The prosecution must prove charges beyond reasonable doubt, and failure to do so results in an acquittal, reinforcing the presumption of innocence.

JUDGMENT :

M G Uma, J.

The State of Karnataka through, the than ACB, now Lokayukta Police, Vijayapura has preferred this appeal impugning the judgment of acquittal dated 02.11.2021 passed in Special (Lok) Case No.03/2019 on the file of learned Principal Sessions Judge/the Special Judge at Vijayapura, acquitting the accused for the offences punishable under Sections 7 , 8 and 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act (for short ‘PC Act’).

2. The facts of the case in brief are that, on 15.03.2018 at 10.50 p.m., accused No.1 was working as Motor Vehicle Inspector in RTO Zalaki Check Post, while accused Nos.2 to 6 being the middlemen and accused Nos.7 and 8 being the Home-guards were assisting accused No.1, who used to stop lorries passing through the Check Post on the pretext of checking the vehicle and collecting illegal gratification other than the legal remuneration from the drivers and owners of various vehicles. A raid was held on the Check Post and accused No.1 being the public servant was found in possession of Rs.27,530/-, accused Nos.2 to 6 were collectively found in possession of Rs.5,050/-. It is alleged that, the same was obtained by corrupt or illegal means for which the accused were not having any reasonable explanation. Thereby, they have committed the offence as stated above. The seizure mahazar was drawn seizing the unaccounted money found in the possession of the accused. Investigation was completed and charge sheet came to be filed.

3. The Trial Court took cognizance of the offence and summoned the accused to appear before the Court. The accused have appeared before the Trial Court, pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. The prosecution has examined PWs.1 to 13, got marked Exs.P1 to P32 and identified M.O.1 in support of its contention. The accused have denied all the incriminating materials available on record, but have not led any evidence in support of their defence.

4. The Trial Court, after taking into consideration all the materials on record, came to the conclusion that, the prosecution is not successful in proving the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt and accordingly, acquitted the accused. Being aggrieved by the impugned judgment of acquittal passed by the Trial Court, the Karnataka Lokayukta has preferred this appeal.

5. Heard Sri Gourish S. Khashampur, learned Special Counsel for the appellant-Lokayukta, Sri M.S. Bhagwat learned Senior Counsel appearing for respondent No.1 and Sri Ravi B. Patil, learned counsel for respondent Nos.2 to 8. Perused the materials, including the Trial Court records.

6. In view of the rival contentions urged by the learned counsel for both the parties, the point that would arise for my consideration is:

“Whether the impugned judgment and order, acquitting the accused passed by the Trial Court suffers from infirmities and calls for interference by this Court?”

My answer to the above point is in the ‘Negative’ for the following:

REASONS

7. It is the specific contention of the prosecution that, accused No.1 was the public servant working as Motor Vehicle Inspector in Zalaki RTO Check Post, accused Nos.2 to 6 are middlemen and accused Nos.7 and 8 are Home-guards. Accused Nos.2 to 8 used to collect illegal gratification from the owners and drivers of various vehicles on the pretext of checking the vehicles, at the instance of accused No.1. PW.9-the informant has filed the first information as per Ex.P24 on receipt of credible information and by observing the activities in the Check Post on 14.03.2018 and 15.03.2018. Later, PW.13 along with panchas went to the spot and held a raid on 15.03.2018 at about 10.50 p.m. It is stated that, accused No.1 was in possession of cash of Rs.36,400/-, but he was having receipts for only Rs.