Prosecution must establish both demand and acceptance of bribe to secure conviction under the Prevention of Corruption Act.

JUDGMENT :

(V. SRISHANANDA, J.)

Heard Sri Baburao Mangane, learned counsel for the appellant and Sri Subhash Mallapur, learned counsel for the respondent – Lokayukta.

2. Accused, who has been convicted for the offences punishable under Sections 7 , 13(1)(d) read with Section 13 (2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (for short ‘P.C.Act’) in Special Case No.13/2015 (Lokayukta) is the appellant.

3. Facts in nutshell for disposal of the appeal are as under: PW.1 – Sri Mallinath approached the Lokayukta Police, Kalaburagi contending that his wife, who was working as an Assistant Teacher in Government High Primary School at Kodalhangarga, accused was the Manager of Block Education Office. When the matter stood thus, from 30.10.2013 to 28.04.2014, wife of the complainant went on maternity leave. On 28.04.2014, complainant and his wife took permission from the BEO and resumed to her work on 29.04.2014. The salary of 180 days was withheld by the BEO and despite repeated request, not only the salary for 180 days was withheld but also subsequent salary was withheld. As such, complainant said to have approached the Secretary of Teachers’ Association by name Narasappa and all the three went to the BEO Office and requested the accused to release the salary.

4. It is further alleged by the complainant that on accused demanded a sum of Rs.10,000/- and on a subsequent visit, he demanded a sum of Rs.5,000/- as bribe amount. On 19.08.2014, again he met the accused and accused told that he has instructed Hanumanthrao and total amount payable to the wife of the complainant is to the tune of Rs.90,000/- for which Rs.1,500/- is to be paid to Hanumanthrao. Complainant said to have told the accused that he is interested in paying only Rs.200/-. At that juncture, accused said to have threatened the complainant and sent him out.

5. Based on such complaint, the Lokayukta Police, Kalaburagi registered a case in Crime No.8/2014 for the aforesaid offences. After registering the case, the Inspector of Lokayukta, Kalaburagi formed a raid team comprising of himself, two independent Government servants as panchas. He summoned them to his office and explained the contents of complaint marked at ExP1. Later on, the head of the raid party collected Rs.1,500/- (intended bribe money), comprising of three currency notes of Rs.500/- denomination and directed the co- pancha to note down the serial numbers of the notes. Thereafter, he smeared phenolphthalein powder on those currency notes and demonstrated the chemical reaction of sodium carbonate solution with the phenolphthalein powder and collected the sample sodium carbonate solution and pink coloured solution separately and drafted experimental mahazar.

6. Thereafter, entire raid team went to the office of the accused on 20.08.2014 at about 3.20 p.m. Complainant was instructed to pay the tainted currency on demand by the accused and shadow witness was directed to accompany the complainant and watch the proceedings that would take place at the time of handing over the tainted currency to the accused.

7. Thereafter, complainant said to have contacted the accused and accused said to have demanded the bribe money and enquired as to how much amount is there. Complainant said to have told that that Rs.1,500/- is there and the same has been counted by the accused and kept in his shirt pocket. Thereafter, complainant said to have given pre-designated signal and head of the raid party along with co-panchas and sub-staff came to be chamber of accused and enquired him about the bribe money. Hands of accused was washed in the sodium carbonate solution, which