1. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant and the learned counsel for the respondent.

2. This appeal is filed against the judgment of acquittal dated 03.09.2011 passed in Special Case No.89/2009 for the offences punishable under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) read with 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (‘PC Act’ for short).

3. The factual matrix of the case of the prosecution is that C.W.1 Sri K.M. Lakshmipathi was working as Forester in the Forest Department of Government of Karnataka and he retired in the month of August 2006 from service. Afterwards, pension papers in respect of C.W.1 was to be prepared in the Office of the Assistant Conservator of Forests, Hunsur, as C.W.1 had retired from service while working at Kallahalla Wild Life Range. The pension papers in respect of C.W.1 was not prepared till the month of February 2008. The accused was working as Superintendent in the Office of the Deputy Conservator of Forests, Hunsur and she had to attend to the work of the complainant. On 28.02.2008, C.W.1 visited the office and requested her to prepare his pension papers and send it to the Accountant General, Bengaluru. At that time, the accused demanded him to pay Rs.2,000/- for the said work and asked him to bring the amount on Saturday or Monday. Afterwards, C.W.1 went to the office of the Lokayuktha, Mysore on 03.03.2008 and gave a complaint against the accused about she demanding the bribe. C.W.14, who was working as the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Karnataka Lokayuktha, Mysore, received that complaint and registered the case against the accused and sent the FIR to the Court. On the same day, C.W.14 secured C.W.2 and C.W.3 as panch witnesses to his office and the amount of Rs.2,000/- given by the complainant was smeared with phenolphthalein powder and given to the complainant with instruction to hand over the said amount to the accused, if she again demand for money. In order to explain to the witnesses, C.W.14 conducted experiment and the fingers of C.W.2 Nagendra who had touched the amount smeared with phenolphthalein powder was dipped in Sodium Carbonate solution and the colour of the solution turned to pink colour. A mahazar was prepared in the Lokayuktha Office about entrusting the bait amount to the complainant.

4. C.W.1 to C.W.3 and the Investigating Officer and his staff went to Hunsur in the official vehicle and the vehicle was parked near the office of the Deputy Conservator of Forests, Hunsur and C.W.1 and C.W.3 were sent inside the office. When C.W.1 went and requested the accused in the office to send his pension papers to the Accountant General, the accused again demanded for money and at that time, the complainant handed over the bait money to the accused and the accused received that amount and kept it in her purse. Afterwards, C.W.1 and C.W.3 came out of the Office and gave signal to the Police Officer about handing over of the bait amount to the accused. Immediately, C.W.14 along with other panch witnesses and his staff went near the complainant and the complainant showed the accused as the person who received the amount. The accused was apprehended and Sodium Carbonate solution was prepared and her fingers were dipped in Sodium Carbonate solution in the presence of the witnesses and the colour of the solution turned to pink colour. When the accused was questioned about the money received by her from the complainant, she handed over the bait amount, which was kept in her purse and when the serial numbers of the currency notes handed over by the accused were compared with the serial numbers of the currency notes which were noted in the Lokayuktha Office, the serial numbers tallied with each other. The amount along with the purse of the accused were seized. The accused also gave written explanation as to how she received the amount from the complainant. A mahazar was prepared in the Office of the accused and seized the amount, purse and other articles. Afterwards, C.W.14 conducted further investigation and recorded the statement of witnesses. C.W.15 took up further investigation of the case and after completing the investigation, he filed the charge-sheet before the Court. The charges were framed and the accused did not admit the charges and hence the prosecution relied upon 9 witnesses in support of their case and got marked the documents at Exs.P.1 to 24 and 9 Material Objects. The accused was subjected to 313 statement and got marked 22 documents, but not led any defence evidence. The Trial Court having considered the case of the prosecution as well as the accused, formulated the points regarding charges levelled against the accused and having assessed the evidence, comes to the conclusion that the prosecution has not made out the case to convict the accused for the offences and acquitted the accused.

