The prosecution must prove both the demand and acceptance of bribes beyond a reasonable doubt for a conviction under the Prevention of Corruption Act; mere recovery of money is not sufficient.

JUDGMENT

1. The appellant - State has preferred this appeal under Sec. 378(1) and (3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (for short 'Cr.P.C.') to set aside the judgment and order of acquittal dtd. 24/9/2020, passed by the learned Special Judge and Principal District and Sessions Judge, Bidar (for short 'Trial Court'), in Special Case (P.C.Act) No.2/2012, wherein, the respondents have been acquitted for the offences punishable under Ss. 7 and 13(1)(d) read with Sec. 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1984 (for short 'P.C.Act'). The appellant also prayed to convict the respondents for the aforesaid offences.

2. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to as per their ranking before the Trial Court. The appellant is the complainant - State and respondents are accused Nos.1 and 2.

3. The brief facts of the prosecution case are as under:

On 20/1/2011, at about 5.55 p.m., accused No.1 - Loknath being a public servant, working as Revenue Inspector, Bagdal Circle, demanded illegal gratification of Rs.500.00 from PW.1 - Mohammed Fakeer Ahmed for effecting mutation in the name of his mother, in respect of land bearing Survey No.157/6, measuring 1 acre 22 guntas of Aurad-S, based on 'J' form and on the instructions of accused No.1, accused No.2 - Adinarayan Swamy, Village Accountant of Nidvancha, received said illegal gratification of Rs.500.00 from PW.1 by demand, which is other than legal remuneration and thereby, committed criminal misconduct in obtaining illegal gratification.

4. Thereafter, a trap was laid, accused persons were secured, seized a sum of Rs.500.00 and seizure panchanama was conducted, the Investigating Officer recorded statement of witnesses and filed charge sheet against the accused persons for the aforesaid offences.

5. After filing of charge sheet, the Special Court took cognizance of the offences under Sec. 190(1)(b) of Cr.P.C. for the aforesaid offences against the accused persons and after hearing the parties on both side, framed charges for the aforesaid offences against accused persons and read over to them, they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

6. The Prosecution to bring home the guilt of the accused persons, examined in all 7 witnesses as PWs.1 to

7. and in all 19 documents were got marked as Exs.P1 to P19 and material objects were marked as MOs.1 to 13. 7. The Trial Court after closure of the evidence, recorded the statement of accused persons under Sec. 313 of Cr.P.C. by explaining the incriminatory materials appearing in the prosecution evidence, the case of accused persons was of total denial. The accused persons did not enter the witness box and hence, the defence evidence was taken as nil.

8. The Trial Court having heard both parties, framed the following points for consideration: Point No.1: Whether prosecution proves beyond reasonable doubt that, 20/1/2011 at about 1755 hours, accused no.1 being public servant working as revenue inspector Bagdal Circle, demanded an illegal gratification of Rs.500.00 form the complainant for effecting mutation in the name his mother in respect of land Sy.no. 157/6 measuring 1 acre 22 guntas of Aurad-s, and on the instruction of accused no.1, accused no.2 received the said illegal gratification of Rs.500.00 from complainant and thereby committed an offence punishable U/sec.7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act?. Point No.2: Whether prosecution proves beyond reasonable doubt that, accused no.1 being public servant working as Revenue Inspector Bagdal Circle, on the above said date, time and place, demanded an illegal gratification of Rs.500.00 from the complainant for effecting mutation in the name his mother in respect of land Sy.No. 157/6 measuring 1 acre 22 guntas of Aurad-S, and on the instruction of accused no.1 accused no.2 received the said illegal gratification of Rs.500.00 from complainant, which is other than their legal remuneration, and thus accused committed criminal misconduct by corrupt or illegal means by demandin