Research › Search › Judgment

Karnataka High Court · body

2023 DIGILAW 1154 (KAR)

State of Karnataka v. Loknath

2023-10-03

T.VENKATESH NAIK

body2023
JUDGMENT 1. The appellant - State has preferred this appeal under Sec. 378(1) and (3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (for short 'Cr.P.C.') to set aside the judgment and order of acquittal dtd. 24/9/2020, passed by the learned Special Judge and Principal District and Sessions Judge, Bidar (for short 'Trial Court'), in Special Case (P.C.Act) No.2/2012, wherein, the respondents have been acquitted for the offences punishable under Ss. 7 and 13(1)(d) read with Sec. 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1984 (for short 'P.C.Act'). The appellant also prayed to convict the respondents for the aforesaid offences. 2. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to as per their ranking before the Trial Court. The appellant is the complainant - State and respondents are accused Nos.1 and 2. 3. The brief facts of the prosecution case are as under: On 20/1/2011, at about 5.55 p.m., accused No.1 - Loknath being a public servant, working as Revenue Inspector, Bagdal Circle, demanded illegal gratification of Rs.500.00 from PW.1 - Mohammed Fakeer Ahmed for effecting mutation in the name of his mother, in respect of land bearing Survey No.157/6, measuring 1 acre 22 guntas of Aurad-S, based on 'J' form and on the instructions of accused No.1, accused No.2 - Adinarayan Swamy, Village Accountant of Nidvancha, received said illegal gratification of Rs.500.00 from PW.1 by demand, which is other than legal remuneration and thereby, committed criminal misconduct in obtaining illegal gratification. 4. Thereafter, a trap was laid, accused persons were secured, seized a sum of Rs.500.00 and seizure panchanama was conducted, the Investigating Officer recorded statement of witnesses and filed charge sheet against the accused persons for the aforesaid offences. 5. After filing of charge sheet, the Special Court took cognizance of the offences under Sec. 190(1)(b) of Cr.P.C. for the aforesaid offences against the accused persons and after hearing the parties on both side, framed charges for the aforesaid offences against accused persons and read over to them, they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. 6. The Prosecution to bring home the guilt of the accused persons, examined in all 7 witnesses as PWs.1 to 7. and in all 19 documents were got marked as Exs.P1 to P19 and material objects were marked as MOs.1 to 13. 7. 6. The Prosecution to bring home the guilt of the accused persons, examined in all 7 witnesses as PWs.1 to 7. and in all 19 documents were got marked as Exs.P1 to P19 and material objects were marked as MOs.1 to 13. 7. The Trial Court after closure of the evidence, recorded the statement of accused persons under Sec. 313 of Cr.P.C. by explaining the incriminatory materials appearing in the prosecution evidence, the case of accused persons was of total denial. The accused persons did not enter the witness box and hence, the defence evidence was taken as nil. 8. The Trial Court having heard both parties, framed the following points for consideration: Point No.1: Whether prosecution proves beyond reasonable doubt that, 20/1/2011 at about 1755 hours, accused no.1 being public servant working as revenue inspector Bagdal Circle, demanded an illegal gratification of Rs.500.00 form the complainant for effecting mutation in the name his mother in respect of land Sy.no. 157/6 measuring 1 acre 22 guntas of Aurad-s, and on the instruction of accused no.1, accused no.2 received the said illegal gratification of Rs.500.00 from complainant and thereby committed an offence punishable U/sec.7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act?. Point No.2: Whether prosecution proves beyond reasonable doubt that, accused no.1 being public servant working as Revenue Inspector Bagdal Circle, on the above said date, time and place, demanded an illegal gratification of Rs.500.00 from the complainant for effecting mutation in the name his mother in respect of land Sy.No. 157/6 measuring 1 acre 22 guntas of Aurad-S, and on the instruction of accused no.1 accused no.2 received the said illegal gratification of Rs.500.00 from complainant, which is other than their legal remuneration, and thus accused committed criminal misconduct by corrupt or illegal means by demanding and obtaining the illegal gratification as stated above, and thereby accused committed the offence defined U/sec.13(1)(d) made punishable U/sec.13(2) of the prevention of Corruption Act, 1984? Point No.3: What order? 9. The Trial Court based on the above evidence, acquitted the accused persons for the aforesaid offences. Aggrieved by the judgment of acquittal passed by the Trial court, the State has preferred this appeal. 10. Point No.3: What order? 