The mere demand for a bribe does not constitute an offence under the Prevention of Corruption Act unless it is linked to an official duty that the public servant is compelled to perform.

JUDGMENT

1. This appeal is filed by the Karnataka Lokayukta Police, Bengaluru challenging the judgment of acquittal dated 09.02.2018 passed in Spl.C.No.134/2011 by the LXXVIII Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge and Special Judge(PCA), Bengaluru, whereunder respondents have been acquitted for offences punishable under Sections 7 , 8, 13(1)(d) read with 13 (2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as “P.C. Act” for brevity) and Sections 201 and 120-B of Indian Penal Code (hereinafter referred to as “IPC” for brevity).

2. The brief facts of prosecution case are as under:

The complainant – K.M. Manjunath (P.W.1) has given a complaint on 30.12.2010 before the Lokayukta Police stating that he is working as Registration Assistant with an advocate in Sri Vinayaka Enterprises and is assisting parties in registering documents and on 23.12.2010, Rafiq Ahmed came to him and has informed that a sale deed of property purchased by his father-in-law –Chand Pasha is to be registered and on the same day, the sale deed was registered in the office of Sub-Registrar, Raja Rajeshwarinagara, Bengaluru. At that time, accused No.1 who was the Sub-Registrar, called the complainant and asked him to pay Rs.30,000/-. The complainant informed Rafiq Ahmed about the demand by accused No.1, but Rafiq Ahmed was not ready to give the amount. Accused No.1 asked complainant to somehow arrange the amount and told that if amount is not paid, he knows what to do when he again brings documents for registration in future. Thereafter, on 27.12.2010, when the complainant met accused No.1, he again demanded amount and complainant by promising to pay the amount, took the sale deed and gave it to Rafiq Ahmed. Thereafter, accused No.1 contacted complainant over phone and demanded the bribe amount. Again on 29.12.2010, accused No.1 called complainant and demanded bribe and conversation has been recorded and on the same day evening accused No.2 – Chandrappa who is a private person assisting in the office of the Sub-Registrar has called the complainant and asked him to pay amount and this conversation is also recorded. With these averments, the complainant has given complaint to the Lokayukta Police Inspector along with C.D. containing recorded conversation and after registering complaint in Crime No.70/2010, the Lokayuktha Police have sent FIR to the Court. Lokayukta Police by securing two panchas conducted pre-trap proceedings and on the same day made arrangements to trap the accused. The trap was laid, trap procedure has been followed and trap mahazar was drawn. After completion of investigation and after obtaining sanction to prosecute accused Nos.1 and 3 from the competent authority, charge sheet has been filed against accused Nos.1 to 3 for offences punishable under Sections 7 , 8, 13(1)(d) read with 13 (2) of the P.C. Act and Sections 201 and 120 – B of IPC.

3. The trial Court took cognizance against accused persons for aforesaid offences. The trial Court has framed charges for the aforesaid offences. In order to prove charges, the prosecution has examined eleven witnesses as P.W.1 to P.W.11, got marked documents as Ex.P.1 to Ex.P. 35 and material objects as M.O. 1 to M.O. 24. Ex.D1 and Ex.D2 are two photos got marked by defence. The statements of accused persons have been recorded under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. Accused No.1 has given his statement in writing and produced documents at the time of recording his statement under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. The learned Special Judge after hearing arguments on