5. Being aggrieved by the acquittal order, the present appeal is filed before this Court.

6. The main contention of the learned counsel for the appellant Lokayuktha is that the date of complaint was on 03.03.2008 and trap was conducted on the very same day and trap was also successful. The learned counsel contend that the evidence of the witnesses i.e., P.W.1 complainant and P.W.3 seizure witness and P.W.5 shadow witness, all of them have supported the case of the prosecution and inspite of it, the Trial Court committed an error in acquitting the accused. P.W.2 is the panch witness for entrustment and trap mahazar and P.W.3 is the official of the Deputy Conservator of Forest Office, Hunsur, who speaks regarding seizure of certain documents from his office and witness for Ex.P.3 trap mahazar. P.W.4 is the Assistant Engineer, who drawn the spot sketch. The evidence of P.W.5 shadow witness is very clear with regard to demand and acceptance. P.W.6 is the sanctioning authority, P.W.7 is the RFO, Kallahalla Wildlife Range, P.W.8 and P.W.9 are the Investigating Officers. Inspite of all have supported the case of the prosecution and their evidence clearly discloses that the accused demanded Rs.2,000/- and accepted the same and proved the case, but the Trial Court acquitted the accused in coming to the conclusion that no work of the complainant was to be done by the accused in this case and it was the duty of the RFO to prepare the pension papers and regarding demand and acceptance of the bribe amount by the accused, evidence is too vague. Mere recovery of tainted currency notes from the possession of the accused is not a ground to convict the accused. The reasoning given by the Trial Court is erroneous. The learned counsel contend that both oral and documentary evidence placed on record is very clear that the complainant was retired from service in August 2006 and accordingly he had presented the pension papers to the Office of the Deputy Conservator of Forest, Hunsur and when he approached the accused on several occasions, demand was made to pay the bribe amount of Rs.2,000/- and the evidence of the complainant and shadow witnesses and panch witnesses corroborates with each other. When such being the case, the Trial Court ought not to have acquitted the accused.

7. Per contra, the learned counsel for the respondent would contend that P.W.7 categorically admitted that no work was pending. P.W.9 in paragraph No.3 admits that no phenolphthalein powder in purse. But the case of the prosecution is that the accused having received the amount kept the amount in the purse and there is no consistency in the evidence of the prosecution witnesses. The learned counsel contend that the Trial Court has not committed any error in appreciating the evidence available on record and when the witnesses speaks about no work was pending with the accused, the question of demand and acceptance of bribe money does not arise. The Trial Court rightly comes to the conclusion that mere recovery of money cannot be a ground to convict the accused for demand and acceptance of bribe money.

8. In reply to the arguments of the learned counsel for the respondent, the learned counsel for the appellant would contend that the trap was successful and the work pending is not the criteria. The amount was recovered from the custody of the accused and the official witness of the very same office also supported the case of the prosecution. Under these circumstances, the Trial Court ought not to have acquitted the accused and hence it requires interference of this Court.

9. Having heard the learned counsel for the appellant and the learned counsel for the respondent and also on perusal of the material on record, the points that arise for the consideration of this Court are:

"(i) Whether the Trial Court committed an error in acquitting the accused for the charges levelled against her and whether it requires interference of this Court by exercising the appellate jurisdiction"

(ii) What order

Point No.(i):

10. The very case of the prosecution is that the complainant P.W.1 was working as a Forester in the Forest Department of Government of Karnataka and he retired in the year 2006, but his pension papers were not sent to the Accountant General Office and when he had approached the accused, the accused demanded to pay Rs.2,000/- and hence complaint was given. The prosecution in order to prove the case to invoke Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of the PC Act, mainly relied upon the evidence of P.W.1, who is the complainant and P.W.5, who is the shadow witness. The learned counsel for the appellant contend that there was a successful trap and also work was pending is not the criteria and demand and acceptance is a sine quo non for convicting the accused for the above offences. The learned counsel contend that the records were also in the custody of the accused and work was pending and mainly relies upon these witnesses and also relies upon the document of Ex.P.22, Ex.P.1 complaint, entrustment mahazar Ex.P.2, seizure mahazar Ex.P.3 and sanction order Ex.P.21. P.W.6 is the witness who was working as Chief Conservator of Forest and P.W.7 is the Range Forest Officer of Kallahalla Wild Life Division during the year 2008 and he says that the complainant Lakshmipathi was working as Forestor in his office. P.W.9 is the Deputy Superintendent of Police in Lokayuktha office having received the complaint against the accused regarding demand of money and deposed before the Court.