9. The Trial Court based on the above evidence, acquitted the accused persons for the aforesaid offences. Aggrieved by the judgment of acquittal passed by the Trial court, the State has preferred this appeal. 10. The learned Special counsel for Lokayukta Sri Subhash Mallapur submitted that, the judgment passed by the Trial Court is contrary to the facts of the case; the Trial Court has not properly appreciated the evidence on record; though the complainant has turned hostile, the shadow witness - PW.2 supported the case of the prosecution and PW.6 - Tahsildar has identified the voice of accused No.1 and therefore, the evidence of PW.2 - shadow witness is corroborated by the oral testimony of PWs.3, 6 and 7, however, the Trial Court has failed to note that, the amount had been seized from the possession of accused No.1, but, accused persons have not offered any explanation about bribe amount, whichever in their possession and hence, the Trial Court ought to have drawn presumption under Sec. 106 of the Indian Evidence Act, but, the Trial Court did not draw any such presumption; the Trial Court also failed to draw presumption under Sec. 20 of the P.C.Act, which is obligatory for the Trial Court to draw presumption, when there is no rebuttal evidence or explanation given by the accused persons. Hence, he prayed to allow the appeal by convicting the accused persons in accordance with law. 11. The learned counsel for the respondents/accused persons vehemently contended that, the alleged trap is a created story; when PW.1 - complainant himself did not support the prosecution case, there is no question of demand in this matter and in the evidence of PW.2 - Prasad and PW.3 - Khaja, there are contradictions in their testimony. He further submits that, PW.3 deposed that though, he was summoned by Lokayukta Police, Bidar, he had to return to home since one of his relative had expired and on the next day, he had gone to Lokayukta Police, at that time, he signed documents and therefore, there is no material to show that, at the given point of time, when the trap alleged to have been conducted, accused No.1 was at Bagdal Mutt and he was deputed for official work. It is conducted that, there are no call details collected by the Investigating Officer to substantiate that, PW.1 - complainant and accused No.1 had interacted with each other, as such, entire genesis of crime is doubtful and on the date of alleged trap, no work was pending in respect of PW.1 - complainant and therefore, question of demanding any gratification would not arise and as such, the learned counsel justified the impugned judgment of acquittal passed by the Trial Court and prayed to dismiss the appeal. 12. In view of the rival contentions urged by the learned counsel for the parties to the lis, the points that would arise for consideration before this Court are as under: 1. Whether the prosecution proved its case beyond reasonable doubt that, on 20/1/2011, at about 5.55 p.m., accused No.1 being a public servant, working as Revenue Inspector, Bagdal Circle, demanded illegal gratification of Rs.500.00 from PW.1 for effecting mutation in the name of his mother and on the instructions of accused No.1, accused No.2 received a sum of Rs.500.00 by demanding PW.1, which is other than legal remuneration, thereby, committed offences punishable under Ss. 7, 13(1)(d) read with Sec. 13(2) of P.C.Act? 2. Whether the appellant proved that, the judgment passed by the Trial Court is not in accordance with law and call for interference by this Court? 3. What order? 13. I have given my anxious consideration to the arguments canvassed by the learned counsel for the parties and perused the entire material, including the original records carefully. 14. Point Nos.1 and 2: Since point Nos.1 and 2 require common discussion, I take these points for common discussion in order to avoid repetition of facts and evidence. 15. In order to re-appreciate the entire evidence on record, it is appropriate to have a cursory look at the evidence of the prosecutions witnesses and documents relied upon. a) PW.1 - Md. 15. In order to re-appreciate the entire evidence on record, it is appropriate to have a cursory look at the evidence of the prosecutions witnesses and documents relied upon. a) PW.1 - Md. Fakeer Ahmed/complainant has deposed that, his mother had purchased a land bearing Survey No.157/6, measuring 1 acre 22 guntas and regarding mutation proceedings, he had approached the Tahsil Office, 4 to 5 months after registration of sale deed, the concerned clerk by name Sridhar had called him that mutation would be certified within a short period, again 15 to 20 days thereafter, he again approached the said office, same reply was given by said Sridhar and then on the third visit, he was informed by Village Accountant of Aurad-S to the effect that, 'J' form is not yet come from the Sub Registrar Office, his friend