ex.P.3 contains explanation given by him soon after the trap and it indicates that PW1 forcibly thrusted the money into his pants’ pocket. The Lokayukta police thereafter asked him to remove the money from his pants’ pocket and therefore the hand wash and the pants wash answered positively for phenolphthalein test. For establishing an offence under Section 13(1)(d) of the Act which is punishable under Section 13(2) of the Act, the prosecution should prove that accused No.2 demanded for bribe. If he received money without any knowledge that there was demand by accused no.1, it cannot be said that he consciously received money by way of illegal gratification on behalf of accused no.1. The trial court acquitted him of the offence under Section 7 of the Act and for this reason he should not have been held guilty of the offence of criminal misconduct. He also tried to point out that there is no consistency in the evidence of PW1 and PW2; and that PW2 appears to have made improvement while giving evidence. The whole trap therefore should be disbelieved. Therefore it was his argument that