Accused acquitted of bribery charges due to insufficient evidence proving illegal gratification demand

Karnataka HC allowed accused's appeal against conviction for illegal gratification demand. Court found insufficient evidence to prove demand of Rs. 9,000/- bribe. While complainant claimed accused called demanding money and recorded conversation, investigating officer failed to establish accused used specific mobile to contact complainant. Trial court erroneously convicted without concrete evidence of demand and ignored absence of pending work requiring complainant to pay bribe. Conviction set aside, accused acquitted, bail bond discharged.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Delay in filing the complaint and sending FIR to the Court.
2. Whether the accused demanded and accepted illegal gratification.
3. Whether the work of the complainant was pending with the accused at the time of the alleged demand and acceptance of bribe.

Summary:

Issue 1: Delay in Filing the Complaint and Sending FIR to the Court
The appellant/accused contended that there was a delay in filing the complaint and sending the FIR to the Court, which was not satisfactorily explained by the prosecution. The trial Court failed to appreciate this defense, leading to the appeal.

Issue 2: Demand and Acceptance of Illegal Gratification
The prosecution's case was based on the allegation that the accused, a C.D.P.O. at Ramdurg, demanded and accepted illegal gratification of Rs. 9,000/- from the complainant, who was the President of Shabari Rural Development Society. The prosecution relied on the evidence of the complainant (P.W.2), shadow witness (P.W.3), and co-panch witness (P.W.4) to prove the demand and acceptance of the bribe. However, the accused claimed that the money received was a repayment of a loan, not a bribe. The Court noted that the prosecution failed to prove the demand of illegal gratification through credible evidence, as there were inconsistencies in the testimonies and lack of corroborative evidence.

Issue 3: Pending Work of the Complainant
The Court observed that the accused had already disbursed the cheques to the complainant on 05.08.2010, which were encashed on 06.08.2010. As a result, no work of the complainant was pending with the accused at the time of filing the complaint on 13.08.2010 or during the trap on 16.08.2010. The Court referred to precedents, including the judgment in A. Subair vs. State of Kerala, which held that for a conviction under the Prevention of Corruption Act, the work of the complainant must be pending with the accused at the time of the alleged bribe. Since this condition was not met, the conviction could not be sustained.

Conclusion:
The appeal was allowed, and the judgment of the trial Court convicting the accused was set aside. The accused was acquitted, and any fine amount deposited was ordered to be refunded. The registry was directed to transmit the records with a copy of the judgment to the trial Court.

---