The presumption of illegal gratification under the Prevention of Corruption Act applies heavily against the accused, and failure to adequately rebut the prosecution's case results in affirming conviction.

JUDGMENT

These two appeals are filed by the appellants challenging the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 30.05.2012, passed against them by the Special Judge, Bagalkote, in Special Case No.13/2009, for the offence punishable under Sections 7 , 13(1)(d) read with Section 13 (2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 .

2. The accused No.1 has filed Crl.A.No.2693/2012, while, the accused No.2 has filed Crl.A.No.2696/2012. Since both these appeals are arising out of the same judgment, they are heard together and common judgment is being pronounced.

3. For the sake of convenience the parties herein are referred with the original rankings occupied by them before the Special Court.

4. The brief factual matrix leading to the case are as under:

That the complainant is a practicing advocate in Bagalkote and he is engaged in handling civil, criminal, LAC and other matters. It is further the case of the prosecution that certain lands belonging to clients of complainant were acquired and LAC awards were passed and he has filed 7 execution petitions against SLAO, Upper Krishna Project, Bagalkote. It is further the case of the prosecution that SLAO has sent all the seven cases to accused No.1 who is working as a Chief Accounts Officer, for preparation of the bills and issuance of cheques approximately amounting to Rs.15,00,000/-. It is the further case of the prosecution that on 01.08.2007 in the morning at about 10.30 a.m. the complainant approached accused No.2 who was handling the files and enquired about the cheques. It is further the case of the prosecution that at that time, accused No.2 asked the complainant that they use to charge Rs.300/- for per lakh and he is required to pay Rs.4,500/- in this regard and further directed him that he can approach accused No.1 in this regard. According to prosecution, then the complainant met with accused No.1 and she has also reiterated the same thing. The complainant asserted that Rs.4,500/- will be heavy for him and he agreed to pay Rs.3,000/-. Then the complainant returned with the assurance that he would come back and pay the amount. Since he was not willing, he filed a complaint in this regard before the Lokayukta Police. On the basis of the complaint, Lokayukta Police have registered a crime and issued FIR. Further two panchas were summoned and the entrustment mahazar was conducted in presence of panchas, as per Ex.P.15 by entrusting the amount to complainant after having recorded the serial numbers and smearing the same with phenolphthalein powder. It is also alleged that the shadow witness PW.2 was asked to accompany the complainant and the complainant was directed to pay the amount only in case of demand. Then the complainant along with shadow pancha approached accused No.2 who in turn took them to accused No.1 and there on demand the complainant has paid the amount to accused No.2 who in turn paid it to accused No.1 and accused No.1 received it and kept in her vanity bag. As pre-instructed, signal was given by the complainant, the raid was conducted and both the accused were trapped and their hand wash was taken and the tainted amount was recovered from accused No.2. Further the wash of inner lining of vanity bag was also taken and their statements were also recorded and then a trap mahazar was drawn. The complainant has also seized the material documents and subsequently the accused were enlarged on bail. Later on the Investigating Officer has recorded the statement of witnesses and he has also sent the material objects for FSL examination and also collected certain documents from the office of both the accus