Nawabmiyan advised him to approach Lokayukta Office, hence, he went to Lokayukta Office, met PW.7 - Basu Chavan, Inspector, who took his signature on a white paper, hence, PW.1 turn hostile to the case of the prosecution. By this, PW.1 disowning the contents of complaint - Ex.P1, mainly on the ground that, the contents of Ex.P1 were not at all read over to him, which is in Kannada language and he do not know reading Kannada. He further stated that, as per the instructions of Inspector, he handed over five currency notes of 100 denomination in all Rs.500.00 for getting his work done, however, he do not know whether the Inspector has seized the amount or not and he saw accused No.2 in the company of accused No.1 at Bagdal village. He specifically admitted that, accused persons never demanded any amount from him for doing mutation and he never gave any money to them. He further admits that, he was not present when Lokayukta Police said to have been seized amount from the accused persons. In the cross-examination of PW.1 by the learned Special Public Prosecutor, he denied all the suggestions put to him. b) PW.2 - Prasad and PW.3 - Khaja are the mahazar witnesses, as per their evidence, they have deposed that, Lokayukta Inspector has conducted pre-trap panchanama as per Ex.P2 in the office of Lokayukta on 20/1/2011 and they have stated about the trap panchanama in their presence. b) PW.2 - Prasad and PW.3 - Khaja are the mahazar witnesses, as per their evidence, they have deposed that, Lokayukta Inspector has conducted pre-trap panchanama as per Ex.P2 in the office of Lokayukta on 20/1/2011 and they have stated about the trap panchanama in their presence. But, both witnesses have deposed that, tape recorder conversation available in MO.5 was not clear and even while recording the evidence of PW.2 - Prasad before the Trial Court, audio conversation was not clear. c) PW.4 - Rajkumar is the Junior Engineer, who prepared sketch of the scene of offence as per the request made by the Investigating Officer and issued his sketch as per Ex.P11. In the cross-examination, he admits that, while inspecting the spot, he did not secure the Panchayat Secretary or Village Accountant or the Gram Panchayat Members to the spot. He admits that, as per the instructions of Lokayukta Police, he prepared the sketch. d) PW.5 - Sameer Shukla is the then Deputy Commissioner of Bidar district, who issued sanction as per Ex.P13 for prosecuting the accused persons. In the cross examination, he admits that, he has not attempted to secure file of the complainant either from the Lokayukta Police or from the office of the Tahsildar and whether any file was pending or not and he did not verify the prosecution papers. He submits that, accused No.2 was not connected to the work of mutation of a particular village and he did not secure any documents to show that, accused No.2 was not available in his place or he left his working place as alleged by the prosecution. He further admits that, while issuing sanction, he did not heard the audio conversation in the tape recorder. e) PW.6 - Jagannath is the Tahsildar, who attested the records and issued to the Investigating Officer. f) PW.7 - Basu Chavan is the Investigating Officer, who conducted investigation and filed charge sheet against accused persons. 16. He further admits that, while issuing sanction, he did not heard the audio conversation in the tape recorder. e) PW.6 - Jagannath is the Tahsildar, who attested the records and issued to the Investigating Officer. f) PW.7 - Basu Chavan is the Investigating Officer, who conducted investigation and filed charge sheet against accused persons. 16. Therefore, from the evidence of the prosecution witnesses, it is clear that, the complainant had approached the Tahsil Office and had met one clerk by name Sridhar regarding mutation of his mother's purchased land and that, since it was delayed on the ground that 'J' form was not received from the Sub-Registrar Office, therefore, as per the advise of his friend, he had approached PW.7 - Basu Chavan, Inspector and on perusal of Ex.P1 - complaint, it establishes that, on 5/10/2010, he had approached Tahsil Office and according to his information, 'J' form was forwarded by the Sub-Registrar Office to Tahsil Office on 26/8/2010 itself. Therefore, there is no material evidence to establish regarding forwarding of 'J' form from the office of Sub-Registrar on 26/8/2010. In spite of receipt of the same from the Tahsil Office, it was kept unattended by the concerned Sec. Officer and it is contended that, said Sridhar has taken Rs.200.00 for issuing notice, whereas, in the complaint, it is stated that, the Village Accountant has taken Rs.1, 500.00. On the other hand, as per the procedure, once 'J' form is transmitted online to the Tahsil Office, the notice gets generated automatically to the concerned person, in whose name