The prosecution must establish demand and acceptance of a bribe, and the trial court's view, if possible, cannot be interdicted by the appellate court.

JUDGMENT :

Rajendra Badamikar, J.

1. This appeal is filed by the State/Lokayukta under Sections 378(1) and 378(3) of Cr.P.C. against the judgment and order of acquittal passed by the Sessions and Special Judge, Koppal in Spl.Case (PC) No. 2/2008 dated 31.10.2011 whereby the sessions judge has acquitted the accused/respondent for the offence punishable under Sections 7, 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.

2. For the sake of convenience parties herein are referred to their original ranks occupied by them before the trial Court.

3. The brief factual matrix leading to the case are that the complainant is permanent resident of Kushtagi and he is doing the business of bricks furnace by the side of NH-13 Kushtagi and he is using the coolies to prepare the bricks. It is alleged that on 22.11.2007 at about 11.30 a.m., the Labour Inspector of Kushtagi i.e., accused has visited his bricks manufacturing furnace and one Hanumavva was working as a coolie and her sister 's daughter aged about 8-9 years was brought a child for breast feeding of Hanumavva. When the accused found the child, he has recorded the statement of the child on the ground that she is being used as a child labour in violation of the provisions of Child Labour (Prohibition and Regulation) Act, 1986 and went away by reporting that she is going to book a case against the complainant. Then the complainant went to the office of the accused in Kushtagi and requested the accused not to register a case under the Provisions of Child Labour (Prohibition and Regulation) Act, 1986 and it is alleged that at that time, accused has demanded bribe of Rs.5,000/-. It is alleged that the accused was not willing to pay the bribe and therefore, he went to Lokayuktha, Koppal and there police have handed over him a tape recorder and again he went to the office of the accused and expressed his inability to pay Rs.5,000/- and lastly she demanded bribe of Rs.2,000/- and she has received Rs.500/- on the same day itself. Then she also assured that if the balance of Rs.1500/- is paid she is not going to register a case against him and thus again on 26.11.2007, the complainant had been to Lokayuktha police station and he lodged a complaint as per Ex.P1. Thus on the basis of the complaint, crime was registered in Lokayuktha Police Station in crime No. 5/2007 for the offence punishable under Sections 7, 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and FIR came to be submitted to the Spl. Court. Then the Investigating Officer has secured two Panchas CWs.2 and 3 and in their presence the complainant has produced the bribe amount of Rs.1,500/- and the same was smeared with Phenolphthalein powder and the complainant was demonstrated how it is going to change its colour when the hands dealt with phenolphthalein powder dipped in sodium carbonate solution by drawing a entrustment mahazar.

4. Then the complainant along with Pancha No. 1 went to the office of the accused situated in Kushtagi while the raiding party followed them and there, complainant went inside the chamber of the accused and it is alleged there she demanded and accepted bribe of Rs.1,500/- and on the basis of the signal passed by the complainant, she was trapped and her hand wash was taken which has shown positive to Phenolphthalein test and also the bribe amount of Rs.1,500/- was also seized by drawing a seizure mahazar as per Ex.P3. Then the Investigating Officer has also recorded the statement of all the material witnesses and also after obtaining sanction, he has submitted the charge sheet against the accused. In the meanwhile, accused was produced before the learned special judge and was remanded to judicial custody and later on enlarged on bail.

5. After submission of the charge sheet as there are sufficient grounds to proceed against the accused the special judge has taken cognizance and he secured the presence of the accused. The charge was framed against the accused and same