Point of Law: Once acceptance of the money is established, accused has to rebut said presumption by acceptable evidence. The explanation given by accused in this case regarding acceptance of amount and the evidence led in that regard was not acceptable.

JUDGMENT :

1. Aggrieved by the order of conviction and sentence passed against him for the offences punishable under Sections 7, 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (‘PC Act’ for short), the appellant has preferred the above appeal.

2. The appellant was prosecuted in Special Case No.36/2007 on the file of the Special Court and III Additional District & Sessions Judge, Mysuru for the offences punishable under Sections 7, 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of the PC Act on the basis of the charge sheet filed by Lokayukta police, Mysuru in Crime No.11/2006 of their Police Station.

3. The said case was registered against the appellant on the basis of the complaint of PW.3 Nagendra Prasad as per Ex.P6. It was alleged in the complaint that the appellant being the Revenue Inspector in Hullahalli, Nada Kacheri, Nanjanagudu Taluk demanded illegal gratification of Rs.500/-to issue agriculturist’s certificate to his aunt Chinnamma. On receiving the complaint, PW.4 registered the first information report as per Ex.P7 against the appellant. He said to have conducted the entrustment mahazar as per Ex.P1 in the presence of PWs.1 and 2 the mahazar witnesses. Thereafter, PW.4 conducted alleged trap proceedings.

4. During the trap proceedings, the appellant said to have received bait money MO.5 and kept the same in his shirt pocket. On receiving pre-arranged signal, the trap squad caught hold of the appellant and he produced the bait money from his shirt pocket and the same was recovered. The appellant gave explanation as per Ex.P3. PW.4 submitted the records for grant of sanction. PW.5 the then Deputy Commissioner of Mysuru District granted sanction as per Ex.P11 to prosecute the appellant.

5. The trial Court on taking cognizance of the offences, tried the accused for the following charges;

“That, you accused being a public servant working as Revenue Inspector in Nada kacheri, Hullahalli, Nanjangud Taluk, demanded Rs.500/-from C.W.1 Nagendraprasad, who, on behalf of CW.4 Smt.Chinnamma, when enquired about Agricultural Certificate on 10.07.2006, for issuing the said Certificate and forced him to give the said amount on 11.07.2006 in the Office, and on 11.07.2006, pursuant to the said demand, you accused accepted a sum of Rs.500/-from CW.4 in your Office as illegal gratification other than legal remuneration as a motive or reward for showing official favour as noted above and thereby you have committed an offence punishable under Sec.7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, and within the cognizance of this Court.

That you accused being a public servant as stated above, on the aforesaid date, time and place and by misusing your official position as public servant and by corrupt or illegal means, obtained pecuniary advantage to an extent of Rs.500/-for yourself from CW.1 Nagendraprasad as a motive for the act referred to above and thereby you are guilty of criminal misconduct within the meaning of Sec.13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, which is punishable under Sec.13(2) of the said Act, and within the cognizance of this Court.”

6. The trial Court on hearing the parties, by the impugned judgment and order convicted the appellant for the offences punishable under Sections 7, 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of the PC Act and sentenced him to simple imprisonment of one year and fine of Rs.10,000/-with default sentence.

7. The trial Court based the conviction on the following grounds:

(i) In Ex.P3 the explanation that the appellant has admitted recovery of bait money from his custody. But he failed to give plausible explanation for the same;

(ii) In such event the presumption under Section 20 of the PC Act to the effect that money was accepted as illegal gratification arises;

(iii) The evidence of PW.3 regarding demand and acceptance was corroborated by the evidence of PW.2 the shadow witness; &

(iv) The evidence of PW.5 shows that the sanction was issued on due application of mind.

8. Sri V.Manjunath Prasad, l