BALAGOUDA SIDGOUDA PATIL Vs. LOKAYUKTA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard the counsel for the appellant and the learned Special Public Prosecutor.

(2.) The appellant was accused of offences punishable under Sections 7, 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (Hereinafter referred to as the 'PC Act', for brevity), in the following background:-

(3.) The learned Counsel for the appellant would canvass several grounds. Firstly, insofar as the factum of demand and acceptance of the bribe amount, which is the sine qua non of the offences punishable under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of the PC Act, was concerned, the prosecution was required to establish that there was demand by the appellant and the acceptance of the bribe amount through the evidence of the witnesses. The finding of the court below that Exhibit P.7, which was the statement of PW.5 recorded under Section 164 of the Cr.PC, coupled with the evidence of PWs.1 to 3 would establish the factum of receipt and acceptance of the bribe amount beyond all reasonable doubt, is a finding which is totally erroneous and cannot be sustained. It is pointed out that admittedly the appellant had not received the bribe amount . It was the case of the prosecution that on the direction of the appellant, the amount was paid by the complainant to PW.5, who was not an employee of the Tahsildar's office, but was an outsider and the money was also recovered not from the possession of the appellant, but from the possession of PW.5. Therefore, to merely accept the statements of the complainant and the shadow witness, to the fact that there was a demand made by the appellant, but receipt of money was not by the appellant, but through the medium of PW.5, was required to be established by other direct evidence as to there being any nexus or association by the appellant with PW.5. This is totally absent and it is the only allegation of the prosecution that the modus operandi of the appellant in receiving the bribe amount was through the medium of PW.5. There was no foundation laid for this basic premise in alleging that the appellant was habitually receiving the bribe amounts through the medium of PW.5.