Prosecution must prove demand and acceptance of bribe beyond reasonable doubt for conviction; mere acceptance of bribe is inadequate.

JUDGMENT :

G BASAVARAJA, J.

State has preferred this appeal against the judgment of acquittal dated 31^st May 2014 passed in Special Case No.55 of 2010 by the District & Sessions Judge at Chamarajanagar (for short "the trial Court").

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

3. The case of prosecution is that Police Inspector, Lokayukta, Chamarajanagar laid charge-sheet against the accused for offence punishable under sections 7, 13(1)(d) read with 13(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. It is alleged by the prosecution that accused, being a public servant working as village accountant in revenue department of Kasaba Hobli, Kollegal, demanded illegal gratification of Rs.7,000/- from the complainant for doing official favour, viz. changing the khata of the land in survey Nos.1043 and 971 situated in Kollegal, Kasaba Hobli to the names of CW1, CW4 and CW5. As CW1- complainant was not willing to pay the bribe amount, he lodged complaint to the Lokayukta Police, which was registered in Crime No.4 of 2009 and FIR was sent to the special Judge. Thereafter on 21^st October 2009, at 4:50 pm, in the house situate at Jewellery Street, Kollegal town, when the accused demanded the bribe amount and received the same, the accused was caught red-handed along with the bribe amount by the Lokayukta Police and accordingly, accused committed criminal misconduct by demanding and obtaining pecuniary gratification from the complainant by corrupt and illegal means while holding the office of government servant and thereby accused committed the for offences punishable under the provisions of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. After filing the charge-sheet, case came to be registered in Special Case No.55 of 2010. Accused appeared before the court and was enlarged on bail. Having heard on charges, the trial Court framed charges for the offences sections 7, 13(1)(d) read with section 13(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. The same were read over and explained to the accused in the language known tot them. Accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. To prove the guilt of the accused, prosecution has examined seven witnesses as PWs1 to 7 and marked twenty documents as Exhibits P1 to P20 and twelve Material Objects as MOs1 to 12. On closure of prosecution side evidence, statement of the accused under section 313 of Code of Criminal Procedure was recorded. Accused denied all the incriminating circumstances appearing against him and produced his written statement. He has not chosen to lead any defence evidence. Having heard the arguments on both sides, the trial court acquitted the accused. Being aggrieved by the impugned judgment of acquittal, State has preferred this appeal.

4. Sri B.S. Prasad, learned Special Public Prosecutor appearing for the appellant-State would submit that the impugned judgment of acquittal is contrary to law, facts of the case and weight of evidence. The reasons assigned by the learned judge while passing the order of acquittal is erroneous and hence has resulted in substantial miscarriage of justice. He would submit that PW1-the complainant, PW2 the panch witness, PW3-the shadow witness and PW7-Investigating officer, have all supported the case of the prosecution. The evidence of these witnesses establish the case of the prosecution against the respondent. He would submit that evidence of all the witnesses clearly establish the fact that the respondent, being the public servant, had received the bribe amount from the complainant for doing official work of changing khata in the name of complainant and others. The trial court failed to appreciate th