The demand for illegal gratification is essential to establish an offence under the Prevention of Corruption Act; mere recovery of tainted money is insufficient for conviction.

JUDGMENT

Appellant-accused has assailed the judgment of his conviction and order of sentence dated 14th June 2011 passed in Spl.Case No.54/2009 by the III Addl. Sessions and Spl.Judge, Mysuru.

2. Parties to this appeal are referred to as per their rank before the trial Court for convenience.

3. Brief facts leading upto this appeal are as under:

That, accused was charge-sheeted by the Circle Inspector of Police, Lokayukta, Mysuru alleging commission of offences punishable under Section 7 and 13(1)(d) read with Sec.13(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (for short `the Act') on the ground that accused at the relevant time was working as a II Division Surveyor in Survey Department at K.R.Nagara, Mysore District. To the said survey department, complainant Raghuram and his brother arrayed in the charge sheet as CW.7 by name Thyagaraju submitted an application to survey their land situated at Senabinakuppa Village, Saligrama Hobli, K.R.Nagara Taluka and requested to fix the boundaries and also make phodies of the land. It is stated that, it was accused who received the said application. When complainant CW.1 by approaching the accused requested him to conduct the survey and phodi work, but, accused went on postponing the same. Often, complainant visited the office of the accused. Even complainant has deposited the survey charges as required. It is alleged by the complainant, that it was accused who demanded to pay Rs.1,500/- for conducting survey and phodi work as requested in the application. As complainant was not inclined to pay the bribe amount, therefore, on 15.5.2007, he approached Lokayukta Police of Mysore and submitted written complaint about demanding of bribe by the accused.

4. It was CW.18 who received the complaint and registered the crime against the accused and submitted the FIR to the concerned Court. He secured two panchas by name B.N.Thammanne Gowda and P.Somanayaka. In their presence, he prepared entrustment Mahazar and also collected bait money and sprinkled the currency notes with phenolphthalene powder. He handed over the said amount tainted with the said powder to the complainant with instructions to hand over the same to the accused, if accused demands.

5. It is alleged that, on the same day itself, the IO with complainant, witnesses with other police went near survey office at K.R.Nagara. The IO sent the complainant and P.Somanayaka (a witness) to the office of the accused to observe the happenings. Somanayaka was the shadow witness. It is alleged that, when complainant went to the accused and made enquiry about survey work, accused demanded for money. Accordingly, complainant handed the bait tainted money to the accused. Accused received the same and kept in his pocket. It is alleged that, complainant came out of the survey office and as agreed made signal about handing over the money to the accused. It is alleged that immediately IO along with B.N.Thammannegowda with other Police Officials rushed inside the office of accused. Complainant showed the accused to the IO stating that it was accused who received the money. Immediately, IO and his staff apprehended the accused. Prepared Sodium Carbonate solution and made the accused to dip his hands in the said solution which turned into pink colour. The said solution was seized.

6. It was further stated in the complaint that, when the accused was questioned about possessing of money received from the complainant, he took out the said money from his pocket and gave it to the IO. The serial numbers of the currency notes and the serial nos. noted by the Lokayukta Police Station were tallied and they resembled with each ot