In corruption cases, mere possession of excess cash by a public servant is insufficient for conviction without evidence of demand or acceptance of illegal gratification.

JUDGMENT :

(M.G. UMA, J.)

The appellant in Crl.A.No.734/2025 being accused No.1; the appellant in Crl.A.No.732/2025 being accused No.3 and the appellant in Crl.A.No.735/2025 being accused No.4 in Spl.C.No.241/2018 on the file of the learned Principal District and Sessions Judge, Chamarajanagar, are impugning the judgment of conviction dated 19.03.2025 and order of sentence dated 22.03.2025, convicting the accused for the offences punishable under Sections 7 and 13(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (for short, 'the P.C. Act'), and sentencing them to undergo SI for a period of 3 years and to pay fine of Rs.10,000/- each for the offence punishable under Section 7 of P.C Act, and to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of 4 years and to pay fine of Rs.10,000/- each, for the offence punishable under Section 13 (2) of PC Act, with default sentences.

2. Brief facts of the case as made out by the prosecution is that, accused No.1 being the Commercial Tax Officer (CTO), accused No.2 being the Commercial Tax Inspector (CTI), accused No.3 being the Second Division Assistant, and accused No.4 being the Group D employee, working in the Commercial Tax check post at Gundlupet, were public servants. The accused were checking the vehicles and its documents, which pass through the check post, and the officials in the check post were being deputed on shift basis.

3. It is the contention of the prosecution that on 09.03.2017, accused Nos.1 and 4 were deputed in the check post, and they were stopping the vehicles passing through the check post for verification of documents. Accused No.2 and 3 were at the counter. A credible information was received by the Investigating Officer. On the basis of same, raid was held at the check post. Accused No.1 was found in possession of Rs.41,510/-, accused No.2 was found in possession with Rs.24,000/-, accused No.3 was found in possession of Rs.2,665/- and accused No.4 was found in possession of Rs.3,500/-. It is stated that the Cash Declaration Register as per Exhibit P26 was maintained and the amount that was in possession of accused Nos.1 to 4 was in excess of such declaration.

4. The accused have not given any satisfactory explanation for the cash which were found in their possession in excess of the declaration made in the Cash Declaration Register. Therefore, it is contended that accused Nos.1 to 4 being the public servants have demanded and accepted the bribe amount from the drivers/owners of the lorry who passed through the check post for the purpose of showing official favour i.e. for smooth passing through the check post. Thereby, they have committed the offence punishable under Section 7 , 13(e) read with Section 13 (2) of P.C. Act.

5. After filing of the charge sheet, the learned Magistrate took cognizance of the offences and summoned the accused. The accused have appeared before the Trial Court and they have pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

6. The prosecution has examined PW.1 to 15, got marked Exhibits P1 to 57 and MO.1 in support of its contention. The accused have denied all the incriminating materials available on record, but have not chosen to lead any evidence in support of their defence. However, they got marked Exhibits D1 to 7 during cross-examination of the prosecution witnesses. The Trial Court, after taking into consideration all these materials on record came to the conclusion that the explanation offered by accused No.2 for being in possession of excess cash was satisfactory and therefore