Heard Sri Shankar Hegde, learned counsel appearing

for the appellants and Sri Anil Kale, learned Special Public

Prosecutor appearing for respondent-Lokayukta.

The present appeal is preferred against the

judgment of conviction dated 23.07.2011 passed in

Spl.SVC.CC.No.2/2005 by the District and Sessions Judge,

Gadag, (“trial Court” for short), whereby the appellant-

accused were convicted for the offence punishable under

Sections 7, 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of the

Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (“PC Act” for short).

3

3.

Accused No.1 was sentenced to undergo simple

imprisonment for a period of one year and fine of

Rs.5,000/- for the offence punishable under Section 7 of

PC Act in default to pay fine, to undergo simple

imprisonment for a period of one month and accuse No.1

was also sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for a

period of one year and fine of Rs.2,000/- for the offence

punishable under Section 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2)

of PC Act, in default to pay the said fine, to undergo

simple imprisonment for a period of two months.

4.

Accused No.2 is sentenced to undergo simple

imprisonment for the period of one year and to pay a fine

of Rs.5,000/- for the offence punishable under Section 7

of PC Act, in default to pay the said fine, to undergo

simple imprisonment for a period of one month and she

also sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for a

period of one year and to pay fine of Rs.2,000/- for the

offence under Section 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of

4

PC Act, in default to pay fine to undergo simple

imprisonment for a period of two months.

5.

Brief facts of the case are as under :

The complainant by name Sri Kalakappa Veerappa

Kusthtagi lodged a complaint with the Lokayukta Police on

11.06.2004 contending that, he had applied for change of

name in the birth certificate of his grandson’s father in the

Tahasildar office. In that regard, he approached accused

Nos.1 & 2. Accused Nos.1 & 2 have demanded illegal

gratification in a sum of Rs.1,000/- and Rs.100/-

respectively. As the complainant was not interested in

paying the said illegal gratification, sought for an action

against the accused persons.

6.

After verifying the veracity of contents of the

complaint, Lokayukta Police decided to laid a trap. In that

regard, the head of the raid party secured two panch

witnesses and explained them the contents of the

complaint and also demonstrated the chemical reaction of

5

phenolphthalein powder with sodium carbonate solution

and took 10 currency notes of Rs.100/- denomination 2

currency notes of Rs.50/- denomination and smeared

phenolphthalein powder to the said notes after noting

down the serial numbers, prepared entrustment mahazar

vide Ex.P.2. Thereafter, instructions were given to the

complainant and the shadow witness. Complainant visited

the accused persons and to enquired about the pending

work and on demand made by them, to hand over the

tainted currency notes to the hands of accused Nos.1 & 2

and handing over of such currency notes must be seen by

the shadow witness and thereafter come out of the office

and should give a pre-designated signal to the rest of the

raid party, by wiping his face with the hand kerchief.

7.

Thereafter, the raid party comprising of head of

the raid party, sub staff, panch witnesses and the

complainant proceeded to the office of the Tahasildar

around 12.30 noon. As per the instructions given by the

Head of the raid party, the complainant approached

6

accused No.1 and handed over 10 currency notes of

Rs.100/- denomination to the hands of accused No.1 and

thereafter approached accused No.2 and handed over 2

currency notes of Rs.50/- denomination and gave a pre-

designated signal to the rest of the raid party.

8.

Immediately raid party came to the office of the

Tahasildar and enquired accused Nos.1 & 2 about the

tainted money. Initially both of them pleaded ignorance

and thereafter accused Nos.1 & 2 took out the tainted

currency notes which were there in their cu