K M PRABHAKAR Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD the learned Counsel for the appellant and the learned Counsel appearing for the respondent.

(2.) THESE appeals are preferred in respect of the same judgment. The appeal in 454/2004 is filed by the accused challenging the order of conviction insofar as offence under Section 13(1)(d) punishable under Section 13(2) is concerned, whereas the appeal in 1283/2008 is filed, by the respondent in the first of these appeals, challenging the acquittal of the accused under Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.

(3.) WHILE the learned Counsel appearing for the appellant-State would seek to contend that, insofar a the acquittal of the accused on the footing that the accused was no longer required to comply with any other official acts to demand and accept bribe, is an incorrect finding by the Court below. He would submit that the documents which were produced indicated as to the accused having completed his part of the official work, which were required to be done insofar as the well subsidy due to the complainant's family is concerned, the same was suppressed by the accused and it was on a pretence that he was to send the pre-receipt, which was required for the Board to release the subsidy, that the demand and acceptance was made and the money having been seized from the person of the accused and when there are several witnesses in respect of the trap of the accused red handed with the bribe amount, the Court was not justified in acquitting the accused insofar as Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act is concerned. It is this primary contention, which the learned Counsel for the appellant-State seeks to urge insofar as the second of these appeals is concerned.