For a conviction under the Prevention of Corruption Act, clear evidence of demand and acceptance of bribes is imperative; mere recovery of money does not suffice to establish guilt.

JUDGMENT :

RAMACHANDRA D. HUDDAR, J.

The original appellant by name Mahendra Suresh Babu had filed the appeal during his life time challenging the judgment of his conviction and order of sentence dated 23.11.2011 in Spl.Case No.70/2009 by the III Additional Sessions and Special Judge, Mysore. During the pendency of this appeal, he died and his legal representatives i.e. wife and two children are now prosecuting this appeal.

2. The learned trial Court found the accused guilty of committing offences under Section 7 and 13(1)(d) read with Section 13 (2) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (in short 'the Act’) and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year and to pay fine of Rs.35,000/- with default sentence.

3. The facts leading of to his appeal in brief are as under:

a) The original appellant-accused was working as Superintendent of District Prison, Mysore. The complainant T.S. Prashanth was working as Medical Representative of J.K. Pharma Firm of Mysore. He supplied medicines to the District Prison Mysore, through Janatha Bazaar, Mysore, worth Rs.1,75,000/-. The said amount was due from District Prison, Mysore. It is stated that the bills were not prepared to release the said amount to the complainant’s firm. Therefore, complainant requested the accused to prepare the bill and release the amount. It is alleged that accused demanded Rs.32,000/- to make the payment towards medicines supplied through Janatha Bazaar. The complainant informed the said fact to his employer about the demand made by the accused. The complainant paid Rs.15,000/- to the accused. He again requested the accused to release the medicine amount, but, accused demanded to pay the entire bribe amount. Thereafter, complainant gave another sum of Rs.5,000/- to him. Inspite of that, accused did not take steps to prepare the bills and release the amount. Therefore, complainant approached the respondent Lokayukta Police and lodged a written complaint on 02.05.2007 alleging that accused is demanding the illegal gratification from him. It was registered by the respondent – Police. The Lokayukta Police secured two panchas being a official witnesses of other department and in their presence the complainant produced Rs.5,000/- which was smeared with Phenolphthalein powder. Pre- trap procedure was conducted by the I.O. Thereafter, complainant and shadow witness were asked to visit the accused and an demand, was asked to handover the said bribe amount. Accordingly, the complainant, shadow witness other panchas and police staff went to the District Prison, Mysore, on the same day itself and came to know that accused is in his official residence situated in jail premises. Therefore, complainant and shadow witness went to the residential premises of the accused and there accused enquired the complainant that whether he has brought the money. The complainant handed over the said money to the accused and by receiving the same, accused kept the said amount in his banyan pocket. As agreed before the I.O., the complainant gave pre-arranged signal to the Police Officer and suddenly the Police Officer and other panchas came to the house of the accused and apprehended him. The Police Officer prepared the sodium carbonate solution and asked the accused to dip fingers into the solution which turned into pink colour. He collected