IMPORTANT POINT
The court affirmed that a valid sanction and credible evidence of demand and acceptance of bribes are essential for conviction under the Prevention of Corruption Act.

JUDGMENT :

RAMACHANDRA D. HUDDAR, J.

1. The appellant-accused assailed the judgment of his conviction and sentence passed in Spl. C.C. No. 129/2007 dated 23.12.2010 passed by the XXI Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge and Special Judge for CBI Cases, Bengaluru.

2. The learned trial Court found the accused guilty of committing the offences punishable under Section 7 and 13(2) r/w 13(1) (d) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (in short ‘the Act’). The learned trial Court “sentenced the accused to undergo simple imprisonment for the offence punishable under of the Act and also he shall pay a fine of Rs.10,000/- with default sentence and also sentenced the accused-appellant for the offence under Section 13(2) r/w 13(1)(d) of the Act and is sentenced to undergo SI for Two years and shall also pay a fine of Rs.10,000/-; in default of payment of fine he shall undergo SI for six months.”

3. The parties to this appeal are referred to as per their rank before the trial Court, for the purpose of convenience.

The facts leading up to this appeal in brief are as under:

4. That one Sri V.G. Gopinath Padiyar, the Senior Social Security Assistant, EPFO, RO, Bengaluru, is accused in this case against whom the charge sheet was filed by the Inspector of Police, CBI, ACB, Bengaluru, for the offences punishable under Section 7 and 13(2) r/w 13(1) (d) of Act.

5. The material allegations made against the accused are that, at the relevant time, this accused was working as a Senior Social Security Assistant, Accounts Group, Section-8, Employees Provident Fund Organisations (EPFO), Regional Office, Bengaluru. It is the case of the complainant Sri S.Suresh Babu that, he was working as a Quality Analyst at the relevant time at M/s. C-Bay Systems Limited, Kodihalli, Airport Road, Bengaluru. It is his case that, he was possessing EPF account bearing No. KN/25568/505 at EPFO, Regional Office, Bengaluru. He was a regular contributor towards said fund. In the specific case of the complainant that, for the purpose of performing his marriage, he wanted to withdraw Rs.50,000/- from his EPF account as an advance money. To that effect, he submitted an application 12.3.2007 through his office. It is his allegation that, as there was a delay to sanction the advance amount he sought, therefore, he approached the accused on 26.03.2007 and requested him to expedite the matter. But, he had not completed the minimum years of service i.e., of 7 years of service, therefore, this complainant was ineligible to seek the advance amount from his EPF account. At that time, accused also offered to get the work done if bribe of Rs.2,500/- is paid to him. It is the allegation of the complainant that, after negotiation, accused agreed to accept Rs.1,800/- payable on 27.03.2007.

6. It is the specific allegation of the complainant that, he was unwilling to pay the bribe, therefore, he approached the CBI Police by filing a written complaint on 26.03.2007. The crime was registered by the Inspector of Police Sri Ramesh on 27.03.2007 at his office. It is the further allegation of the complainant that, after registering the crime, the trap laying Officer by name Ramesh being Inspector of CBI on 27.03.2007 laid a trap and accused was caught red-handed for demanding and accepting the bribe of Rs.1,800/- from the complainant. At that time, the complainant Suresh Babu and also independent witnesses were present. It is stated by the complainant that, though he submitted an application in the prescribed Form No. 31 and the same was duly processed, it was ordered that, the applicant i.e., complainant was eligible for advance of Rs.22,400/- the accused prepared worksheet rejecting the application of the complainant, later prepared another set of written memo for the sanction of said Rs.22,400/- with an intention to obtain bribe from the complainant. It is further specifically alleged that, thus, the accused demanded illegal gratification from the complainant other than the legal remuneration and as