The burden lies on the prosecution to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt; discrepancies and reasonable doubt favoring the accused warrant acquittal.

JUDGMENT :

M.G. UMA, J.

1. The appellant being the sole accused in Special (Corruption) Case No.30 of 2011 on the file of the learned XLVII Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge and Special Judge for CBI cases, Bengaluru, is impugning the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 30.05.2012, convicting him for the offence punishable under Sections 7 , 13(1)(d) read with Section 13 (2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act (for short 'the PC Act') and sentenced him to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of one year and to pay fine of Rs.10,000/- for the offence punishable under Section 7 of PC Act, to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of one and half years with fine of Rs.10,000/- for the offence punishable 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 is a public servant working as Superintendent in the Office of Commissioner of Service Tax, Bengaluru. He demanded illegal gratification of Rs.2,000/- from PW1 on 13.10.2010 for closing the service tax file for the year 2009-10, who obtained licence in the name of M/s. Raj Office Solutions (Pvt.) Ltd. Koramangala, Bangalore.

3. On the basis of first information lodged by the informant - PW1, the FIR came to be registered, entrustment panchanama was drawn in the presence of complainant, shadow witness and pancha witness, Rs.2,000/- was entrusted to PW1 with a direction to go and meet the accused and if the accused demands illegal gratification to pay the entrusted amount. It is stated that the accused had demanded and accepted the illegal gratification, kept it in his pant pocket, which was later recovered. It is also the contention of the prosecution that the hand wash of the accused had turned into pink colour, the samples were collected and sent for FSL examination. After completing the investigation, the charge sheet has been filed against the accused for the above said offences.

4. The Special Court took cognizance of the offences and summoned the accused. The accused has denied the charges leveled against him and claimed to be tried. The prosecution examined PWs.1 to 13, got marked Exs.P1 to P20 and identified MOs.1 to 7 in support of its contention. The accused has denied all the incriminating materials available on record in his statement recorded under Section 313 of Cr.P.C., but has not chosen to lead any evidence in support of his defence. However, he got marked Ex.D1 during the cross examination of PW1. 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, the accused is before this Court.

5. Heard Sri R Nagendra Naik, learned counsel for the appellant and Sri P Prasanna Kumar, learned counsel for the respondent. Perused the materials including the Trial Court records.

6. Learned counsel for the appellant contended that the accused has not disputed that he is the public servant working as Superintendent in the Department of Service Tax. The case made out by the prosecution is that the informant was working as Senior Executive (Operations) in the Company and he approached the accused for submitting revised tax return assumes importance, while considering the contention taken by the prosecution. Even according to the prosecution, the accused in his official capacity had issued the notice calling upon the Company to file r