Inconsistent evidence regarding demand and acceptance of illegal gratification led to the decision not to interfere with the acquittal.

JUDGMENT

1. This appeal is filed by the appellant/complainant being aggrieved by the judgment and order of acquittal dtd. 7/6/2011 in Spl.Case No.173/2008 on the file of the IV Addl. District and Sessions Judge (Special Judge), Belagavi wherein the Trial Court acquitted the accused for the offence under Sec. 7, 13(1)(d) read with Sec. 34 of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (for short, 'the Act').

2. Briefly stated facts of the case are that:

The complainant Patreppa Shivalingappa Radaratti, resident of Ujjinakoppa Ramadurga Taluk of Belagavi District had dug bore well in his land bearing Sy.No.26. He has obtained electrical supply for the said bore well.

A transformer was sanctioned to the said bore well and it was under the repair. The complainant has approached HESCOM authority and asked them to get it repaired. The work was not attended even after three months was over. Being frustrated, the complainant approached accused who was working as Junior Engineer (Electrical), Katkol Sub-Division and requested him that the transformer was went out of order and asked him to get it repaired. The complainant was directed to pay the arrears of electricity charges to get a new transformer installed. It is the allegation of the complainant that the accused has demanded a bribe of Rs.6,000.00 to get the new transformer installed. After negotiation, it was settled for Rs.5,500.00. The complainant was not interested to pay the said amount to the accused. Hence, he approached Lokayukta Police Station, Belagavi and requested to take suitable action against the accused. Accordingly, a trap was arranged by the Lokayukta Police and directed the complainant to approach the accused and to pay the illegal gratification to the accused. Thereafter, the accused along with shadow witness went to the office of the accused and paid the amount of Rs.5,500.00. The accused after receiving the amount, kept in his pant pocket. At that time, Lokayukta Police have apprehended the accused and a trap panchanama was drawn and a case came to be registered for the offence under Sec. 7, 13(1) (d) read with 13(2) of the Act. After investigation, charge sheet was submitted by the complainant-Police.

3. In order to prove the case, the prosecution has examined in all 8 witnesses as PW-1 to PW-8 and also got marked 24 documents as Ex.P-1 to Ex.P-24 and 9 material objects were marked. The accused on his behalf examined two witnesses as DW-1 and DW-2 and he has not marked any documents.

4. The Trial Court after appreciating the oral and documentary evidence, acquitted the accused holding that the prosecution has failed to prove the case. The prosecution-Lokayukta being aggrieved by the judgment of acquittal, preferred this appeal.

5. Heard Sri Santosh B. Malagoundar, learned counsel for appellant and Sri Vijay K. Naik and Sri M.J. Peerjade, learned counsel for respondent.

6. Sri Santosh B. Malagoudar, learned counsel for the appellant submits that the judgment and order of acquittal passed by the trial Court is erroneous and not in accordance with law and therefore, it is liable to be set aside.

7. It is further submitted that the Trial Court ought to have considered the other circumstances and also the evidence of shadow witness and the panch witnesses. The evidence of official witnesses and independent witnesses like shadow witness and co-panch witness assumes significance and conviction can also be recorded on the basis of their evidence. Ignoring in considering their evidence led the impugned judgment be passed. It is further submitted that, the amount has been seized from the accused in presence of panchas and Ex.P-24 FSL report clearly indicates that 'the presence of phenolphthalein is detected in both the right and left hand finger washes of the accused when it was washed'.

8. It is further submitted that the Trial Court has failed to raise the presumption available under Sec. 20 of the Act. Therefore, the judgment and order of acquittal passed by the trial court is