IMPORTANT POINT
The court reaffirmed that a public servant's demand for a bribe must be supported by evidence of their capacity to provide an official favor, as required under the Prevention of Corruption Act.

JUDGMENT :

RAMACHANDRA D. HUDDAR, J.

The present appeal is filed under Section 374 of Cr.PC challenging the judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed against the accused by the XXIII Addl. City Civil and Sessions Judge and Special Judge, Bengaluru City, sitting at CCH No.24 as per the judgment dated 30th September 2014 in Spl.CC No.116/2008 wherein the appellant accused was found guilty of committing the offences under Section 7, 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (in short ‘the Act').

2. After concluding the investigation, charge sheet came to be registered as Special CC No.116 of 2008. The accused/appellant is sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of six months and to pay a fine of Rs.500/- and in default of payment of fine, to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of one month for the offence punishable under Section 7 of the Act. He is also sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year and a pay a fine of Rs.500/- and in default of payment of fine to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of one month for the offence punishable under Section 13(2) of PC Act. Even set off is also given with regard to the period undergone by the accused in judicial custody as provided under Section 428 of Cr.PC.

3. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to as per their rank before the trial Court.

4. To bring home the guilt of the accused, prosecution has examined in all, five witnesses from PWs. 1 to 5 and got marked Ex.P1 to P21 with respective signatures and also MO nos. 1 to 12. The case of the accused is one of the total denial of the allegations made against him. The accused was questioned under Section 313 of Cr.PC after closure of the evidence of prosecution. He emphatically denied the existence of any possibility to do any official favour to the complainant and also the alleged demand and receipt of tainted amount. The accused also made defence evidence by examining two witnesses his own officials by name Narasegowda and Panduranga in the shape of DWs. 1 and 2. None of the documents are marked on behalf of the defence.

5. PW.1 Krishne Gowda is the complainant who has filed the complaint against the accused. PW.2 Dr.Raheemunnisha is the Sanctioning Authority to prosecute the accused who has issued sanction as per Ex.P15. PW.3 is the shadow witness who accompanied complainant PW.1 at the time of trap. PW.4 T.V.Sathya Prasad is also a witness to both pre-trap and post-trap panchanamas and PW.5 Prasanna V Raju is the IO.

6. The prosecution has mainly relied on the following circumstances:

i) The Accused was a storekeeper in the office of ESI and to do official favour in the matter of supplying the required injection prescribed by the Doctor of NIMHANS hospital to be injected to the complainant.

ii) There was a demand made by the accused to pay the bribe of Rs.1000/- in the matter of supply of injection from the ESI Department.

iii) Receipt of the alleged tainted amount of Rs.1,000/- from the complainant in the ESI office itself.

iv) Demand and receipt of the tainted amount by the accused in his office.

7. The learned counsel for the appellant-accused has submitted his arguments contending, inter alia, amongst others, the grounds urged in the appeal memo that there was absolutely no scope to do any official favour to the complainant by this accused. There was a prescription supplied by the NIMHANS hospital that was to be supplied by the Government. Therefore, the complainant approached the accused, being the storekeeper of the ESI Department and gave a requisition. According to him, as there was no supply of such injection, to get such injection, the time was required. Therefore, the same was conveyed to the complainant, but he forced the accused to supply the same immediately and forcibly thrust the amount into the pocket of the accused by hatching a plan to falsely implicate him. He is innocent. It is argued that the material witnesses have not supported the prosec