A conviction under the Prevention of Corruption Act requires clear evidence of demand and acceptance of bribes; mere recovery of tainted currency is insufficient without proof of the fundamental elements.

JUDGMENT :

(V. SRISHANANDA, J.)

Heard Sri Subhash Mallapur, learned Special Public Prosecutor for the appellant – Lokayukta and Sri Ravi K. Anoor learned counsel for the respondents.

2. Karnataka Lokayukta, Kalaburagi has filed the present appeal challenging the order of acquittal passed by the learned Special Judge in Special Case No.1/2016 (Lokayukta) by judgment dated 05.10.2020.

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

T. Bhimalingaiah S/o. T. Ramanajaneyalu, lodged a complaint with the Lokayukta Police, Kalaburagi, contending that he got a promotion as an Associate Professor in the year 2013 and it has to be given effect in the year 2000 itself. For the promoted post, he was entitled to salary including the arrears of salary to the extent of Rs.26,00,000/-. In that connection, he had sent the bills to Joint Director, Collegiate Education, Kalaburagi. Case workers, who are the persons to process the bill, demanded a sum of Rs.17,500/- as bribe on 07.03.2014 and the same was paid by the complainant. On 18.03.2014, when he enquired accused No.2, again both the accused persons demanded a sum of Rs.22,500/- as bribe and the same should be paid on 19.03.2014. Since the complainant was not interested in parting away the bribe amount, he lodged a complaint with Lokayukta Police on 19.03.2014.

4. Based on the complaint, the Lokayukta Inspector formed a raid team comprising of himself, two independent Government servants as punch witnesses and secured the intended bribe money from the hands of the complainant, registered a case in Crime No.1/2014 and conducted the raid.

5. In the raid, tainted currency was recovered from the table drawer of accused No. 1. The colour test was conducted, tainted currency was seized under trap mahazar. Later on, both the accused persons were arrested and they were sent to judicial custody. After thorough investigation, charge sheet came to be filed.

6. Learned Trial Judge secured the presence of the accused persons and framed charges for the offences punishable under Sections 7 , 13(1)(d) read with Section 13 (2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (for short ‘the P.C.Act’). Both the accused persons pleaded not guilty and therefore, trial was held.

7. In order to prove the case of the prosecution, in all 9 witnesses were examined as PW.1 to PW.9 and as many as 51 documentary evidence were placed on record, which were exhibited and marked as Exs.P1 to 51. 17 material objects were also placed on record, which comprised of the samples, cash of Rs.22,500/-(tainted currency), cover wherein tainted currency was kept, compact disk etc.

8. During the course of examination of the prosecution witnesses, eight documents were marked, which were exhibited and marked as Exs.D1 to D8 comprising of order copy, proceedings of the Managing Committee, copy of the complaint by the students, copy of forwarding letter by the Principal, letter of PW.1 seeking permission to attend the conference, attendance certificate of PW.1, copy of the attendance register and portion of the statement of PW.1 given before the Investigation Agency.

9. On conclusion of recording of evidence, learned Trial Judge heard the arguments of the parties in detail and on cumulative consideration of the oral and documentary evidence placed on record, acquitted the accused persons inter alia assigning reasons in the judgment at paragraph Nos.33 to 40. These paragraphs are extracted hereunder for ready reference:

“33. I have bestowed my anxious consideration to the arguments put-forth by the learned Public Prosecuto