The prosecution must prove the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubt, and the evidence of demand, acceptance, and recovery must be corroborated and consistent to establish the offense under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.

JUDGMENT :

Rajendra Badamikar, J.

The State through Lokayukta Police, Koppal has preferred this appeal under Section 378(1)(b) r/w section 378(3) of Cr.P.C., challenging the judgment and order of acquittal passed by the learned Sessions Judge and Special Judge, Koppal in Spl.Case(P.C.) No.1/2007 dated 12.08.2011 whereby he has acquitted the accused-respondent herein for the offences punishable under sections 7, 13(1)(d) r/w section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (for short "the Act ").

2. For the sake of convenience, parties herein are referred with the original ranks occupied by them before the Trial Court.

3. The facts leading to the case are that the respondent-accused is the stenographer working in the office of Assistant Commissioner, Koppal. That the complainant-Fakeerappa has lodged complaint with Lokayukta police. He is resident of Talabal village, Yelburga Taluk and he owns land bearing survey No.134/E measuring 4 acres 6 guntas and out of this land, 2 acres 3 guntas was wrongly mutated in the name of Shantavva W/o. Bhimappa Waddar in the year 2002. Hence, it is alleged that after getting knowledge of wrong entry, he approached the Assistant Commissioner, Koppal by filing appeal and the Assistant Commissioner passed order dated 28.02.2006 in favour of the complainant by directing the Tahsildar Yelburga to cancel the name of Smt. Shantavva and to enter the name of the complainant. That after passing the order, the file was with accused, who is stenographer cum P.S. to Assistant Commissioner Koppal and in order to send the file from office of the Assistant Commissioner to the office of the Tahsildar, the accused demanded bribe of Rs.5,000/-. It is further alleged that subsequently after negotiations, it was settled for Rs.4,000/- and as the complainant was not having any intention to pay the bribe amount, he lodged complaint on 17.05.2006 at 10.00 a.m. by approaching Lokayukta Police at Koppal. Then on the basis of the complaint, CW17 arranged for trap and he secured two government officials as Panchas and complainant has also produced the amount of Rs.4,000/- to be paid as bribe. The said amount was consisting of six notes of Rs.500/- and ten notes of Rs.100/- denominations and they were smeared with phenolphthalein powder and Pancha-I counted the notes and kept the same in the pocket of the complainant. The serial numbers of the notes were also recorded. Thereafter, the finger wash of Pancha-I were taken by dipping his hands in sodium carbonate solution, which has turned into pink colour. Then he explained the importance of phenolphthalein powder and how it reacts with sodium carbonate and complainant was given instructions to pay the amount only in case demand, and CW2-Chandrashekhar was directed to act as a shadow witness, while CW3/Dr.Anand was the other co-pancha. The entrustment mahazar was also drawn in this regard in the office as per Ex.P8.

4. Then the raiding party, along with the complainant and shadow witness came to the District Administration building at Koppal and there the complainant and shadow witness-CW2/Chandrashekhar went inside the office and other raiding party members were waiting for signal. It is alleged that at 1.15 p.m., the complainant came to the corridor and passed the signal as directed, and thereafter they reached the spot and the amount was recovered from the left pant pocket of the accused and his statement was also recorded. It is also alleged that his hand wash had shown positive to phenolphthalein test and the file was also secured from the chambers of Assistant Commissioner and same was also seized. Then trap being successful, a trap mahazar was drawn as per Ex.P9. Then the Trap Laying Officer (TLO) has also taken the outward and inward register copies, attendance certificates etc., then returned to Lokayukta office along with accused and accused was produced before the Court and initially he was remanded to judicial custody but subsequently, he was enlarged on bail. T