The prosecution successfully proved the accused's demand and acceptance of bribe under the Prevention of Corruption Act, with sufficient evidence despite delays in filing the FIR.

CAV JUDGMENT

The appellant being the accused in Special (P.C.) Case No. 1 of 2000 on the file of the learned Special Judge at Shivamogga, is impugning the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 21.05.2012, convicting him for the offences punishable under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) r/w 13(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act of 1988 (for short, 'the P.C Act'), sentencing to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of six months and to pay fine of Rs.2,000/- for the offence punishable under Section 7 of PC Act, and to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of one year and to pay fine of Rs.2,000/- for the offence punishable under Section 13 (1)(d) r/w 13(2) of the P.C.

Act, with default sentences.

2. Brief facts of the case as made out by the prosecution are that, the accused was the public servant working as a Revenue Inspector at Holalur, I Hobli of Shivamogga. The informant-PW.6 approached the accused in connection with the application submitted by Smt.Subhadramma-the sister-in-law of PW.6, seeking change of katha in her name in respect of properties that were owned by her late husband. The accused demanded illegal gratification of Rs.1,000/- to do the official favour and after bargaining, it was scaled down to Rs.600/-, out of which, the complainant paid Rs.100/- on 19.11.1999. The accused insisted for payment of balance amount of Rs.500/-. Since the informant was not interested in paying the illegal gratification, he lodged the first information as per Ex.P9 with Lokayukta Police. On the basis of same, the Police registered the FIR for the above said offences. The Lokayukta Police summoned the other two public servants, prepared pre- trap panchanama as per Ex.P1, entrusted the currency notes smeared with phenolphthalein powder-(MO.9) to the informant, and asked him to meet the accused. The Investigation Officer also directed the shadow witness-PW.1 to accompany PW.6 and to observe the conduct of the accused. The pancha witness- PW.2 was asked to accompany the Investigating Officer and to wait outside the office for the signal to be given by the complainant in case the accused demands and accepts the illegal gratification.

3. It is the contention of the prosecution that, the accused demanded and accepted the bribe money and kept it in his pant pocket. The complainant gave signal to the Investigating Officer, upon which the I.O along with pancha rushed to the spot and trapped him. Subsequently, they asked the accused to wash his hands in the sodium carbonate solution, collected the samples, asked the accused to produce the tainted amount, seized MO.9 produced by the accused from his pant pocket, obtained his explanation for being in possession of the tainted amount, seized the case file, got the sanction order as per Exhibit P10, and after completing the investigation, filed the charge sheet against the accused.

4. The Special Court took cognizance of the offence and summoned the accused. The accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. The prosecution has examined PWs.1 to 8, got marked Exhibits P1 to 16, identified MOs.1 to 11 in support of its contention. The accused has denied all the incriminating materials available on record in his statement recorded under Section 313 of Cr.PC, but has not led any evidence in support of his defence. He got marked Exhibits D1 to D5 during cross examination of PW6. The Special Court initially acquitted the accused by passing the judgment dated 31.12.2008. The same was challenged by preferring the appeal by the Lokayukta Police in Criminal Appeal No. 364 of 2009. The said appeal came to be allowed by the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court vide judgment dated 07.03.2012 and the matter was remanded to the Trial Court for proper appreciation of the materials on record. Upon remanding the matter, the Trial Court once again re-appreciated the oral and documentary evidence and proceeded to pass the impugned judgment, convicting and sentencing the accused as stated above. Being agg