The failure to substantiate the demand and acceptance of a bribe precludes conviction under the Prevention of Corruption Act.

ORAL JUDGMENT

Heard the learned counsel for the appellant and the learned counsel for the respondent.

2. This appeal is filed against the order of conviction and sentence passed in Special Case No.63/2009, on the file of the II Additional District and Sessions Judge, Tumkur, sentencing the accused to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year and to pay fine of Rs.5,000/- and in default to undergo further imprisonment for three months for the offence punishable under Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act (‘PC Act’ for short). The accused was also sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three years with fine of Rs.5,000/- and in default to undergo further imprisonment for three months for the offence punishable under Section 3(1)(d) punishable under Section 13 (2) of the PC Act.

3. The factual matrix of the case of the prosecution is that P.W.6 had constructed a cowshed in his land and for the purpose of getting electric connection, he required NOC and in this regard, application was given on 10.04.2008 to the Nada Kacheri and the accused who was working as Village Accountant demanded bride of Rs.2,000/- and the same was informed to his son i.e., P.W.3 and complaint was given. Based on the complaint, the case was registered and pre-trap mahazar was drawn in terms of Ex.P.3 and also conducted the trap in terms of Ex.P.4 and the bait money was seized at the instance of the accused. In this regard, mahazar was conducted in terms of Ex.P.5 and 13 photographs with negatives were marked as Ex.P.6. The statement of P.W.6, since he had turned hostile, was marked in terms of Ex.P.7. FSL report was marked as per Ex.P.11 and sanction order Ex.P.12 are marked to substantiate the case of the prosecution. The prosecution also relied upon M.O.1 to M.O.8, i.e., hand wash solution of Manjunath, sample sodium carbonate solution, right and left hand wash of the accused, shirt pocket wash of the accused, cash of Rs.2,000/-, shirt of the accused and seized documents. The Trial Court having considered the evidence of the prosecution witnesses P.W.1 to P.W.8, relied upon the evidence of P.Ws.3, 4, 6 and the evidence of the Investigating Officer and convicted the accused for the above offences.

4. Being aggrieved by the said order, the present appeal is filed before this Court.

5. The learned counsel for the appellant would vehemently contend that first of all there is no any demand. The learned counsel contend that the Court below ought not to have acted on the testimony of P.Ws.1, 3, 4, 5, 6 and 8 and contend that P.W.3, who is the son of the owner of the cowshed i.e., P.W.6, both of them have not supported the case of the prosecution with regard to the demand and acceptance is concerned. The learned counsel contend that P.W.3 has not supported the case of the prosecution deposing before the Court that the accused has not demanded any money, but only he says that he gave signal and the police came and subjected for hand wash of left and right hand of the accused and seized the solution and also shirt pocket was subjected to wash and the same was also seized, since it turned to pink colour. He speaks with regard to the seizure is concerned, but with regard to demand is concerned, he has not supported the case of the prosecution. This witness was not treated as hostile by the prosecution. In the cross- examination, he categorically admits that he went alone to the office of the accused and he does not know anything about the contents of the complaint and also he does not know who wrote t