Burden of proof lies with the prosecution to establish demand and acceptance of bribe beyond reasonable doubt; mere possession of tainted money is insufficient to prove corruption under the Prevention of Corruption Act.

JUDGMENT :

G. BASAVARAJA, J.

State by Anti-Corruption Bureau, Lokayukta, Mysuru has preferred this appeal against judgment of acquittal dated 18^th August, 2020, passed in Special Case No.401 of 2018 by the III Additional District and Sessions Judge, Mysuru, (for short “the trial Court”).

2. For the sake of convenience, parties herein are referred to as per rank and status before the trial court.

3. Brief facts leading to the appeal are that, Anti-Corruption Bureau Police (for short "ACB Police") registered case in Crime No.6 of 2017 against the accused, who is the Taluk Surveyor working in KR Nagar, Mysore district for offence punishable under section 7, 13(1)(d) read with section 13(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act on the basis of complaint filed by one Nagaraju. It is stated in complaint that the first informant is the owner of land in three survey numbers situated in Kaggere Village and in November 2016, he has filed application with the Survey Office for putting boundary stones to his land, and since then though he was repeatedly visiting the office. His work was not being attended to, and on the other hand, the Survey Supervisor was telling him that the files will be taken up on seniority basis and ultimately it is alleged that few days prior to filing the First Information Report, the survey supervisor told him that his file has been entrusted to Taluk Surveyor viz. Sri V.M. Balaram, the accused herein. When the first informant enquired with the accused regarding his work, it is alleged that accused demanded illegal gratification for conducting survey of the lands of first informat on priority basis, else the work would be delayed. It is alleged that on 3^rd May 2017, notice was served upon the first informant fixing the date of survey on 5^th May 2017 and on that day, the accused, along with his staff, visited the informants land and conducted survey and after conducting survey, it is alleged that accused demanded by of Rs.6,000/- i.e. Rs.2,000/- for each survey number to finish the survey and to give report. Further, it is alleged that the accused collected Rs.1,000/- as advance amount and the remaining to be given within few days. Since the first informant was not interested in getting his work done by paying the bribe, he approached the ACB Police and gave complaint which has resulted in registration of a Crime and thereafter, after following usual procedures, Police have set up trap and at the time of trap on 8^th May, 2017 Which was held in the office of the accused, it is alleged that the accused was caught red handed with the tainted amount. The investigating officer arrested the accused on 8^th May, 2017 and produced before the court. Then investigating officer laid charge-sheet against accused for the aforestated commission of offences. Upon hearing on charges, charges were framed for the commission of alleged offences. Same was explained to the accused. Having understood the same, accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. To prove its case, prosecution has examined ten witnesses in all as PWs1 to 10 and marked 33 documents as Exhibits P1 to P33 and thirteen material objects as MOs1 to 13. On closure of prosecution side evidence, statement of the accused under section 313 of Code of Criminal Procedure was recorded. Accused had totally denied evidence appearing against him. However, accused did not choose to lead any defence evidence on his behalf. Having heard the arguments on both sides, the trial court has acquitted the accused. Being aggrieved by the judgment of acquittal, State has preferred this appeal.

4. Sri B.B. Patil, learned Special Public Prosecutor appearing for the appel