Demand and acceptance of illegal gratification must be established beyond reasonable doubt to sustain charges under the Prevention of Corruption Act.

ORDER :

M. NAGAPRASANNA, J.

The petitioner/accused is before this Court calling in question proceedings in Special Case No.205 of 2024 arising out of crime No.4 of 2020 registered for offences punishable under Section 7 (a)of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (‘the Act’ for short).

2. Facts, in brief, as borne out from the pleadings are as follows:-

The 2^nd respondent is the complainant. A complaint comes to be registered on 18-03-2020 by the 2^nd respondent before the 1^st respondent alleging that the petitioner, President of Beellavi Gram Panchayat, Tumkur Taluk had demanded and received a bribe of Rs. 2,000/- from CW-1, GPA holder of CW-5, owner of the property for effecting khatha in the name of CW-5 on the basis of a Will in respect of a house and a site in the said village. It is further alleged that on 13-03-2020, CW-1 called the petitioner on his phone at which point in time, the petitioner had demanded Rs. 10,000/- as bribe to do the work and the said conversation is said to have been recorded by CW-1. The complainant registers the complaint on the said demand before the 1^st respondent/Lokayukta Police which becomes a crime in Crime No.4 of 2020 for offences punishable under Section 7 (a) of the Act. A pre-trap mahazar was drawn and trap was laid against the petitioner. No amount was recovered from the hands of the petitioner. The Lokayukta Police, after investigation, filed a charge sheet against the petitioner for the aforesaid offence punishable under Section 7 (a) of the Act. Filing of the charge sheet against the petitioner for offences punishable under Section 7 (a) in Special Case No.205 of 2024 is what has driven the petitioner to this Court in the subject petition.

3. Heard Sri Sandesh J.Chouta, learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner and Sri B.B. Patil, learned counsel representing the 1^st respondent.

4. The learned senior counsel for the petitioner would contend that there is no proof of demand and acceptance of bribe in the case at hand. The work had to be done by the Panchayat Development Officer (‘PDO’). The petitioner being the President of the Bellavi Gram Panchayath had no role to issue khatha. Therefore, nothing was pending before the petitioner. The learned senior counsel would contend that the tainted currency notes were not recovered from the hands of the petitioner, but from the dickey of a two-wheeler which were planted by the complainant. The hands of the petitioner were subjected to sodium bicarbonate test. The petitioner’s hands remained colourless as the petitioner had not touched the currency notes, as there was neither demand nor acceptance. There is no recovery of bribe money from the hands of the petitioner. The recovery of money from a two-wheeler parked outside would not constitute an offence under Section 7 (a) of the Act. He would contend that the case is a classic illustration of misuse of provisions of law and a failed trap. He would seek quashment of the proceedings.

5. Per contra, the learned counsel Sri B.B.Patil representing the 1^st respondent would vehemently contend that the allegation against the petitioner is demand and acceptance of bribe. As Rs. 10,000/- is recovered from the two-wheeler of the petitioner, it is beside the fact that it was parked outside the office. Since the Police after investigation have filed a charge sheet, he would submit that it is a matter of trial for the petitioner to come out clean. 6. I have given my anxious consideration to the submissions made by the respective learned counsel and have perused the material on record.

7. The afore-narrated fact the afore-narrated fact of the petitioner being the President of Bellavi Gram Panchayat is not in dispute. The 2^nd respondent is the complainant. The complaint is with regard to change of katha based upon a Will. Since the entire issue has now triggered from the complaint, I deem it appropriate to notice the complaint. It reads as follows:

Based upon the aforementioned complaint a pre-trap m