The demand for illegal gratification is essential to constitute an offence under the Prevention of Corruption Act, and mere recovery of tainted money is insufficient to establish guilt without proof of demand and acceptance.

JUDGMENT

1. This Criminal Appeal is filed by the appellant-State, being aggrieved by the judgment and order dtd. 24/12/2010 in Spl.C.C. No.39/2004 on the file of the XXXII Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge and Special Judge for CBI Cases, Bangalore (CCH.34), wherein the Trial Court acquitted the respondent / accused for the offences punishable under Ss. 7, 13(1)(d) r/w Sec. 13(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (for short 'PC Act').

2. The rank of the parties in the Trial Court will be considered henceforth for convenience.

Brief facts of the case are as under:

3. It is the case of the prosecution that the accused being the public servant working in the capacity as Enforcement Officer in the Department of Employees' Provident Fund Commissioner, Mysuru, was authorized to recommend in settling the issues of M/s.VST Precision Components Ltd., Mysuru under the EPF Act. It is alleged that on 9/10/1997 and 17/10/1997, the accused by abusing his official position as a public servant, said to have demanded Rs.5, 000.00 as illegal gratification from the complainant to do some official favour to the complainant. The complainant being unhappy about the demand made by the accused, has approached the Lokayukta Police at the first instance, thereafter, he was advised to approach CBI. The complainant contacted CBI Officer and lodged a complaint against the accused regarding the demand of bribe by the accused to do some official favour.

4. The complainant on 17/10/1997 visited the office of the Investigating Officer where PWs.6 and 7 were introduced to the complainant and pre-trap panchanama was drawn. On the same day, the complainant along with panch witnesses and also the Investigating Officer have left the office by van. As per the direction of PW.9, the complainant had to take shadow witness along with him. Accordingly, the complainant and the shadow witness said to have visited the office of the accused and said to have paid the amount of Rs.5, 000.00 as demanded by the accused. After having paid the said amount, the complainant signaled the Investigating Officer. Immediately, the Investigating Officer along with co-panch entered into the chamber of the accused and trap mahazar was drawn and seizure of tainted notes had taken place. The said seizure mahazar is marked as Ex.P10. The CBI conducted investigation and submitted the charge sheet.

5. To prove the case of the prosecution, the prosecution has examined 11 witnesses as PW.1 to PW.11 and got marked 24 documents as Exs.P1 to P24 and got identified material objects as M.O.1 to M.O.7. On the other hand, the respondent herein got marked Ex.D1 which is a transfer order and the respondent has not marked any documents on his behalf. The Trial Court after appreciating the oral and documentary evidence on record, opined that the prosecution has failed to prove the ingredients of Ss. 7, 13(1)(d) r/w 13(2) of the PC Act and recorded the acquittal. Being aggrieved by the same, the Lokayukta police have preferred this appeal.

6. Heard Sri.Nitin Gowda K.C., learned counsel appearing for Sri P.Prasanna Kumar, learned counsel for the appellant and Sri Chandrashekar K., learned counsel for the respondent.

7. It is the submission of the learned counsel for appellant that the findings of the Trial Court in recording the acquittal which appears to be perverse and illegal and the same is liable to be set aside.

8. It is the submission of the learned counsel for appellant that the Trial Court failed to appreciate the evidence of PW.6 who is the panch witness to the incident, PW.7 who is shadow witness and the evidence of PW.11 who is the complainant in this case properly, consequently, the impugned judgment is passed which is required to be set aside.

9. It is further submitted that all the witnesses supported the case of the prosecution with regard to demand and acceptance of illegal gratification and also proved the pendency of work with the respondent. In spite of having proved the demand