the property stands and who executed the document and thereafter, confirming about integrity of mutation Phodi, it will be returned to the Revenue Inspector and soon after return, the FIFO system automatically operates. Therefore, there is no scope for third persons indulgence to cause any obstruction to withheld the process. It appears that, unless the FIFO is clear about one particular case, even the next case gets struck. The entire process clearly establishes that, as on the date of complaint dtd. 18/1/2011, the complainant was unaware as to whether his mother's mutation case has been cleared or it has been deliberately withheld in expectation of receipt of gratification amount alleged to have been demanded by accused No.1 - Loknath. The entire process clearly establishes that, as on the date of complaint dtd. 18/1/2011, the complainant was unaware as to whether his mother's mutation case has been cleared or it has been deliberately withheld in expectation of receipt of gratification amount alleged to have been demanded by accused No.1 - Loknath. However, on perusal of Ex.P6, which includes mutation order, mutation notice, mutation registrar extract and 'J' form submitted by PW.6, it appears that, on 15/11/2010 itself mutation was certified and on 5/10/2010 itself general 30 days noticed was generated. 17. In the instant case, PW.1 - Md. Fakeer Ahmed turned hostile to the case of the prosecution, but, there is evidence placed on record through the testimony of PW.2 - Prasad and PW.3 - Khaja, in whose presence, entrustment mahazar -Ex.P2 and draft mahazar were prepared. On perusal of the oral testimony of PW.2, he is unaware as to whether as on the date of trap, work of complainant was pending or not. Further, he has deposed that, tape recorder conversation available in MO.5 is not clear. As per the observation made by the Trial Court in its judgment, it is observed that 'this Court has recorded that audio conversation is not clear'. Further, as on the date of alleged trap, PW.2, the shadow witness who was accompanied the complainant, has not stated in categorical terms that, as on the date of alleged trap, the accused persons have demanded gratification from the complainant and hence, question of demand gets diluted from the evidence of PWs.1 and 2. Further, the independent panch witness PW.3 has turned hostile to the case of the prosecution. 18. The learned counsel for the respondents/accused submitted that, mere recovery of currency notes or tainted money from the accused persons is not sufficient to convict them without there being any substantive evidence and mere recovery by itself cannot prove the charge of the prosecution against the accused persons, in the absence of any evidence to prove demand of bribe amount or to show that the accused persons have voluntarily accepted the money knowing it to be bribe. 19. It is well established principle of law that, mere recovery by itself cannot prove the charge of the prosecution against the accused persons. 19. It is well established principle of law that, mere recovery by itself cannot prove the charge of the prosecution against the accused persons. In the case of B. Jayaraj vs. State of Andhra Pradesh reported in (2014) 13 SCC 55 , the Hon'ble Apex Court has held that, to prove the charge, the prosecution has to prove beyond reasonable doubt that, the accused persons have voluntarily accepted the tainted amount knowing it to be bribe. Absence of proof of demand for illegal gratification and mere possession or recovery of currency notes are not sufficient to constitute such offence. 20. In the said judgment, the Hon'ble Apex Court further held that, even presumption under Sec. 20 of the P.C.Act can be drawn only after demand or acceptance of illegal gratification is proved. It is well settled that, initial presumption of innocence in the criminal jurisprudence gets doubled by acquittal recorded by the Trial Court. 21. Admittedly, mere possession and recovery of currency notes from the accused persons without proof of demand will not bring the guilt of an offence. In the instant case, PW.1 - complainant has turned hostile to the case of the prosecution and PW.2 - shadow witness has not stated about the demand made by the accused persons in his presence. 22. On perusal of the material available on record, there was no work pending by accused persons and there is no question of any demand and acceptance of bribe amount by the accused persons, thus, the prosecution evidence fails to establish the same and there is no evidence that, accused persons have demanded Rs.500.00 and none of the witnesses have stated so. Hence, unless demand is proved, the prosecution case cannot be sustained, it fails as mere recovery of money is not constitute an offence. 