The prosecution must prove demand and acceptance of bribes beyond reasonable doubt for a conviction under the Prevention of Corruption Act.

ORAL JUDGMENT

1. The appeal is filed challenging the judgment of conviction and sentence dated 28.02.2013 passed in Spl.C.C.No.28/2008 for the offence punishable under Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act and sentenced the accused to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of six months with fine of Rs.200/- and rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year with fine of Rs.400/- for the offence punishable under Section 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act.

2. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the respective parties.

3. The factual matrix of the case of the prosecution before the Trial Court that the complainant purchased a property bearing No.1831, EWS, Yalahanka Upanagara 3^rd Stage and he has paid the necessary tax and also filed an application to the BBMP for change of katha but the said application was not considered even after lapse of six months and when the complainant met the accused who was the case worker in the Yalahanka office, he demanded an amount of Rs.2,000/- and on request, the accused scaled down the bribe amount to Rs.1,500/-. Since the complainant was not willing to pay the bribe amount, he approached the Lokayuktha police and lodged the complaint on 13.06.2007. On the basis of the said complaint, Lokayuktha police registered a case for the offences punishable under Section 7 , 13(1)(d) and 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act and investigated the matter and filed the charge-sheet against the accused alleging that the accused got trapped on 13.06.2007 at about 5.43 p.m. while accepting the illegal gratification of Rs.1,500/- from the complainant. Accused was also granted bail. Charge was framed and accused did not plead guilty and claims for trial. The prosecution in order to prove the case, examined the witnesses as PW1 to PW5 and also got marked the documents at Ex.P1 to P25 and the material objects at MO1 to MO9. The accused was subjected to 313 statement but he has not led any defence evidence. The Trial Court having considered both oral and documentary evidence placed on record comes to the conclusion that there was a demand and acceptance of bribe amount and the prosecution has proved the case. Hence, the present appeal is filed.

4. The main contention of the learned counsel for the appellant that the appellant is working as a BBMP employee. The case of the complainant that he has purchased the property and made an application for change of khatha and no action was taken by BBMP for changing of khatha and the accused demanded bribe of Rs.2,000/- for the said work and the same was scaled down to Rs.1,500/- on his request. The counsel also would vehemently contend that the very demand of Rs.2,000/- was scaled down to Rs.1,500/- but there was no any material in this regard. The complaint was lodged on 13.06.2007. The counsel would vehemently contend that Ex.P.P10 is the pre-trap mahazar and case of the prosecution that the Lokayuktha police along with the complainant went to the BBMP office at 3.30 p.m. and accused asked the complainant to come at 5.30 p.m., since he was having a meeting. It is also the case of the prosecution that when they went again to the office of BBMP, accused accepted the bribe money by receiving the same in left hand and kept the same in a cupboard and gave signal by changing the watch and hence, trap was conducted. It is the case of the prosecution that there was a demand and acceptance. The counsel also would vehemently contend that PW1 was given sanction but he was not cross-examined. PW2 is the complainant and PW3 is the shadow witness and both of them deposed before the Court that there was