The sampling of circumstantial evidence and testimonial support is sufficient to uphold a conviction under the Prevention of Corruption Act, with indirect acceptance of bribes being legally tenable.

JUDGMENT :

V SRISHANANDA, J.

Heard Sri Chaitanyakumar Chandriki, learned counsel for the appellant and Sri Subhash Mallapur, learned Special Public Prosecutor for the Lokayukta.

2. The present appeal is filed by the accused, who suffered an order of conviction in Special Case No.36/2011, on the file of the Sessions Judge, Special Court, Yadagiri by judgment dated 07.01.2020.

3. The accused has been sentenced as under:

“Accused is sentenced to undergo R.I. for one year and to pay fine of Rs. 10,000/- in default undergo imprisonment for 3 months for the offence punishable under Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act and he is further sentenced to undergo R.I. for two and half years and to pay fine of Rs.20,000/- in default undergo imprisonment for 6 months for the offence punishable under Section 13 (2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act .

The sentences and in default sentence shall run concurrently.

Supply free copy of the Judgment to the accused forthwith.

M.O.1 to 6 being articles, notes, cassette and paper used for keeping the bribe amount is ordered to be return to the concerned police after appeal period is over with a direction to proceed with the same as per law.”

4. Facts in the nutshell which are utmost necessary for disposal of the case are as under:

Accused was working as revenue inspector of Yadagiri. Mohd. Nizamuddin, being a social worker indulged in helping the poor persons in his locality to avail old age pension and widow pension. As a part of his social work, he had received applications from Smt. Chandbi (P.W.4), Smt. Rashida Begum (P.W.5), Smt. Maremma (P.W.6), Smt. Salimabi (P.W.7), Smt. Tajeya Begum (P.W.8), Smt. Zilakan Begum (P.W.9), Smt. Mallamma (P.W.10), Mallayya (P.W.11), Smt. Chandramma (P.W.12) and nine other such persons of his locality.

4.1. He filed those applications before the Village Accountant, who conducted a Panchanama to ascertain the information provided in the applications and thereafter forwarded the same for processing to the accused. The complainant, approached the accused for processing the applications. The accused said to have demanded a sum of Rs.500/- per application and later on after sufficient bargaining, the amount was reduced to Rs.100/- per application and Rs.1,800/- for eighteen applications.

4.2. Despite, repeated follow-up, accused failed to process the applications for a considerable period of almost one year. Being disgusted with the attitude of the accused, on 17.06.2009, the complainant approached the Deputy Superintendent of Police of Lokayukta, Yadagiri and narrated the conduct of the accused and pending applications.

4.3. To ascertain the veracity of the oral complaint, the Deputy Superintendent of Police said to have given a voice recorder to the hands of the complainant and directed him to record the conversation of demand of illegal gratification. After receipt of such voice recorder, on 21.06.2009, complainant approached the accused. Accused again demanded a sum of Rs.1,800/- for processing the pending eighteen applications. In conversation, accused demanded that the complainant may make a round figure and pay the bribe amount.

4.4. After hearing the conversation recorded in the voice recorder, a complaint came to be lodged vide Exhibit P.2 and the case came to registered in Crime