The prosecution must establish beyond reasonable doubt the demand and acceptance of illegal gratification under the Prevention of Corruption Act for a conviction to stand.

JUDGMENT :

M. G. UMA, J.

The appellant being accused No.1 has preferred Crl.A.No.1313/2012 against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 28.11.2012 passed in Special Case No.288/2010 on the file of the learned Special Judge, Bengaluru Urban District, Bengaluru, for the offence punishable under Sections 7 , 13(1)(d) read with 13(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act (for short, "the P.C. Act") and sentencing him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of two years and to pay fine of Rs.40,000/- for the offence punishable under Section 7 of P.C. Act, and also sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of four years with fine of Rs.50,000/- for the offence punishable under Section 13 (1)(d) read with 13(2) of P.C. Act, with default sentences, whereas the appellant-State has preferred Crl.A.No.981/2013, seeking enhancement of sentence.

2. Brief facts of the case as made out by the prosecution is that, the complainant had constructed a building within the limits of BBMP Bengaluru. Accused No.1 being the Corporator of BBMP - a public servant, demanded illegal gratification of Rs.2,00,000/- to permit the complainant to continue the building construction work. He threatened the complainant through accused No.2 that if the complainant fails to pay the amount as demanded, the construction work would be stopped. Pursuant to the demand, the complainant filed the First Information as per Exhibit P1 with Lokayukta Police. An Entrustment Panchanama was drawn on 16.07.2010, entrusting 400 currency notes of ₹ 500/- each. The complainant went to the house of accused No.1 and tendered the same. The accused No.1 readily accepted the amount as illegal gratification and kept it in the almirah. Thereby, it is stated that accused No.1 has committed the offences punishable under Sections 7 , 13(1(d) read with 13(2) of the P.C. Act. The Lokayukta police trapped the accused, recovered the tainted amount under the Trap Mahazar, sanction was obtained to prosecute the accused, and the Final Report came to be filed.

3. The Trial Court took cognizance of the offences and summoned the accused. The accused has appeared before the Trial Court, pleaded not guilty for the offences alleged and claimed to be tried. The prosecution examined PWs.1 to 8, got marked Exhibits P1 to P29 and identified MOs.1 to 25 in support of its contention. The accused denied all the incriminating materials available on record in his statement under Section 313 of Cr.PC., examined himself as DW1, got examined DW2 and got marked Exhibits D1 to D6 in support of his defence.

4. The Trial Court, after taking into consideration all these materials on record, came to the conclusion that the prosecution is successful in proving the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt, and accordingly proceeded to pass the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence as stated above. Being aggrieved by the same, accused No.1 has preferred Crl.A.No.1313/2012 seeking acquittal. Whereas the Lokayukta Police have approached this Court by preferring Crl.A.No.981/2013 seeking enhancement of sentence on accused No.1.

5. Heard Sri. C.V. Nagesh, learned Senior Advocate for Sri. Raghavendra K., learned counsel for the appellant-accused No.1 and Sri. B.S. Prasad, learned Additional S.P.P for the respondent-State. Perused the materials on record including the Trial Court records.

6. In view of the rival contentions urged by learned counsel for both the parties, the points that would arise for my consideration in both the cases are as under:

"(i) Whether the appellant-State in Crl.A.No.981/2013 has made out any grounds to enhance the sentence imposed on