23. In the instant case, before conducting seizure mahazar, pre trap mahazar was conducted and the Investigating Officer in categorical terms instructed PW.2 to switch on the voice recorder. If accused persons made demand, PW2 was instructed to record voice conversation between accused and PW2, thus, PW.2 has not properly recorded and it was not played at all. Giving of voice recorder and recording of conversation between the complainant and accused, containing demand of bribe amount prior to registration of complaint amounts to collection of evidence and it is impermissible under law. Giving of voice recorder and recording of conversation between the complainant and accused, containing demand of bribe amount prior to registration of complaint amounts to collection of evidence and it is impermissible under law. This similar ratio is laid down in the case of Sri Ramesh Desai and Another vs. The State of Karnataka by Raichur Lokayukta P.S., reported in 2012 (3) KCCR 1738 by a Coordinate Bench of this Court. Therefore, it is not necessary to give much importance to the aspect of voice being not recorded in the voice recorder in order to prove the demand. 24. So far as validity of sanction order is concerned, the learned counsel for the respondents/accused has disputed it on the ground that, sanction order was not properly obtained by the competent authority. 25. In the instant case, admittedly there is a sanction. Though the accused persons seek to pick holes in the manner, the sanction has been granted and claimed that the same is defective, it is a matter to be considered in the trial. This ratio is laid down in the case of Central Bureau of Investigation and Others vs. Pramila Virendra Kumar Agarwal and Another reported in (2020) 17 SCC 664 . 26. The learned Advocate appearing for the accused has vehemently contended that to prove the offences punishable under Ss. 7 and 13(1)(d) read with Sec. 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, the prosecution has to prove both the demand and acceptance of bribe beyond all reasonable doubt and on that point, he has placed reliance on a decision of the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka between SMT. MAMTAZ BEGUM Vs. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA reported in 2013 (1) KCCR 381 , wherein it is held as under: "Held, unless both demand and acceptance is proved by the prosecution beyond all reasonable doubt, the accused cannot be convicted for the offence under Ss. 7 or 13 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. Strict observance of the requirements of law are to be complied in respect of the prosecution in the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. Both P.W.1 and P.W.4 have been treated hostile by the prosecution and their version regarding demand and acceptance varies from each other and from the documentary evidence. 7 or 13 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. Strict observance of the requirements of law are to be complied in respect of the prosecution in the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. Both P.W.1 and P.W.4 have been treated hostile by the prosecution and their version regarding demand and acceptance varies from each other and from the documentary evidence. Hence, the prosecution has not proved that the accused herself has demanded the illegal gratification of Rs.500.00 from the complainant P.W.4 and the benefit of this doubt goes to the accused." 27. Further, the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of C. SUKUMARAN Vs. STATE OF KERALA reported in 2015(2) KCCR SN 140 (SC), has held as under: "(B) PREVENTION OF CORRUPTION ACT, 1988 - Ss. 7 and 13(1)(d) - Acquittal - Special Judge coming to erroneous conclusion that appellant/accused received money - Therefore recording finding that there was demand and acceptance of bribe money on part of appellant - -High Court holding that demand alleged to have been made by appellant was not proved - Setting aside that part of conviction and sentence - Proper - However, affirming conviction for alleged offence under Sec. 13(1)(d) read with Sec. 13(2), although as per law, demand by appellant under Sec. 7 of Act, should have been proved to sustain charge under Sec. 13(1)(d) - Erroneous - No prosecution witnesses deposing that appellant was person who had demanded and accepted bribe - Complainant materially turning hostile - Held, it is safe to say that prosecution has failed to prove beyond any reasonable doubt that appellant had accepted illegal gratification from complainant." 