11. Now the question before this Court is whether the evidence available on record is sufficient to bring home the accused for the above offences. Having considered the evidence of P.W.1 and P.W.7 and particularly the document of Ex.P.6, the answers elicited from the mouth of those witnesses is very clear that no work of the complainant was to be done by the accused. It is important to note that P.W.1 was retired as Forestor in the Office of the Range Forest, Kallahalla Wild Life Division, Mysore. It is elicited from the mouth of P.W.1 and P.W.7 that it is the duty of the Range Forest Officer to prepare the pension papers pertaining to the complainant and send it to the office of the Accountant General and it is not the duty of the accused. It is important to note that the defence also relied upon the document of Ex.D.1, the copy of the complaint which was sent to the Lokayuktha by P.W.1 and he alleged against only P.W.7 Naganagowda Patil, who was working as Range Forest Officer, had delayed in preparing the pension papers. The document of Ex.D.3 is also another complaint given by P.W.1 to the Superintendent of Police, Lokayuktha, Mysuru and in that complaint also he has alleged that P.W.7 was responsible for the delay in sending the papers. Ex.D.8 is the reply given by the P.W.7 to the Deputy Registrar Lokayuktha stating that the records pertaining to P.W.1 were not secured and pointed out that huge amount of money was to be recovered from P.W.1 for having drawn the salary as Range Forest Officer since he was demoted as Forestor.

12. Ex.P.6 is the records seized by the Investigating Officer from the office of the Deputy Conservator of Forest, Hunsur Wild Life Division. The Investigating Officer also stated that Ex.P.6 is the record which was with the accused on the date of trap, but on going through the trap record Ex.P.6, the same is the file containing correspondence between the office of the Deputy Conservator of Forest, Hunsur and Wild Life Division and the office of the Range Forest Officer, Kallahalla and the same is not pertaining to the pension papers of the complainant. The letter dated 22.03.2007 sent by the Deputy Conservator of Forest to the Range Forest Officer, Kallahalla is available in the file and in that letter also the Deputy Conservator of Forest has directed the Range Forest Officer to work with responsibility and the mistakes found in the service register of the complainant was rectified and asked the concerned official to attend the same. The correspondence between different offices were also taken note of by the Trial Court while considering the material on record.

13. It is important to note that the Trial Court also taken note of the evidence given by the complainant and the same is also extracted in paragraph No.19 of the judgment that the complainant has not specifically stated about the clear demand made by the accused and also extracted the evidence of P.W.5, shadow witness who accompanied the complainant. P.W.5 categorically deposes that when the complainant approached the accused, the accused categorically made known to the complainant that is not the job of the accused and the job to be done by the Range Forest Officer and the service records are also awaited. Hence, the evidence of P.W.1 and P.W.5 is contradictory to each other and the statement of the accused is very clear that it was not her work and the Range Forest Officer has to prepare the pension papers. Inspite of it, the complainant has given the amount smeared with phenolphthalein powder to the accused. The evidence of P.W.1 and P.W.5 discloses that the accused received the amount from the complainant. But the evidence of P.W.1 and P.W.5 suggest that it was the complainant who voluntarily gave money to the accused and there was no clear demand made by the accused. It is important to note that P.W.5 says that the accused had clearly told the complainant that it was not her work and these are the material taken note of by the Trial Court.

