JUDGMENT :

The State of Karnataka represented by Lokayukta Police, Belagavi preferred this appeal aggrieved by the impugned judgment of acquittal dated 07.02.2011 passed in Special Case No.80/2007 on the file of learned IV Additional District Judge and Special Judge, Belagavi (for short ‘the Trial Court’) acquitting the respondent/accused for the offences punishable under Sections 7, 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the P.C. Act’ for the sake of brevity).

2. Brief facts of the case of prosecution are that, the informant-Jagadish Tigadi lodged the first information with Lokayukta Police, Belagavi on 01.12.2006 against the accused stating that the informant’s father-Sri Rajashekhar Tigadi was working as Typist in The Office of the Superintendent of Police, Belagavi, who died on 12.08.2006. He was having three K.G.I.D. policies. The mother of the informant-Smt.Mahadevi Tigadi applied for settlement of all the policies by submitting the application through the informant. The accused being the case worker in the K.G.I.D. Office at Belagavi had not attended her application. Informant met him on 30.11.2006, he informed the informant that work cannot be done if he simply meets him and demanded for Rs.4,000/-for settlement of those three K.G.I.D. policies and to issue the cheque in favour of the applicant-Smt Mahadevi Tigadi. The informant came back and lodged the first information with the Lokayukta Police on 01.12.2006 requesting to initiate action against the accused, who demanded the illegal gratification for discharge of his official duty. The first information was registered by Lokayukta Police in Crime No.16/2006 for the offences punishable under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of the P.C.Act.

3. It is stated that the entrustment mahazar was conducted in the presence of two panchas and a sum of Rs.4,000/-was entrusted to the informant with a direction to meet the accused along with the shadow witness. Accordingly, the informant met the accused along with shadow witness and enquired as to whether the application is attended or not? It is stated that the accused again demanded the illegal gratification of Rs.4,000/-. When the informant bargained with him, he agreed to receive Rs.3,500/-and received the currency notices which were entrusted under the entrustment panchanama. Thereafter, it is stated that the accused was trapped by Lokayukta Police in the presence of shadow witness and second pancha. His hands were washed in the sodium carbonate solution and both the hand wash turned into the pink colour and proved the presence of the phenolphthalein powder in it. The currency notes were recovered from the accused the same were entrusted to the informant during entrustment panchanama. It is stated that the accused has given his explanation for possessing the currency notes in question. A trap panchanama was drawn at the spot and after completing the investigation, the charge sheet was filed against the accused for the above said offences.

4. The Learned Special Judge took cognizance of the offences and the accused was summoned. The accused pleaded not guilty for the charges leveled against him. He claimed to be tried for the charges.

5. The prosecution examined P.Ws.1 to 8, got marked Exs.P.1 to 24 and identified M.Os.1 to 10 in support of its contention. The accused denied all the incriminating materials available on record. But in his statement recorded under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. has not chosen to lead any defence evidence in support of his contentions. The Trial Court after taking into consideration these materials on record came to the conclusion that the prosecution has failed to prove the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt and accordingly, accused was found not guilty for the offences punishable under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of P.C.Act and acquitted him. Aggrieved by the said Judgment of acquittal passed by the Tria