Proof of demand and acceptance of bribe by public servants is essential for conviction under the Prevention of Corruption Act, established through testimonies and corroborative evidence.

JUDGMENT :

H.P. SANDESH, J.

Heard the learned counsel for the appellant and the learned counsel for the respondent.

2. This appeal is filed challenging the judgment of conviction and sentence dated 29.09.2021 passed in Special C.C.No.383/2018 for the offences punishable under Sections 8 , 13(1)(d) read with 13(2) of the Prevention of corruption Act (‘PC Act’ for short), wherein the accused was imposed rigorous imprisonment for a period of three years with fine of Rs.50,000/- for the offence punishable under Section 8 of PC Act and four years with fine of Rs.50,000/- for the offence punishable under Sections 13 (1)(d) read with 13(2) of the PC Act.

3. The factual matrix of the case of the ACB is that the accused is working as a Head Constable in Bagalagunte Police Station. The Bagalagunte police have registered the case in Crime No.238/2017 against the informant/P.W.2 and P.W.6 Arun. The accused and other two police officers on 15.06.2017 arrested P.W.2 and he was produced before the Court and he was enlarged on bail vide order dated 17.06.2017. It is alleged that the accused demanded the bribe of Rs.20,000/- from P.W.2/informant to close the aforesaid case registered in Crime No.238/2017. P.W.2 has recorded the said conversation between himself and the accused to substantiate the demand of bribe. P.W.2 had agreed to pay a sum of Rs.10,000/- to the accused and also expressed his inability to make the payment of Rs.20,000/- as demanded by the accused and complaint was lodged and in pursuance of the said complaint, P.W.7 reduced the statement into writing and registered the FIR in terms of Ex.P.12 and trap was laid and tainted bribe amount of Rs.10,000/- was recovered from the possession of the accused and after trap panchanama, the matter was investigated and charge-sheet was filed.

4. The accused was secured before the Trial Court and he did not plead guilty and the prosecution examined P.W.1 to P.W.10 and got marked the documents at Exs.P.1 to 45. The material objects M.O.1 to M.O.11 were marked. The accused was subjected to 313 statement and he did not choose to lead any defence evidence. The Trial Court having considered the evidence of the prosecution witnesses, comes to the conclusion that demand and acceptance was proved and in Ex.P.28 chemical examination report, the presence of the phenolphthalein is detected in both the right hand and left hand finger washes of the AGO - Manjunath and also detected in article Nos.3, 7 and 8 and comes to the conclusion that the expert opinion in Ex.P.28 clearly substantiate the prosecution case that the accused has receive