14. It is important to note that P.W.9 Investigating Officer also categorically admits in the cross-examination that P.W.1 did not give the complaint immediately when the demand was made on 28.02.2008. He categorically admits that he did not verify whether the pension papers to be attended by the accused or not and he did not enquire the same. He categorically admits that it is the duty of the Range Forest Officer to send the papers to the Accountant General Office and also he categorically admits that for having entrusted the papers to the accused to prepare the pension papers, he did not see any documents. Apart from that, he categorically admits that in Ex.P.24 FSL report, not found any phenolphthalein powder in the purse, which was seized from the accused. The report is also very clear to that effect and the case of the prosecution is that the amount was received by the accused and kept the same in her purse having considered the evidence of P.W.1. In the cross-examination of P.W.5, he categorically deposed that when they went to the office of the accused, the complainant only showed the purse to the police. P.W.5 says that when he went inside the office of the accused, there were two doors and he cannot tell what are the conversation recorded in Ex.P.3 panchanama and regarding conversation also not sure about the same. The evidence of chief is contrary to the cross- examination.

15. The Trial Court taken note of the fact that there was no work pending with the accused. A detail discussion was made in paragraph Nos.16, 17 and 18 as regards to the demand and acceptance as well as no work was pending with the accused and hence the question of the accused attending the work does not arise. The Trial Court also taken note of the documentary evidence of Exs.D.1, 3 and 8 and it was the duty of the Range Forest Officer to attend the pension papers and not the accused. Hence, the Trial Court extended the benefit of doubt in favour of the accused that there was no any need of making of demand. Apart from that, taken note of the evidence of P.W.5 that when the complainant requested the accused to prepare the pension papers, the accused had clearly told him that it was not her work and the service records of the accused was not in her office and the pension papers has to be prepared in the office of the Range Forest Officer, which makes it abundantly clear that the accused had made clear to the complainant that she was not in a position to prepare the pension papers of the complainant as it was not her work and also the service records were not in her office. Hence, the question of demanding money from the complainant is doubtful. The theory of the prosecution is that in order to attend the pension papers of the complainant, demand was made by the accused. Apart from that, it is clear from the records that the complainant was due to the State since he had drawn more money than what he was entitled to, since earlier he was Range Forest Officer and he was demoted as Forestor on account of the charges levelled against him and the same is also emerged from the evidence of the prosecution witnesses and detail discussion was made in the judgment of the Trial Court.

16. P.W.1 also has categorically deposed that the police dipped the fingers of hand of the accused in water and colour of the water turned to pink colour and afterwards the water and amount was seized by preparing mahazar in terms of Ex.P.2 and he has signed the mahazar. When there was no demand and the complainant himself voluntarily gave the money to the accused, the same was also taken note of by the Trial Court while considering the matter on merits and the reasons are also assigned while acquitting the accused and in order to reverse the finding of the Trial Court, there must be a cogent evidence. Even though Rs.2,000/- was recovered from the possession of the accused on the date of trap, that itself is not sufficient to invoke the offences under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) read with 13(2) of the PC Act in the absence of evidence regarding demand and acceptance and there must be a demand and voluntarily accepted by the accused. Having re-analyzed the material on record, even the Investigating Officer had not gone through the letters found in the file in Ex.P.6, which clearly discloses that the pension records pertaining to the complainant was pending with the Range Forest Officer, Kallahalla and the Deputy Conservator of Forest had sent many letters to the Range Forest Officer, Kallahalla to immediately prepare the pension papers and he has to face the consequences for the delay. The evidence also discloses that there was a delay in preparing the pension papers on account of the complainant had misappropriated the government funds and further he had drawn excess salary after demotion from the higher post and the same was taken note of by the Trial Court by invoking Section 20 of the PC Act and comes to the conclusion that the material not comes to the aid of the prosecution to convict the accused. The evidence of P.W.1 and P.W.5 makes it abundantly clear that there was no clear demand made by the accused at the time of trap and the evidence clearly discloses that the complainant himself voluntarily offered money to the accused by requesting her to prepare his pension papers even though he was knowing that it was not her duty. The accused made it clear that it was not her work and the same was spoken by P.W.5 during the course of evidence. Having considered all these materials on record, the Trial Court not committed any error in appreciating the evidence on record and hence I do not find any ground to interfere with the findings of the Trial Court to come to other conclusion and hence I answer the point in the negative.

Point No.(ii):

17. In view of the discussions made above, I pass the following:

The appeal is dismissed.