Proof of demand and acceptance is essential for conviction under the Prevention of Corruption Act; mere recovery without evidence of bribe demand is insufficient.

JUDGMENT :

Mohammad Nawaz, J.

These appeals are directed against the judgment and order dated 16.03.2022 passed by the Court of the XXIII Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge and Special Judge (PC Act) Bengaluru in Spl.C.C.No.221/2021.

2. Vide impugned judgment, accused No.1 is convicted for the offence punishable under Section 7 (a) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (‘PC Act’ for short) and accused No.2 for the offence punishable under Section 12 of the PC Act.

3. Accused No.2 has been acquitted of the offence punishable under Section 7 (a) of the PC Act.

4. The trial Court has sentenced accused No.1 to undergo S.I. for a period of 3 years and to pay a fine of Rs.25,000/-, in default of payment of fine, to undergo S.I. for a further period of 3 months, for the offence under Section 7 (a) of the PC Act.

5. Accused No.2 is sentenced to undergo S.I. for a period of 3 years and to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/-, in default of payment of fine, to undergo S.I. for a further period of 1 month for the offence under Section 12 of the PC Act.

6. Aggrieved by the judgment and order of conviction and sentence, accused No.1 has preferred Crl.A No.477/2022 and accused No.2 has preferred Crl.A No.508/2022.

7. Brief facts of the prosecution case:- The first informant/PW.3 is the owner of a site bearing No.549/3/60/2, located at 1^st Cross, near Basavanna Temple, Arehalli, Uttarahalli Hobli, Subramanyapura Post, Bengaluru, measuring 26.5 x 30 ft. On 29.09.2018, he commenced construction of a compound wall around the said property. However, certain residents of the adjacent plots objected, alleging that he has encroached upon a public road and demanded that space be left for the road. Following a complaint lodged by some residents of Arehalli Village, BMTF Police issued a notice to him and he was summoned to appear before accused No.1 working as a PSI in BMTF Police Station. Accused No.1 demanded an illegal gratification of Rs.80,000/- for closing the case. Upon negotiation, he reduced the demand to Rs.70,000/-. On 02.11.2018, first informant visited the office of BMTF. Accused No.2 working as a Clerk/Office Assistant collected Rs.20,000/- on behalf of accused No.1. When the balance bribe amount was demanded, on 07.11.2018, complainant approached the Anti corruption Bureau (ACB) Police and lodged a complaint. The ACB Police conducted pre-trap formalities and set a trap operation, wherein the tainted bribe amount of Rs.50,000/- was recovered from accused No.2.

8. Upon completion of investigation and securing the requisite sanction, charge sheet was filed under Section 7 (a) and 12 of the PC Act.

9. Before the trial Court, prosecution got examined PWs.1 to 10, got marked Exs.P1 to P45 and MOs.1 to 10. The defence got examined Exs.D1 to D5.

10. The trial Court convicted and sentenced accused No.1 for the offence punishable under Section 7 (a) of the PC Act and accused No.2 for the offence punishable under Section 12 of the PC Act as noted supra and acquitted accused No.2 of the offence punishable under Section 7 (a) of the PC Act.

11. Heard the arguments of learned counsel for appellants and learned Spl.PP for respondent/State and perused the evidence and material on record.

12. The learned counsel for appellants have contended as under:

(i) The learned trial Court has erred in appreciating the evidence in a manner known to law and has arrived at an erroneous conclusion by convicting the appellants despite the absence of substantive and cogent evidence.

(ii) Demand and conscious acceptance of illegal gratification are sine qua non to establish an offence under Section 7 of the PC Act, whereas, in the present case the prosecution has fail