Conviction upheld as prosecution proved demand and acceptance of bribes under Prevention of Corruption Act with valid sanction.

JUDGMENT :

M.G. UMA, J.

The accused in Special (Lok) Case No.9/2013 on the file of the learned Principal Sessions/Special Judge, Vijayapura, has preferred this appeal, impugning the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 29.11.2018 convicting him for the offences punishable under Sections 7, 13(1)(d) and 13(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act (for short ‘P.C. Act’) and sentencing to undergo simple imprisonment for 02 years and to pay a fine of Rs.10,000/- for the offence punishable under Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act and further, sentencing to undergo simple imprisonment for 4 years and to pay fine of Rs.20,000/-, for the offence under Section 13 (1)(d), punishable under Section 13 (2) of P.C. Act, with default sentences.

2. Brief facts of the case as per the prosecution are that, the appellant/accused was working as Commissioner for Workmen’s Compensation and the complainant is an Advocate, who was practicing before the accused and dealing with the workmen’s compensation cases. He approached the Lokayukta Police stating that to pass an order and show the official favour, the accused is demanding illegal gratification. Therefore, the Lokayukta Police gave a voice recorder to the informant to record the conversation regarding demand of illegal gratification. Accordingly, the informant met the accused along with the voice recorder, where the accused demanded payment of the illegal gratification and the same was recorded and produced before the Lokayukta Police.

3. On being satisfied that the accused is demanding illegal gratification, the FIR as per Ex.P9 came to be registered. Entrustment panchnama as per Ex.P3 was drawn in the presence of the mahazar witnesses - PWs.2 and 3. The tainted amount smeared with the phenolphthalein powder was entrusted to the complainant with a direction to meet the accused along with shadow witness - PW2 and also to pay the tainted amount if in case accused demands the illegal gratification.

4. It is the further contention of the prosecution that, PW1 accompanied by PW2 went and met the accused, the accused demanded illegal gratification and received the tainted amount. The Investigating Officer along with the co-panch - PW3 went to the accused, his hand wash was taken in the sodium carbonate solution, which turned into pink colour, samples were collected and the tainted amount was recovered from the custody of the accused. The file pertaining to the PW1 was recovered, his explanation was taken. It is stated that the sanction is obtained to prosecute the accused and final report came to be passed.

5. The accused has appeared before the Trial Court and pleaded not guilty. Prosecution examined PWs.1 to 10 and got marked Exs.P1 to P13 and identified M.O. 1 to 11 in support of its contention. The accused has denied all the incriminating materials available on record and examined himself as DW1 and got marked Exs.D1 to D9 in his defence.

6. After taking into consideration all the materials on record, the Trial Court formed an opinion that the prosecution is successful in proving the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubt and accordingly, the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence came to be passed. Being aggrieved by the same, the accused has approached this Court by filing the appeal.

7. During pendency of the appeal, the accused died and his son got impleaded himself to prosecute the appeal.

8. Heard Sri Krishna Moorthy P., learned counsel for the appellant-accused and Sri Gourish S. Khashampur, learned counsel for the respondent-Lokayukta. Perused the materials including the Trial Court records.

9. In view of the rival contentions urged by learned counsels for both the parties, the point th