Point of Law: When clouds of doubt arises on the part of the prosecution, the benefit of doubt is always accrued on the part of the accused alone, which is the cardinal principle of criminal justice delivery system.

JUDGMENT :

This is a classic appeal by challenging the judgment of conviction and order of sentence rendered by the trial Court in Spl.C.No.72/2006 dated 20.12.2011 convicting the accused for the offence punishable under Sections 7, 13(1)(d) r/w 13(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. The accused was sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for three years and to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/-and rigorous imprisonment for four years and to pay fine of Rs.5,000/-with default clause for the offence punishable under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) r/w 13(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act 1988.

2. Whereas learned counsel for the appellant seeking to consider the grounds as urged in this appeal and consequently, to set-aside the judgment of conviction and order of sentence rendered by the trial Court relating to the aforesaid offences amongst the grounds urged therein.

3. Heard, learned counsel Sri H.C.Shivaramu for the appellant and learned Spl.PP Sri Venkatesh S.Arbatti for respondent – Lokayukta. Perused the judgment of conviction and order of sentence rendered by the trial Court in Spl.C.No.72/2006 dated 20.12.2011.

4. The factual matrix of the appeal are as under:

It is transpired in the case of the prosecution that the accused being the public servant whereby serving as Taluk Social Welfare Officer in Kunigal Taluk, Tumkur District and alleging that he demanded a bribe of Rs.4,000/-from C.W.1 namely Kumar. Based upon his complaint criminal law was set into motion by recording the FIR as per Ex.P6. Subsequent to that the investigating officer conducted pre-trap mahazar as per Ex.P3 and trap mahazar at Ex.P4. But these mahazars have been conducted by the investigating officer in the presence of PW.2, PW.3 and PW.4 and also it bears the signature of PW.2 in both these mahazars. Ex.P3, the pre-trap mahazar has been conducted by the investigating officer in the presence of panch witnesses.

The demonstration mahazar by the investigating officer was conducted in the presence of PW.2, PW.3 and PW.4. The currency notes i.e., 40 notes of Rs.100/-denomination have been produced by PW.2 – Kumar who is a complainant as per Ex.P2 and based upon the production of currency notes, one of the team members applied phenolphthalein powder on both the side of currency notes and also held demonstration in the presence of panch witness as PWs.3 and 4.

Subsequent to conducting demonstration mahazar as per Ex.P3, the investigating officer has lead the team to the office of the accused and after successful raid he drew the trap mahazar as Ex.P4 and laid the charge sheet against the accused before the Court having jurisdiction.

Subsequent to laying of the charge sheet, the charges were framed against the accused for the aforesaid offences and the accused has declined the charges of the offences. Accordingly, plea of the accused has been recorded.

Subsequent to framing of charge, the prosecution has let in evidence by subjecting to examination PWs.1 to 10 and got marked Exs.P1 to P12 inclusive of M.O.1 to 10. Subsequent to closure of evidence the accused was subjected to examination as contemplated under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. for incriminating evidence appearing against him and whereby the accused denied the truth of evidence of prosecution and the same has been recorded. Subsequently, the accused was called upon to adduce any defence evidence as contemplated under Section 233 of Cr.P.C.

Subsequent to closure of evidence, heard the arguments advanced by the prosecution and the defence counsel and being convinced by the evidence of prosecution convicting the accused for the offence punishable under Sections 7, 13(1)(d) r/w 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. It is this judgment of conviction which has been challenged under this appeal by urging various grounds.

5. Whereas learned counsel for the appellant contends that PW.1 – G.K.Gurani who is the sanctioning authority and he accorded sanction as per Ex.P1 and this sanction has been made to prosecute the cas