Public servants demanding and accepting bribes can be convicted under the Prevention of Corruption Act, with the burden of proof shifting to the accused to disprove presumption of guilt once the prosecution establishes their case.

JUDGMENT :

M.G. UMA, J.

1. The appellant being the accused in Spl.C.No.214/2007, on the file of the learned II Additional District & Sessions Judge, Tumkur, is impugning the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 30.10.2012, convicting the accused for the offence punishable under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) and 13(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act (for short 'PC Act') and sentencing him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of 1 year with fine of Rs.5,000/- for the offence punishable under Section 7 of PC Act and to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 3 years with fine of Rs.5,000/- for the offence punishable under Sections 13 (1)(d) and 13(2) of PC Act, with default sentences.

2. Brief facts of the case as per the prosecution are that, the accused who was working as First Division Assistant in the office of DDPI, Tumkur demanded and accepted the bribe amount of Rs.10,000/- from PW1 to show the official favour. Thereby, he committed the offence punishable under Sections 7 , 13(1)(d) and 13(2) of PC Act. The Trial Court took cognizance for the above said offences and summoned the accused. Accused has appeared before the Trial Court and pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. Prosecution has examined PWs.1 to 6, got marked Ex.P1 to P11 and MOs.1 to 12 in support of its contention. The accused has not led any evidence nor stepped into the witness box to depose regarding his defence. He got marked Ex.D1 to D4 - the portions of the statements of PW1 and the draft sanction order.

3. The Trial Court after taking into consideration all the materials on record came to the conclusion that the prosecution is successful in proving the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt. Accordingly, passed the impugned order convicting the accused for the above said offences. Being aggrieved by the same, the accused is before this Court.

4. Heard Sri. K.A. Chandrashekara, learned counsel for the appellant and Sri. Lethif.B, learned counsel for the respondent. Perused the materials including the Trial Court records.

5. In view of the rival contentions urged by learned counsel for both the parties, the point that would arise for my consideration is:

“Whether the appellant-accused has made out a case to interfere with the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed by the Trial Court?

My answer to the above point is in 'Partly Affirmative' for the following:

REASONS

6. It is the contention of the complainant that he was working as Assistant Teacher at the Government Lower Primary School, Mannanapalya of Kunigal Taluk. There was a complaint registered against him in Crime No.28/2006. Since criminal case was registered against him, he was suspended from service. Later, criminal case in C.C.No.176/2006 was decided on 23.12.2006 and the complainant was acquitted in the said case. But his order of suspension was not recalled by passing necessary order in the office of DDPI, Tumkur. Therefore, the complainant had filed an application with DDPI, Tumkur on 27.12.2006 requesting to revoke the order of suspension. Since his application was not attended by the accused, who was working as First Division Assistant in the office of DDPI, Tumkur, the complainant met him on 28.02.2007. The accused demanded illegal gratification of Rs.10,000/- to show the official favour and insisted for the payment of the same.

7. It is further contended that, the complainant was not willing to pay the bribe. He lodged the complaint on 01.03.2007 with Lokayuktha police. On the same day, pre-trap panchanama was drawn and tainted amount smeared with phenolphthalein powder was entrusted to the complainant. The complainant was accompanied by PW2 - the shadow witness to meet