The court ruled that without clear evidence of demand and acceptance of a bribe, the acquittal of the accused under the Prevention of Corruption Act was justified.

CAV JUDGMENT

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

2. This appeal is filed challenging the judgment of the acquittal passed against the accused for the offence punishable under Section 13 (1)(d) r/w Section 13 (2) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 in Spl.C.No.52/2011 dated 20.08.2013.

3. The factual matrix of case of prosecution is that accused is working as Police Sub-Inspector in Yelwala Police Station, Mysore. The complainant was owning a lorry bearing registration No.KA-09-9650 and he was using the same for transportation of sand. That on 05.07.2011, the accused has apprehended the said lorry while transportation of sand on the ground that the sand is being transported without permit or license and accused demanded Rs.5,000/- for release of the vehicle. When the complainant did not pay the illegal demand, he referred the matter to the Mines and Geological Department by reporting the seizure and got booked a case. Thereafter, the fine was imposed by the concerned Department and fine was collected and the vehicle was released on 07.07.2011.

4. It is also the allegation that on 08.07.2011, again lorry was seized while it was transporting the sand and it was not reported in Station House Diary and complainant contacted the accused through CW5 and the accused has demanded Rs.2,000/- per load or Rs.15,000/- per month and a constable who was working in the same Police Station has informed the same to the complainant and asked him to personally contact the accused. When the complainant contacted the accused over telephone, the accused demanded an amount of Rs.15,000/- and subsequently it was bargain for Rs.14,000/- for not to book any cases in respect of transportation of the sand. That on 11.07.2011 at about 7:20 p.m., the accused mis-utilizing his official position by corrupt and illegal means demanded and accepted a sum of Rs.14,000/- from the complainant as an illegal gratification as a motive and he abused the position as public servant and guilty of mis-conduct within the meaning of Section 13 (1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act and the accused was also trapped and recovered the amount from him and drawn panchanama in respect of the seizure by taking hand wash and after completing of the investigation, the Lokayuktha Police have filed the charge sheet and accused was secured before the Trial Court and he did not plead guilty and hence, prosecution relies upon PW1 to PW10 and got marked Ex.P1 to Ex.P48 and 13 Material objects as MO.1 to MO.13 are marked. The accused was subjected to 313 statement and there was a total denial and not lead any defense evidence. However, during the cross-examination of witnesses, got marked Ex.D1 to Ex.D7. The Trial Court having analyzed both oral and documentary evidence of PW1 to PW10 and Ex.P1 to Ex.P18 and Ex.D1 to Ex.D7 as well as material objects, acquitted the accused. Hence, the present appeal is filed before this Court.

5. The main contention of the special counsel appearing for the Lokayuktha would contend that it is a case of trap and PW1 is a panch witness and PW2 is a complainant and PW3 is shadow witness, PW4 is driver of the lorry, PW5 is Engineer who had drawn the sketch and PW6 is Jeep Driver, PW7 is ASI, PW8 is Head Constable, PW9 is Inspector General of Police who gave the sanction and PW10 is the Inspector who conducted the investigation. The counsel would vehemently contend that the Trial Court committed an error in acquitting the accused. Earlier also there was a demand and acceptance and FSL also corroborates the case of prosecution witnesses and reasoning given by the Trial Court is not correct. There is