TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2015 (4) TMI 1328
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....trial court and convicting the Appellant Under Sections 7, 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (the Act, for short) and sentencing him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of 1 year on each of the aforesaid two counts and also to pay fine of Rs. 5,000/- and Rs. 10,000/- on the aforesaid two counts respectively, in default whereof to undergo further simple imprisonment for periods of 2 months and 3 months respectively. The sentences were ordered to run concurrently. 2. This matter arises out of complaint Ext. P-8 lodged by PW-3 Basavraju at 3:00 p.m. on 3.12.2005 with Lokayukta Police Station. It is the case of the prosecution that the Complainant and three others were granted anticipatory b....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....the Appellant was not in the Police Station, the proceedings were deferred. The next day being a holiday, the concerned persons assembled in Lokayukta office on 5.12.2005 at 8:00 a.m. The Currency Notes were again checked and powder was applied. PW-3 Complainant was given a Micro Phone Recorder and was instructed to switch it on as he would enter the Police Station. PW-3 Complainant was to be accompanied by PW-1 Umashankar while the other Panch PW-2 Nagaraju was to be with the raiding party. 4. PW-3 Complainant and PW-1 Umashankar entered the Police Station and found the Appellant sitting there. It is the case of the prosecution that pursuant to the demand made by the Appellant, PW-3 complainant made over those two currency notes of Rs. ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....fore no work pertaining to PW-3 Complainant was pending with the Appellant and as such there was no scope or occasion for the Appellant to demand or to accept illegal gratification. It further held that there was no corroboration on material particulars and therefore it would not be proper to proceed with the presumption Under Section 20 of the Act. Finding the alleged demand on 3.12.2005 or at any time after 1.12.2005 being doubtful, it extended the benefit of doubt and acquitted the Appellant of the charges leveled against him. 7. The State being aggrieved preferred Crl. Appeal No. 1501 of 2007 before the High Court. After analyzing the entire evidence on record, the High Court found that the demand and acceptance stood fully establish....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....alleged inconsistencies between the versions of PW-1 and PW-3 were not on material aspects, that the demand and acceptance were completely established in the matter, that the theory of thrusting of currency notes into the hip pocket of the complainant as stated in Ext. P-3 was given a complete go by and there was no evidence which could point against invocation of presumption Under Section 20 of the Act. 9. We have considered the rival submissions and have gone through the record. The signature of surety Sidharaju was obtained in the Bail Bond Register on 1.12.2005 but that of PW-3 complainant was not allowed to be taken. Such signature was taken only after the exchange of money as stated by PW-3 and PW-1. Moreover, no entry was made in ....