28. In the case of M.R. PURUSHOTHAM Vs. In the case of M.R. PURUSHOTHAM Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA reported in 2014(5) KCCR 1255 (SC), the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held as under: "PREVENTION OF CORRUPTION ACT, 1988 - Sec. 13 - Acquittal - Demand and acceptance of illegal gratification by accused - For prosecution to prove - Complainant not supporting prosecution case as to demand - No other evidence adduced by prosecution in that regard - Evidence of witness/Government servant and contents of complaint cannot be relied upon to conclude that said material furnishes proof of demand allegedly made by accused - High Court not correct in holding demand alleged to be made by accused as proved - Mere possession and recovery of currency notes from accused without proof of demand - Will not bring home offence under Sec. 13(1)(d) - Conviction and sentence imposed on accused set aside." 29. Admittedly, in the instant case, P.W.1 - complainant turned hostile to the case of the persecution and he has not stated about the demand. 30. The counsel further submits that there was no work pending by accused and there was no demand. Thus the prosecution evidence fails and there is no evidence that accused demanded Rs.500.00 and none of the witnesses have stated so. Unless demand is proved, the prosecution case cannot sustained and it fails. Further, mere recovery of money is not essential. Prosecution fails to prove its case beyond doubts, hence counsel prays to acquit accused. 31. Further, mere possession and recovery of currency notes from the accused without proof of demand will not bring home the offence under Sec. 13(1)(d) of the Act. In this regard, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of L.R. PURUSHOTHAM Vs. Prosecution fails to prove its case beyond doubts, hence counsel prays to acquit accused. 31. Further, mere possession and recovery of currency notes from the accused without proof of demand will not bring home the offence under Sec. 13(1)(d) of the Act. In this regard, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of L.R. PURUSHOTHAM Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA reported in 2015 SAR (Criminal) 96, has held as under: "Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 - Secs.7, 13(1)(d) read with Sec.13(2) - Illegal gratification - Demand and acceptance - Proof - Appellant/accused, working in the office of Assistant Director of Land Records, demanded an illegal gratification for issuance of survey sketch pertaining to a Village - Trap was organised - Acquittal of accused by trial Court - Reversal thereof by High Court - Propriety - Held, In such type of cases the prosecution has to prove that there was a demand and acceptance of illegal gratification by the accused - As already seen the complainant did not support the prosecution case in so far as demand by the accused - No other evidence was adduced by the prosecution to prove the demand made by the accused with the complainant - When complainant himself had disowned what he has stated in his initial complaint before Inspector and there is no other evidence to prove that the accused had made any demand, the evidence of other witness and the contents of complaint cannot be relied upon to conclude that the said material furnishes proof of demand allegedly made by the accused - High Court was not correct in holding the demand alleged to be made by the accused as proved - Mere possession and recovery of the currency notes from the accused without proof of demand will not bring home the offence under Sec.13(1)(d) of the Act and the conviction and sentence imposed on the appellant are liable to be set aside." 32. In the present case also the complainant P.W.1 himself has disowned what he has stated in his initial complaint before Lokayuktha Police Inspector and there is no other evidence to prove that the accused had made any demand. The evidence of other witness and the contents of the complaint cannot be relied upon to conclude that the said material furnished proof of demand allegedly made by the accused persons. The evidence of other witness and the contents of the complaint cannot be relied upon to conclude that the said material furnished proof of demand allegedly made by the accused persons. Mere possession and recovery of currency notes from the accused without proof of demand will not bring the guilt of the offence under Sec. 13(1)(d) of the Act, as held in the aforesaid decision. 33. It is settled position of law that, circumstances how so ever cannot take place of proof and that, the guilt of the accused have to be proved by the prosecution beyond reasonable doubt. The golden principals laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Sharad Birdhi Chand Sarda vs. Staste of Maharashtra reported in (1984) 4 SCC 116 . 34. The Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in case of N. Vijayakumar Vs. State of Tamil Nadu reported in (2021) 3 SCC 687 , has held as under; "Though, High Court was of the view that prosecution witness can be believed, unless it is held that the view taken by trial Court disbelieving the witness is not a possible view, High Court ought not have interfered with the acquittal recorded by trial Court, thus reversal of acquittal by High Court is not justified and thus, conviction set aside." 