The court upheld the conviction under the Prevention of Corruption Act, establishing that acceptance of a bribe by a public servant creates a legal presumption of corruption, which the accused failed to rebut.

JUDGMENT :

M G Uma, J.

The accused in Spl.CC.No. 41 of 2010 on the file of the learned Special Judge, Bengaluru Urban District, Bengaluru City, is impugning the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 30.06.2012, convicting him for the offence punishable under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) read with Section 13 (2) of Prevention of Corruption Act (for short 'the PC Act') and sentencing him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of 1½ years and to pay fine of Rs.20,000/- for the offence under Section 7 of PC Act, and to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of 3½ years and to pay a fine of Rs.20,000/- for the offence under Section 13 (1)(d) read with Section 13 (2) of PC Act, with default sentences.

2. Brief facts of the case as made out by the prosecution is that, the accused was working as Assistant Executive Engineer in Richmond Town Sub Division, BBMP, Bengaluru and he was demanding the informant - PW1 for bribe of Rs.7,00,000/-, as he had constructed a commercial complex and threatening that he will issue a notice suggesting violation of the sanction plan and drag him to the Court, if his demand is not met. After bargaining, the accused scaled down his demand to Rs.6,00,000/- and insisted for payment atleast in installments. The accused stated that he will meet the complainant on 30.04.2008 at 5.15 p.m. near Levi's showroom situated between Brigade road and Church road junction, Bengaluru. The informant was not willing to pay the illegal gratification, hence, filed the first information as per Ex.P1 with Lokayukta Police. After registering FIR, Lokayukta Police drawn pre-trap panchanama in the presence of PW2 - the shadow witness and PW3 - the second pancha as per Ex.P3, entrusted the tainted money and asked the complainant to go and meet the accused along with the shadow witness. Accordingly, the complainant and the shadow witness went near Levi's showroom on the date and time fixed by the accused. The accused came to the spot and asked whether he has brought the amount. The complainant handed over the packet containing the currency notes entrusted to him. The complainant informed that it contains Rs.1,50,000/-. The accused accepted the same and kept it in his pant pocket. Immediately, the complainant gave signal to Lokayukta Police by wiping his face with a kerchief. Immediately, PW5 - the Investigating Officer came to the spot along with PW3 - the second pancha. The hands of the accused were washed in sodium carbonate solution which turned into pink colour. The samples were collected. The accused was asked by PW5 to produce the bribe amount received by him. The accused produced the bundle containing the currency notes. Since it was a public place and it was raining, the police have taken the accused to nearby office of the complainant. The accused was asked to give explanation which he had given as per Ex.P11. Trap panchanama was drawn. After completing the investigation, the charge sheet came to be filed.

3. The Trial Court took cognizance of the offence and summoned the accused. The accused denied the charges leveled against him and claimed to be tried. Prosecution examined PWs.1 to 5, got marked Exs.P1 to 25 and identified MOs.1 to 14 in support of its contention. The accused denied all the incriminating materials available on record in his statement recorded under Section 313 of Cr.P.C, but has not stepped into the witness box nor examined any witnesses. However, he got marked for Exs.D1 to D5 during cross examination of the material witnesses. The Trial Court after taking into consideration all these materials on record,