The court established that consistent witness testimonies and physical evidence are sufficient to prove the demand and acceptance of bribes under the Prevention of Corruption Act.

JUDGMENT :

M G Uma, J.

The appellant-accused in Spl.C.No.118/2010 on the file of the learned II Additional District and Sessions Judge, Tumkuru, is impugning the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 07.12.2013 convicting him for the offence punishable under Sections 7 , 13(1)(d) R/w Section 13 (2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act (for short 'the PC Act') and sentencing him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of six months and pay a fine of Rs.5,000/- for the offence punishable under Section 7 R/w Section 13 (2) of the PC Act, to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of two years and pay a fine of Rs.5,000/- for the offence punishable under Section 13 (1)(d) R/w Section 13 (2) of the PC Act, with default sentence.

2. Brief facts of the prosecution case is that, the accused being Sub-Inspector of police, Sira Town Police Station, is a public servant. He demanded illegal gratification of Rs.4,000/- from the informant and received the same on 01.12.2008 to show the official favour, misusing his official position and thereby committed misconduct punishable under Sections 7 , 13(1)(d) R/w Section 13 (2) of the PC Act.

3. The informant PW1 filed the first information stating that he is a scrap vendor and had filed an application as per Ex.P5, seeking police protection to conduct his business. In that connection, when PW1 met the appellant, he demanded for mamul of Rs.5,000/- per month and after bargain, he scaled it down for Rs.4,000/-. Since the complainant was not willing to pay the illegal gratification, he had filed the first information as per Ex.P1 with Lokayukta police, who registered the FIR, conducted pre-trap panchanama, entrusted Rs.4,000/- to the informant with an instruction to meet the accused along with the shadow witness. Accordingly, the informant met the accused in his police station along with the shadow witness. The accused asked the complainant as to whether he has brought the amount. When the complainant tendered the phenolphthalein powder smeared currency notes entrusted to him by the Investigation Officer, the accused received the same with his hands, kept it on his table and thereafter, kept a news paper on it, and placed his hat on the same. On receiving the signal from the informant, Lokayukta police along with pancha- witness came to the spot, held hand wash of left and right hand of the accused separately in the Sodium carbonate solution, which turned into pink colour. The samples were drawn. When the accused was asked to produce the amount, he stated that it is under the news paper and the same was recovered. The trap-panchanama was drawn in the presence of mahazar witnesses. Explanation from the accused as per Ex.P14 was taken. After completing the investigation, the charge sheet came to be filed contending that the accused being the public servant, to show the official favour to the complainant i.e, consideration of his application Ex.P5, demanded bribe amount of Rs.4,000/- per month and received the same. Thereby committed the offence as stated above.

4. The Trial Court took cognizance of the offence and summoned the accused. The accused appeared before the Trial Court and pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. The prosecution examined PWs.1 to 9, got marked Exs.P1 to 19 and identified Mos1 to 9 in support of its contention. The accused denied all the incriminating materials available on record