35. In case of Nagabhushan Vs. State of Karnataka reported in (2021) 5 SCC 222 , the Hon'ble Apex Court has observed as under: 7.2.2. When the findings of the fact recorded by a Court can be held to be perverse has been dealt with and considered in para 20 of the aforesaid decision, which reads as under; (Babu case, SCC P. 199) "The finding of fact recorded by a Court can be held to be perverse, if the findings have been arrived at by ignoring or excluding relevant material or by taking into consideration irrelevant/ inadmissible material. The finding may also be set to be perverse if it is against the weight of the evidence, or if the findings so outrageously defies logic as to suffer from the vice of irrationality. 7.2.3. It is further observed, after following the decision of this Court in Kuldeep Singh Vs. Commissioner of Police that if a decision is arrived at on the basis of no evidence or thoroughly unreliable evidence and no reasonable person would act upon it, the order would be perverse. 7.2.3. It is further observed, after following the decision of this Court in Kuldeep Singh Vs. Commissioner of Police that if a decision is arrived at on the basis of no evidence or thoroughly unreliable evidence and no reasonable person would act upon it, the order would be perverse. But, if there is some evidence on record which is acceptable and which could be relied upon, the conclusions would not be treated as perverse and the findings would not be interfered with." 36. The counsel for respondents submits that the Trial Court considering oral and documentary evidence and the relevant provision of law has acquitted the respondents, hence, there is no merits in the contention of appellant - State, as the appellate Court normally will not set aside the acquittal judgment, since, the presumption of innocence available to accused normally will not disturb in view of ratio laid down in the case of Sharad Birdhi Chand Sarda (supra). 37. In order to prove the offences alleged against the accused persons under Ss. 7 and 13(1)(d) of the P.C.Act, the prosecution has to prove that, the accused persons had demanded and accepted illegal gratification from the complainant. In the instant case, there is no clear and convincing evidence on record to show that, accused persons had demanded and accepted bribe amount of Rs.500.00 from the complainant (PW.1) for the purpose of issuance of 'J' form in respect of the land standing in the name of complainant's mother. The entrustment mahazar and seizure mahazar witnesses have also not supported the case of the prosecution and they turned hostile to the case of the prosecution. Therefore, presumption under Sec. 20 of the P.C.Act cannot come to the aid of the prosecution and accordingly, the Trial Court has not drawn presumption that, accused persons had received a sum of Rs.500.00 as a motive or reward to show the official favour in respect of the complainant. Therefore, considering the oral and documentary evidence on record, the Trial Court has acquitted the respondents/accused persons. 38. In view of the above proposition of law and decisions cited supra, in the present case, I have analyzed the entire oral and documentary evidence on record and found that, there is insufficient evidence to show that, accused persons have demanded and accepted bribe amount of Rs.500.00 from PW.1 - complainant. 39. 38. In view of the above proposition of law and decisions cited supra, in the present case, I have analyzed the entire oral and documentary evidence on record and found that, there is insufficient evidence to show that, accused persons have demanded and accepted bribe amount of Rs.500.00 from PW.1 - complainant. 39. For the reasons stated above and having given careful consideration to the above evidence and submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and in the back drop of the evidence discussed above and tested in the light of the principles of law highlighted above, it must be held that finding recorded by the Trial Court does not suffer from any manifest error and improper appreciation of evidence on record. Therefore, the judgment of the Trial Court acquitting the accused persons for the aforesaid offences is sustained in law. I do not find any grounds to interfere with the well reasoned judgment passed by the Trial Court. 40. In the result, the point Nos.1 and 2 raised for consideration are answered in the negative. Hence, the following: ORDER The appeal is dismissed. The judgment of acquittal passed by the Special Judge and Principal District and Sessions Judge, Bidar in Special Case (P.C.Act) No.2/2012 dtd. 24/9/2020 for the offences punishable under Ss. 7, 13(1)(d) read with Sec. 13(2) of the P.C.Act, is confirmed. Registry is directed to send copy of this judgment along with Trial Court records to the Trial Court forthwith.