JUDGMENT :

Appellant-State represented by Lokayukta Police, Belgaum is before this Court assailing the impugned judgment of acquittal dated 01.07.2011 passed in Special Case No.48 of 2009 on the file of IV Additional District and Special Judge, Belgaum (for short ‘the Trial Court’), acquitting the respondent-accused for the offences punishable under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1998 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the PC Act’ for the sake of brevity).

2. Brief facts of the case are that, the informant Sri.Nurullakhan Meerakhan Pathan lodged the first information with Lokayukta Police, Belgaum against the accused stating that his wife lodged the complaint against him and his family members with Malmaruthi Police Station. After registering the complaint, the accused who was working as Assistant Sub Inspector IN the said police station, summoned the informant to the police station. Accordingly, the informant along with his friend Sadaruddin Mohamadgouse Majagavi visited Malmaruthi Police Station on 03.12.2007 and met the accused. The accused enquired about the facts of the case with the wife of the informant and her family members. But however, retained the informant in the police station, under the guise of settling the dispute between the two. He demanded Rs.30,000/-as illegal gratification. When the informant refused to pay the amount, the accused demanded to pay atleast Rs.10,000/-and threatened the informant that he will be put in the lockup. The informant paid Rs.1,000/ and informed that he will arrange for Rs.10,000/-within 10 days. Thereafter, the accused sent the informant to his house. on three or four times, the accused had called the informant insisting to pay Rs.10,000/-. He was also threatening the informant that he will be dragged to police station, if he fails to make payment. Therefore, he requested the Lokayukta police to register the case and to initiate legal action.

3. On the basis of this first information, Lokayukta police, Belgaum, registered Crime No.9 of 2008 against the accused for the offence punishable under Sections 7, 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of the PC Act. It is stated that pre-trap procedures were conducted and pre-trap mahazar was drawn. It is stated that Rs.10,000/-was entrusted to the informant after smearing it with phenolphthalein powder, with a direction to the informant to approach the accused and if he demands the amount, to pay the entrusted amount as illegal gratification. The shadow witness was directed to accompany the informant and to observe the developments while meeting the accused. It is stated that the informant met the accused along with the entrusted amount and the accused demanded and accepted the said amount as illegal gratification. The hand wash of the accused was done. The tainted money was recovered from the possession of the accused. The trap panchanama was drawn in the presence of panchas.

4. The Investigating Officer after investigation filed charge sheet against the accused for the above said offences. The Special Court took cognizance of the offence and summoned the accused to appear before the Court. The accused appeared before the Trial Court in Special Case (Lokayukta) No.48 of 2009 and pleaded not guilty for the charges leveled against him.

5. The prosecution examined PWs.1 to 12 and got marked Exs.P1 to 29 and identified Mos1 to 9 in support of its contention. The accused denied all the incriminating materials available on record in his statement recorded under Section 313 of Cr.P.C., but has not chosen to lead any evidence in support of his defence. The Trial Court after taking into consideration all these materials on record came to the conclusion that the prosecution is not successful in proving the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt, for the offences stated above and therefore, the accused is entitled for acquittal. Accordingly, the impugned judgment of acquittal came to the passed. Being aggr