The burden of proof lies on the prosecution to establish corruption charges beyond a reasonable doubt, which requires credible and consistent evidence.

JUDGMENT :

V Srishananda, J.

Heard Sri. Subhash Mallapur, learned Special Public Prosecutor for the Lokayukta/appellant, Sri. Narendra N. Bettad, learned counsel for Sri. Mallikarjun S., learned counsel appearing for respondent Nos.1 and 2.

2. This appeal is by the Lokayukta, challenging the order of acquittal passed in Special Case No.1/2013 by the Special Judge, Yadgiri, by Judgment dated 19.03.2018.

3. Facts in the nutshell which are utmost necessary for disposal of the present appeal are as under:

3.1. One Mallikarjun lodged a complaint with Lokayukta Police on 24.05.2010 that he is having a business of transporting the sand from Canal situated at Malhar village and he has a necessary permission in the name of Gazuddin.

3.2. About 15 days earlier to lodging the complaint, the accused persons being the Police Officials of Gurumitkal Circle, illegally seized the lorries loaded with sand and moved the lorries to the Gurumitkal Police Station. For the release of lorries, the accused persons said to have demanded a sum of Rs.40,000/- as bribe. On an earlier occasion, the complainant paid a sum of Rs.40,000/- and got released the lorries. But again, four lorries were seized and they were also released by taking bribe of Rs.8,000/- to each lorry.

3.3. When the matter stood thus, on 23.05.2010, Saidapur Police seized the lorries bearing registration Nos.AP-29/U-3024 and AP-29/T-4265, which were kept in the Saidapur Police Station. The complainant tried to get the lorries released from the accused persons for which they demanded Rs.30,000/- as illegal gratification to be paid to Circle Police Inspector and a sum of Rs.10,000/- to be payable to Police Sub-Inspector. This conversation with the accused persons was recorded by the complainant on his mobile phone, being fed up with the payment of illegal gratification away now and then.

3.4. After hearing the conversation recorded in the mobile phone, the Lokayukta Police took his complaint and registered a case in Crime No.4/2010 and after securing the independent panchas, laid a trap on 24.05.2010 at about 8.30 p.m. in the Inspection Bungalow of Saidapur.

3.5. The complainant said to have parted away a sum of Rs.30,000/- as bribe amount to the hands of the second accused and after counting the amount, the second accused said to have kept the same in the pant pocket of the hind side (hip pocket).

3.6. Thereafter, the complainant gave a pre- designated signal and Lokayukta Police stopped the jeep, wherein, the accused No.2 was found running away after keeping the amount in a rexine bag of accused No.1. The Lokayukta Police overpowered them and caught hold of them and after detailed investigation filed charge-sheet.

4. After securing the presence of the accused persons, the charges were framed against the accused persons. Both the accused persons denied the charges and therefore, trial was held.

5. In order to bring home the guilt of the accused, fourteen witnesses were examined as P.W.1 to P.W.14 and as many as fourty five documents were placed on record which were exhibited and marked as Exs.P.1 to P.45. Apart from oral testimony and the documentary evidence, the Lokayukta Police placed on record cash of Rs.30,000/-, compact disc, bottles, cassette, bag, shirt and pant. During the course of cross-examination of P.W.1, P.W.2 and P.W.9, contradictory statements elicited are marked as Exs.D.1 to D.3.

6. On conclusion of recording of the evidence, the learned Trial Judge heard the arguments of the parties, recorded the accused statement as is contemplated under Section 313 of Cr.P.C., wherein the acc