The prosecution must prove both the demand and acceptance of bribes to secure conviction under the Prevention of Corruption Act; mere recovery of tainted money is insufficient without clear evidence.

JUDGMENT :

M.G. UMA, J.

The Lokayukta Police in Special Case (Corruption) No.3/2007 on the file of the learned District and Sessions Judge, Kodagu, Madikeri, is impugning the judgment dated 27.09.2012 acquitting the respondents/accused Nos.1 and 2 for the offence punishable under Section 7 and 13(1)(d) read with Section 13 (2) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, (hereinafter referred to as 'PC Act').

2. For the sake of convenience, the parties shall be referred to as per their rank and status before the Trial Court.

3. The brief facts of the case are that, Sadguru Education Trust of which P.W.3 is the President, was imparting vocational training to the youths belonging to Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes. The Central Government and the Government of Karnataka have recognized the trust for imparting such training on behalf of the Department of Social Welfare. Accused No.1 was working as the Project Co-ordinator of Integrated Tribal Development Project at Madikeri and accused No.2 was working as First Division Assistant (FDA) in the office of accused No.1.

4. It is the contention of the complainant that the training institute imparted training to as many as 371 scheduled tribes and at the end of the training, a certificate for having successfully completed the vocational training was required to be issued to each of the trainees. Such certificate was required to be signed by the head of the training institute and also accused No.1 being the Project Co-ordinator of Integrated Tribal Development Project. When P.W.4, the Marketing Executive of Sadguru Educational Institution, Madikeri approached accused No.1 and requested him to sign 371 certificates to be issued to the trainees who have undergone the training successfully on 12.09.2006, he demanded illegal gratification of Rs.2,00,000/- and demanded Rs.20,000/- as advance for the purpose of signing 371 certificates. P.W.4 came back and informed the said fact to PW.3-the President of the Institute. P.W.4 as per the direction of P.W.3 sent 371 certificates through speed post to accused No.1. Later again met accused No.1 on 17.10.2006 and requested to sign the certificates, which were already received in the office of accused No.1.

5. It is the contention of the complainant that accused No.1 again demanded Rs.20,000/- as advance and stated that Rs.15,000/- is to be paid to him and Rs.5,000/- to accused No.2, who is working as FDA. Thereafter, P.W.4 filed the first information, making specific allegations regarding demand of illegal gratification by accused Nos.1 and 2. Accordingly, FIR came to be registered. Entrustment panchanama was prepared in the presence of two independent witnesses, i.e., P.W.5 as a second panch and P.W.6 as the shadow witness. Rs.20,000/- was entrusted to P.W.4-complainant with a direction to meet accused Nos.1 and 2 along with the shadow witness.

6. It is the further contention of the complainant that when he contacted accused No.1, he informed over phone that he along with accused No.2 is in Ekalavya Residential School, Balugodu and asked the complainant to come there. Accordingly, the complainant, along with the shadow witness - P.W.6 came to Ekalavya Residential School, where he found accused Nos.1 and 2 along with others. Accused Nos.1 and 2 have came out of the school and accused No.1 accepted the entrusted amount of Rs.20,000/- by stating that both of them will share it amongst themselves. Accused No.1 received the tainted amount with his left hand and kept it in his shirt pocket. He also said that he would sign the certificates on the following day. On receiving the signal from P.W.4, the Investiga