The court upheld the conviction under Section 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, establishing that demand and acceptance of illegal gratification must be proven, while setting aside the conviction under Section 7 due to insufficient evidence.

CAV JUDGMENT

(PER: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE V SRISHANANDA)

These two appeals are filed by accused Nos. 1 and 2 respectively challenging the order of conviction passed in Spl.C.(PCA) No.02/2009 on the file of Principal District and Sessions Judge, Chitradurga challenging the validity of the judgment of conviction dated 28.02.2012 for the offence punishable under Section 7 , 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 .

2. Facts which are utmost necessary for disposal of the appeals are as under:

2.1. K.Nagaraja, who was a lecturer in Government Composite Junior College, Kashipura, Holalkere Taluk lodged a complaint with Lokayukta Police, Chitradurga contending that on 29.11.2007, he had severe toothache. As such, he telephoned the Principal of college and informed that he is unable to attend the college on that day as he had to take immediate treatment for his toothache. He also prayed for grant of a day’s casual leave on 29.11.2007.

2.2. It is further alleged in the complaint that Principal of the college agreed to the request made and directed him that he can come next day and hand over the leave letter. On 30.11.2007, complainant usually visited the college and noticed that against his name, it was marked as ‘absent’ for the date 29.11.2007 in the attendance register. Therefore, he made an enquiry that accused No.2 was at that time working as Deputy Director of Pre- University Education (DDPU), Chitradurga and accused No.1 was working as First Division Assistant in the office of accused No.2. Accused No.2 told him that he has visited the college and noted the absence of complainant and marked ‘absent’.

2.3. Accused No.2 also issued show cause notice to the complainant seeking explanation for his absence on 29.11.2007. A reply was sent by the complainant on 10.12.2007. Despite the same, on 05.01.2008 accused No.2 instructed the Principal of the College for withholding a day’s salary for his absence on 29.11.2007.

2.4. Thereafter, complainant went to the office of accused No.2 on 21.01.2008 and met accused No.1 and enquired him as to why his explanation is not considered and why instructions have been issued on 05.01.2008 for withholding the salary. Accused No.1, at that juncture, demanded the bribe amount of Rs.1000/- for himself and Rs.5,000/- for accused No.2 to set right the instructions already issued and the money for himself and for accused No.2 is to be kept in two separate envelopes. Complainant was not willing to part away the bribe money and therefore, he decided to take action against the accused persons and filed the complaint.

2.5. Pursuant to the complaint, Lokayukta Police Chitradurga registered the case and for the intended trap, secured two independent Government servants to act as panchas in the intended trap. The contents of the complaint were explained to them and chemical reaction of phenolphthalein powder with the sodium carbonate solution was demonstrated to them. Later, the intended bribe money was received from the custody of the complainant and thereafter, phenolphthalein powder was smeared on those currency notes. Serial number of the currency notes was noted on separate paper. Complainant and one of the panch witness (shadow witness) was told to visit accused No.1 and on demand should hand over the tainted currency and then give predesignated signal to the remaining members of the raid team. Shadow witness was directed to observe the proceedings that would take place at the time of demand and handing over the tainted currency by the complainant to accused No.1. All these proceedings were reduced into writing in the form of entrustment mahazar.

2.6. Thereafter, raid team left the office of the Lokayukta and as per the instructions, complainant and shadow witness went inside the office and met accused No.1. Accused No.1 then took them to the another room and he demanded the bribe amount. Therefore, complainant handed over two separate envelopes as demanded by accused persons i.e., o