The necessity of proving both demand and acceptance of bribe as sine qua non for establishing offences under the Prevention of Corruption Act, along with the requirement for proper certification of electronic evidence for admissibility.

JUDGMENT

1. This appeal under Sec. 374(2) of Cr.PC is filed challenging the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dtd. 5/7/2016 passed by the learned Principal Sessions Judge, Kalaburagi, by which, the accused herein was convicted for the offences punishable under Ss. 7 and 13(1)(d) read with Sec. 13(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (for short 'PC Act') and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for a period of six months and to pay a fine of Rs.20, 000.00 for the offence punishable under Sec. 7 of the PC Act and to undergo imprisonment for a period of two years and to pay a fine of Rs.5, 000.00 for the offence under Sec. 13(1)(d) punishable under Sec. 13(2) of the PC Act.

2. The case of the prosecution in brief is as follows: The accused when working as Principal in the Government P.U. College at Nelogi, had demanded a sum of Rs.5, 000.00 to continue PW1 as guest lecturer. Since the complainant was not desirous of paying the gratification amount, he lodged the FIR with the Lokayukta Police. The Lokayukta police registered the FIR in Crime No.10/2009 under Ss. 7 and 13(1)(d) read with Sec. 13(2) of the PC Act.

3. The Lokayukta Police prepared a pre-trap (entrustment mahazar). Thereafter, the Lokayukta conducted a trap, and the appellant was found to have received a sum of Rs.3, 000.00 as gratification amount from PW1 in the presence of shadow witness - PW2, who was the witness to the trap panchanama, and seized the tainted money. The learned Sessions Judge framed the charge against the accused for the aforesaid offences, and the same was read over and explained to the accused, to which, he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

4. The prosecution to prove its case examined PWs.1 to 11 and exhibited the documents at Ex.P1 to 35 and the material objects at MOs.1 to 10.

5. After the evidence of prosecution was concluded, the incriminating circumstances found in the evidence of prosecution witnesses were put to the accused as contemplated under Sec. 313(1)(b) of Cr.PC. The accused denied the said incriminating circumstances as false, and stated that he has been falsely implicated for having not released one month salary to the complainant. The learned Sessions Judge, after examining the material evidence on record, and also the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the parties, framed the points for consideration, and recorded the finding that, the prosecution has established the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubt, and passed the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence.

6. The learned counsel for the appellant would submit that, in the absence of demand, which is sine quo non for constituting the offence punishable under the provisions of the PC Act, the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence is not sustainable in law. In support, he places reliance on the following decisions:

1) Digamber Vaishnav and another -vs- State of Chattisgarh (2019) 4 SCC 522 (para-14).

2) Mukthiar Singh -vs- State of Punjab (2017) 8 SCC 136 (paras-12, 13, 14 and 26).

3) Mr.S Arundath -vs- Karnataka Lokayuktha Police (2020 SCC OnLine Kar 3213 (para-9, 26 and 27).

4) K Shanthamma -vs- State of Telengana (2022) 4 SCC 574 (paras-10 and 11).

5) P Satyanarayana Murthy -vs- District Inspector of Police, State of Andhra Pradesh and another (2015) 10 SCC 152 (paras-19 to 23, 25 to 27).

6) N vijaykumar -vs- State of Tamil Nadu (2021) 3 SCC 687 (paras-26, 27).

7) B Jayaraj -vs- State of Andhra Pradesh (2014) 13 SCC 55 (paras-7 to 10).

8) Arjun Pandit Rao Khotkar -vs- Kailash Kushanrao Gorantyal and others (2020) 7 SCC 1 (paras-24, 25, 33, 34, 61, 73, 72.2, 82 and 84).

7. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondent - Lokayukta submits that, the evidence on record clearly establishes that, demand was made by the accused, and the tainted money was recovered from the accused. Hence, he submits that, the finding recorded by the learned Sessions Judge does not warrant any interference.

8. Cons