2014 (9) TMI 1282

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....lant/accused not guilty of the offence Under Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred as "the Act") but guilty of offences Under Section 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of the Act and sentenced him to undergo simple imprisonment for one year and to pay a fine of Rs. 5000/-, in default to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of three months. 2. The case of the prosecution in brief is as follows: The Appellant/accused was working as Second Division Surveyor in the office of Assistant Director of Land Records, Nagamangala and on 18.2.2000 he demanded an illegal gratification of Rs. 500/- from PW1 Ramesh for issuance of survey sketch pertaining to Survey No. 255 of Hullenahalli village and it is further al....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....n of clean water and sodium carbonate the right hand fingers of the accused was immersed upon which it turned into light pink color and on verification the numbers of the currency notes which were lying on the table were tallied with the numbers of the notes written in Exh.P2 Mahazar. All the formalities were completed and after obtaining sanction charge sheet came to be filed against accused. 3. The Trial Court framed charges Under Sections 7, 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of the Act and the accused pleaded not guilty. The prosecution examined four witnesses and marked Exh.P1 to P10 and M. Os. 1 to 10. The Trial Court held that the prosecution has failed to prove the charges against the accused and acquitted him. The State preferred ap....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ld to be proved, notwithstanding the fact that in his evidence the complainant PW1 Ramesh had not supported the prosecution case. 6. In such type of cases the prosecution has to prove that there was a demand and there was acceptance of illegal gratification by the accused. As already seen the complainant PW1 Ramesh did not support the prosecution case insofar as demand by the accused is concerned. No other evidence was adduced by the prosecution to prove the demand made by the accused with the complainant. In this context the recent decision of a three Judge bench of this Court in B. Jayaraj v. State of Andhra Pradesh reported in 2014 (4) Scale 81 is relevant and it is held as follows: 8. In the present case, the complainant did not supp....