JUDGMENT :

The State represented by Lokayukta Police, Gadag preferred this appeal aggrieved by the impugned judgment of acquittal dated 21.02.2011 passed in Special SVC.CC.No.3/2006 on the file of learned District and Sessions Judge, Gadag (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 Act’ for the sake of brevity).

2. Brief facts of the case of the prosecution are that, P.W.2-the informant was the Editor of “Kranthi Sandesh” weekly news paper. The informant had filed a complaint against one Mr.Manjunath Abbigeri, which was registered in Crime No.105/2002 and a counter complaint was registered by the said Mr.Manjunath Abbigeri against the informant, which was registered in Crime No.106/2002.

Both the cases were pending before the Learned J.M.F.C.-I at Gadag, where the accused was working as Assistant Public Prosecution (for short ‘the APP’ for the sake of brevity). It is the contention of the prosecution that the accused demanded illegal gratification of Rs.2,000/-from the informant and received in all Rs.800/-on various dates. Again he demanded Rs.1,000/-promising the informant to get him acquitted in the case that was registered against him. As the informant was not willing to pay the illegal gratification, he lodged the first information with Lokayukta Police on 15.10.2004. The pre-trap procedures were conducted in the presence of two independent panchas and thereafter, the complainant proceeded to the office of the accused situated within the Court premises at Gadag, along with the shadow witness and met the accused. It is the further contention of prosecution that the accused again demanded an amount of Rs.1,000/-and the informant paid Rs.1,000/-i.e., the currency notes which were entrusted to him by the Investigating Officer which were smeared with phenolphthalein powder. After the accused accepting the illegal gratification of Rs.1,000/-, the informant came out of the office of the accused and gave signal to the Investigating Officer, who immediately came to the spot along with second pancha and trapped the accused. The illegal gratification that was received by the accused was recovered from him at the spot. Trap panchanama was drawn and explanation of the accused was received in writing. After further investigation, Lokayukta Police filed charge sheet against the accused for the above said offences contending that the accused being a public servant working as APP in J.M.F.C.-I Court at Gadag demanded and accepted Rs.1,000/-from the informant to discharge his official duty by falsely promising the informant that he will see the matter is ended in acquittal, thereby, the accused had demanded and accepted the illegal gratification and misused his official capacity as an APP and committed misconduct.

3. The Learned Special Judge took cognizance of the offences and the accused was summoned to appear before the Court. The accused represented by his Advocate appeared before the Court and pleaded not guilty for the charges leveled against him for the above said offences. He claimed to be tried for the charges. The prosecution examined P.Ws.1 to 7 and got marked Exs.P.1 to 22 and identified M.Os.1 to 18 in support of its contention. 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 therefore the impugned Judgment was passed acquitting the accused for the above said offences after extending benefit of doubt. Being aggrieved by the Judgment of acquittal passed by the Trial Court, the State represented by Lokayukta Police, Gadag preferred this appeal.

4. Heard Sri Anil Kale, learned counsel for appellant-State-Lokayukta and Sri K.L.Patil, learned counsel for the respondent/accused and perused the materials including the Trial Court