The proof of demand and acceptance of illegal gratification is essential for establishing the offence under the Prevention of Corruption Act, and the prosecution must prove the case beyond all reasonable doubt.

JUDGMENT :

This appeal arises out of the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 22.03.2013 passed by Principal Sessions (Special) Judge, Bellary in Spl.Case No.22/2010 wherein, the accused was convicted for the offence punishable under Sections 7 r/w 13(2) and 13(1)(d) r/w 13(2) of Prevention of Corruption, Act, 1988 (for short hereinafter referred to as ‘PC Act, 1988).

2. The appellant was the accused before trial court. He will be referred as such, in this appeal for convenience.

3. Brief case of the prosecution is that the appellant/accused was working as Medical Officer in Primary Health Centre, at Tambrahalli in Bellary district. Sri. V.N.Joshi complainant was working as Health Instructor under the accused in the Primary Health Centre. He was posted to Sidaginamola Primary Health Centre, at Bellary Taluk on O.O.D. It is further alleged that complainant has passed SSLC examination in Kannada language and on account of Government policy, an additional increment was sanctioned to the complainant. The accused was the drawing officer of complainant and for the purpose of preparing bills regarding payment of arrears of salary in view of complainant’s eligibility for an increment from 1972. It is the further case of the prosecution that the accused/appellant informed the complainant over phone that on preparing the arrears of his salary, a cheque for Rs.1,83,020/was received from the Government. To handover the said cheque to the complainant, the accused demanded bribe of Rs.15,000/. In this regard, the Lokayukta police after receipt of complaint dated 23.07.2008 lodged by PW.1/complainant, laid the trap. They first went to the hospital wherein accused asked PWs.1 and 2 to come to his house. Thereafter, PW.1/complainant along with the shadow witness PW.2 went to the house of accused. The appellant received the alleged bribe amount and kept in his pant pocket. The complainant gave a signal to Lokayukta police, then they came inside house and caught hold the accused, recovered the alleged bribe amount from the possession of accused. The pant pocket of accused was washed in sodium carbonate solution and the same turned to pink color. After completing investigation, the investigating officer has filed charge sheet against the accused for the offences stated above.

4. The prosecution in all examined ten witnesses as PWs.1 to 10, got marked thirty four documents as per Exs.P1 to P34 and Ex.D1 was marked during the cross-examination of PW.2 and got identified twenty six material objects as per M.Os.1 to 26. Thereafter statement of accused as required under Section 313(1)(b) of Code of Criminal Procedure, (for short hereinafter referred to as ‘Cr.P.C.’) has been recorded. The accused denied the incriminating evidence appearing against him. He has stated that he has been falsely implicated in the case. Learned Special Judge, after hearing the arguments, convicted the accused for the offence punishable under Sections 7 r/w 13(2) and 13(1)(d) r/w 13(2) of P.C. Act, 1988 and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of two years and to pay a fine of Rs.10,000/- for the offence punishable under Section 7 r/w Section 13(2) of P.C. Act, 1988 and he was also sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of three years and to pay a fine of Rs.10,000/- for the offence punishable under Section 13(1)(d) r/w Sec.13(2) of P.C. Act, 1988 which is now challenged in this appeal.

5. I have heard Sri. C.H.Jadhav, learned Senior counsel appearing for Sri. N.D.Gunde, learned counsel for appellant and Sri. Anil Kale, SPP for respondent.

6. Learned senior counsel for the appellant argued that the trial court has failed to appreciate both oral and documentary evidence in proper perspective. The ingredients of offence punishable under the provisions of P.C. Act, 1988, alleged against the accused are not at all proved. The trap itself was a preplaned. Learned counsel argued that PW.2 who is a shadow witness was asked to go to Lo