A conviction under the Prevention of Corruption Act requires proof of demand and acceptance of illegal gratification beyond reasonable doubt. Vague hand gestures without explicit oral demand or corroborative evidence are insufficient to establish the essential ingredient of 'demand' for bribe.

THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL IS FILED U/S.378(1) AND (3) CR.P.C R/W SECTION 27 OF P.C.ACT BY THE SPL. P.P. FOR THE STATE PRAYING THAT THIS HON'BLE COURT MAY BE PLEASED TO GRANT LEAVE TO FILE APPEAL AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND ORDER OF ACQUITTAL DATED 25.02.2014 PASSED BY THE PRL. SESSIONS JUDGE AND SPL. JUDGE, BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT, BANGALORE IN SPL.C.NO.17/2012. SET ASIDE THE IMPUGNED JUDGMENT AND ORDER OF ACQUITTAL DATED 25.02.2014 IN SPL.CASE No.17/2012 ARISING OUT OF LOKAYUKTHA P.S.CR.NO.4/2011 BY THE PRL.SESSIONS JUDGE AND SPL. JUDGE, BANGALORE RURAL. CONVICT THE ACCUSED/RESPONDENT FOR THE OFFENCES PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTIONS 7, 13(1)(d) R/W SECTION 13(2) OF THE PREVENTION OF CORRUPTION ACT, AND CONSEQUENTLY SENTENCE THE ACCUSED/RESPONDENT FOR THE CHARGES LEVELED AGAINST HIM.

THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ARGUMENTS, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.G.S. KAMAL

ORAL JUDGMENT

1. This appeal is by the Lokayuktha being aggrieved by the Judgment and Order dated 25.02.2014 passed by the Principal Sessions Judge and Special Judge, Bangalore Rural District, Bangalore in Special Case No.17/2012 in and by which the accused/respondent herein has been acquitted for the offences punishable under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as `P.C. Act' for short).

2. Case of the prosecution is that:

3. Accused/respondent was working as Assistant Sub-Inspector of Police at Thalaghattapura Police Station. That a complaint was filed by one Srinivas and his father Narasimhaiah against the defacto-complainant G. Shankaregowda. When the defacto complainant G. Shankaregowda had approached the accused, enquiring about the said case, accused on 17.01.2011 allegedly demanded a sum of Rs.5,000/- from the defacto complainant to close the case by filing `B' report. Defacto complainant had allegedly paid Rs.1,000/- to the accused and had assured payment of remaining amount. Complainant being unwilling to pay the bribe amount had approached the police inspector of Lokayuktha, who had secured the punch witnesses and conducted the entrustment mahazar and had laid a trap on 20.01.2011 at about 4.00 p.m. at Thalaghattapura Police Station. Accused allegedly demanded and accepted the illegal gratification of Rs.4,000/- from the complainant as a reward for closing the file of the complainant by filing `B' report, he was trapped by the police inspector-Lokayuktha. A charge sheet was filed. Charges were framed for the offences noted above. Accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

4. Prosecution examined six witnesses as PW1 to PW6 and marked 16 documents as PW1 to PW16 apart from producing material objects, marked Mos.1 to 13. Two documents have been marked on behalf of the defendants as Exhibits D1 and D2. The statement of accused was recorded under Section 313 of Cr.P.C denying the incriminating circumstances.

5. The trial Court framed the following points for its consideration:

"(i) Does the prosecution prove that the accused being a public servant, while working as Assistant Sub-Inspector of Police of Thalaghattapura Police Station on 17.01.2011 demanded illegal gratification of Rs.5,000/- from PW1- Shankaregowda to show an official favour of filing B report in connection with the complaint lodged against him and received Rs.1,000/- from him and on 20.01.2011, the accused demanded and accepted illegal gratification of Rs.4,000/- from PW1 and thereby committed an offence punishable under Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988?

(ii) Does the prosecution prove that by corrupt or i