The prosecution must prove demand and acceptance of illegal gratification beyond reasonable doubt; mere possession of tainted currency is insufficient for conviction.

ORAL JUDGMENT

1. This appeal under Section 374 (2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 ( Cr.P.C .) is filed by the accused challenging the judgment of conviction and order of sentence, whereby the accused has been convicted for offences punishable under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (PC Act) and sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of one year.

2. The prosecution alleges that the accused was serving as the Child Development Project Officer (CDPO) in Shiggaon at the relevant time. The complainant and his wife, residents of Mulakeri Village, Shiggaon Taluk, had applied for the vacant post of Anganwadi Worker in their village’s Anganwadi school. The complainant approached the accused regarding his wife’s appointment, during which the accused allegedly demanded illegal gratification of ₹30,000 to show official favor. After negotiations, the bribe amount was settled at ₹25,000, out of which ₹5,000 was paid in advance, and the balance was agreed to be paid later. Eventually, the amount was further settled at ₹17,000, but before paying it, the complainant approached the Lokayukta Police.

3. The Lokayukta Police registered a case, provided the complainant with a voice recorder to record the alleged demand for the bribe, and subsequently conducted a trap on 24.06.2011. The accused was allegedly caught red-handed accepting ₹17,000 in the presence of the complainant and a shadow witness. Following this, the Investigating Officer conducted a panchanama and other trap proceedings.

4. The prosecution, to substantiate its case, examined fourteen witnesses (PW1 to PW14), exhibited documents (Ex.P1 to Ex.P77), and marked material objects (MO1 to MO16). The trial court, after framing points for consideration and appreciating the evidence on record, convicted the accused and sentenced him accordingly.

○ The learned counsel for the appellant (accused) argued that: The complainant (PW1) turned hostile, and in the absence of any corroborative material, the trial court erred in convicting the accused without evidence of demand and acceptance of gratification.

○ PW2 (Under Secretary, Department of Health and Family Welfare, Government of Karnataka) was not the competent authority to grant sanction under Section 19 of the PC Act, thereby vitiating the entire trial.

○ The trial court erroneously relied on shadow witness (PW2) to convict the accused, despite settled legal principles that a shadow witness’s evidence alone cannot substitute the complainant’s testimony.

○ The prosecution failed to produce any transcription of the recorded conversation between the accused and the complainant, making the allegations unsubstantiated.

5. In support of these contentions, reliance was placed on the following precedents:

○ State of Karnataka Through CBI v. M.K. Vijayalakshmi

○ Mansukhlal Vithaldas Chauhan v. State of Gujarat

○ Nanjappa v. State of Karnataka

○ Hanumanthappa v. State of Karnataka

○ State of Karnataka v. Nageshkumar B. Mandivala

○ M.R. Purushotham v. State of Karnataka

○ R. Manthara Murthy v. State of Karnataka.

6. The learned counsel for the respondent (Lokayukta) contended that:

a. Though the complainant (PW1) turned hostile, PW2 (shadow witness) supported the prosecution’s case, and his testimony was corroborated by PW14 (Investigating Officer).

b. Even if it is accepted that PW12 was not the competent authority to grant sanction, no prejudice was caused to the accused, and therefore, the trial is not vitiated for non- compliance with Section 19 of the PC Act.

c. The prosecution relied on the Supreme Court’s decision in Central Bureau of Investigation v. Jagat Ram to argue that procedural irregularities in sanction do not automatically nullify a trial unless prejudice is shown.

7. Upon hearing both parties and perusing the trial court records, the key issue that arises for determination is:

8. Whether the prosecution has established the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable dou