The necessity of proving both the demand and acceptance of bribe money as a prerequisite for conviction under the Prevention of Corruption Act was established, emphasizing that mere recovery of tainted money is insufficient without corroborative evidence of demand.

JUDGMENT

1. Appellant/accused feeling aggrieved by judgment on the file of IV Additional District and Sessions Judge (PCA) Belgaum, in Special Case No.164/2011, dtd. 30/11/2013 preferred this appeal.

2. Parities to the appeal are referred with their ranks as assigned in the Trial Court for the sake of convenience.

3. The factual matrix leading to the case of prosecution can be stated in nutshell to the effect that property bearing No.89 of Santi-Bastwad was standing in the name of father of complainant CW-12 Peeraji Gundu Desurkar and as per decree of Prl.Senior Civil Judge and JMFC in OS No.50/2006 was ordered to be mutated in the name of complainant Nagendra Desurkar. Accused was working as secretary in Gram Panchayat Santi-Bastwad village. On 3/7/2009 at 3.30 P.M complainant approached accused for mutating his name to the said property. Accused being public servant demanded illegal gratification of Rs.2, 000.00. On 24/7/2009 in between 12.25 PM to 1.30 PM the accused at his office in Santi-Bastwad village demanded and accepted illegal gratification of Rs.2, 000.00 other than legal remuneration for discharging his official duty for mutating the name of complainant. It is further alleged that accused by abusing his position as public servant in order to discharge his duty obtained pecuniary advantage to the tune of Rs.2, 000.00 for himself and thereby committed criminal misconduct. On these allegations, the Investigating Officer after completion of investigation filed the charge sheet.

4. In response to summons, accused appeared through counsel. The Trial Court on being prima facie satisfied of the charge sheet material framed charges against accused for the offences alleged against him. Accused pleaded not guilty and claim to be tried. Prosecution to prove the allegations made against accused relied on the evidence of PW-1 to 11 and the documents Ex.P.1 to 35, so also got identified MO. Nos.1 to 9.

5. On closure of the prosecution evidence, the statement of accused under Sec. 313 of Cr.P.C. came to be recorded. Accused denied all incriminating material evidence appearing against him and claimed false case is filed. The Trial Court after appreciation of evidence on record convicted the accused for the offences alleged against him and imposed sentence as per order of sentence.

6. Appellant/accused challenged judgement of conviction and order of sentence contending that Trial Court did not appreciate the evidence on record in the light of defence of accused. There is no any acceptable evidence to prove the demand and acceptance of illegal gratification and the evidence of complainant PW-2 is totally unreliable. The proof of demand and acceptance of illegal gratification is sine qua non to prove the offences alleged against accused. The mere proof of recovery of tainted money from the possession of accused or from his table without proof of any demand no conviction can be sustained for the offences alleged against accused. The evidence of PW-9 co-panch to the entrustment panchanama Ex.P.3 and trap panchanama Ex.P.17, so also the evidence of investigating officer PW.11 cannot be of any assistance to the case of prosecution to prove demand and acceptance of illegal gratification, since their evidence is based on the disclosure said to have been made by complainant PW-2. PW-10 who was working in the same office of accused and issued the receipt Ex.P.29 is proper person to speak on the alleged demand and acceptance of bribe money, but he has not supported the case of prosecution. Therefore, virtually there is no any evidence on record to prove the alleged demand and acceptance of illegal gratification as alleged by the prosecution. The Trial Court without appreciating the factual and legal aspect on the basis of evidence on record proceeded to hold the accused guilty for the offences alleged against him on erroneous recording of reasonings. Therefore, prayed for allowing the appeal and to set aside the judgment of conviction and orde