MARUTI HANUMANTHAPPA MADIVALAR Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellant being accused before the Trial Court in Spl.S.C.No.72/2008 charged for the offence punishable under Ss. 7 and 13(1)(d) read with Sec. 13 (2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 ("PC Act" for short) who is convicted by the IV Additional District and Sessions Court and Special Court (PCA), Belagavi ("the Trial Court" for short) vide judgment of conviction and order of sentence dtd. 26/8/2011 has preferred this appeal.

(2.) Brief facts of the case are that, PW.1 lodged the first information with respondent-Police alleging that the accused being the public servant, working as the Village Accountant in Kodaganur village of Athani Taluk. When the informant approached him with reference to the application filed by his maternal aunt Smt.Roshanbi, for grant of old age pension, he had demanded illegal gratification of Rs.1,500.00 for the purpose of attending the application. When the informant requested and tried to bargain, the accused stated that he had to pay Rs.1,000.00 for his higher officer i.e., the Deputy Tahasildar and Rs.500.00 for himself. When the informant paid Rs.300.00 to the accused, the accused again demanded at least Rs.700.00 more for the purpose of showing the official favour. The complainant not being interested in payment of illegal gratification filed first information as per Ex.P.1 with the respondent-police and requested for initiation of legal action against the accused.

(3.) It is the contention of the prosecution that on the basis of the first information lodged by the informant, the bait money was entrusted to PW.1 in the presence of two panchas after smearing with phenolphthalein powder, under a pre trap panchanama. PW.1 along with PW.2 who is the shadow witness met the accused while he was in his house and the accused had demanded Rs.700.00 for attending to the application in question and accordingly PW.1 tendered the phenolphthalein