The court affirmed the importance of corroborative evidence in bribery cases, ruling that both demand and acceptance of bribes must be clearly established to support convictions under the Prevention of Corruption Act.

JUDGMENT :

V. SRISHANANDA, J.

1. Heard learned counsel Sri Chaitanyakumar Chandrike for the appellant and learned counsel Sri Subhash Mallapur for the respondent.

2. Accused, who has suffered an order of conviction for the offence punishable under Sections 7 , 13(1)(d) read with Section 13 (2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, (for short ‘P.C. Act’), has preferred this appeal challenging the validity of conviction order and sentence thereof.

3. Facts in the nutshell for the disposal of the present appeal are as under:

3.1 The Lokayukta Police, Gulbarga, charge-sheeted the accused No.1 and accused No.2 for the aforesaid offences. According to the case of prosecution, as per the charge-sheet material, one Haji S/o. Abdulsab Malang carried out the work under Mahatma Gandhi National Rural Employment Guarantee Scheme (for short ‘MNREG Scheme’) and constructed a compound wall of Grama Panchayat. The said Haji S/o. Abdulsab Malang and his family members carried out the said work between the period 13.09.2013 to 19.09.2013, 22.09.2013 to 28.09.2013, 03.10.2013 to 09.10.2013 and 10.10.2013 to 16.10.2013.

3.2 One Sri Mohammad Haneef said to have supplied stone, cement, sand and other materials for the said work. Work was completed and the Nodal Officer appointed by the Grama Panchayat verified the work and approved the checklist. Thereafter, Haneef met the accused No.1 on 04.12.2013 and requested him to release the wages and material supplied amount. At that juncture, appellant said to have demanded 10% of the bill amount i.e., to the tune of Rs.28,000/-, to be paid as bribe for processing the bill. Since the complainant was not interested in parting away with the illegal gratification, he approached the Lokayukta Police, Kalaburagi.

3.3 On hearing the oral complaint, Lokayukta Police said to have given a voice recorder to the complainant and told him to record the conversation between the him and the accused so as to ascertain the veracity of the oral complaint made by the complainant.

3.4 After receiving the voice recorder, on 07.12.2013, Haneef and the complainant met accused Nos.1 and 2 and requested to release the amount. On that occasion also there was a demand of bribe, which was recorded in the voice recorder and thereafter, lodged written complaint with the Lokayukta Police.

3.5 After receipt of the complaint, Lokayukta Inspector formed a raid team by securing two independent persons to act as Panchas. The contents of the complaint were read over to the Panchas, so also the conversation that took place between the complainant and the accused were revealed to the Panchas. Thereafter, the head of the raid party demonstrated the chemical reaction of phenolphthalein powder with sodium carbonate solution and took 28 currency notes of Rs.1,000/- denomination from the custody of the complainant and noted the serial numbers of those currency notes and smeared the phenolphthalein powder on those currency notes. The colour test and chemical reaction was demonstrated and an Experimental Mahazar was drawn.

3.6 Of the two panchas, one was directed to accompany the complainant at the time of handing over the illegal gratification by the complainant to the accused and to observe the activities that would be taken place at the time of