JUDGMENT : V Srishananda, J. Heard Sri. Subhash Mallapur, learned Special Public Prosecutor for the Lokayukta/appellant, Sri. Narendra N. Bettad, learned counsel for Sri. Mallikarjun S., learned counsel appearing for respondent Nos.1 and 2. 2. This appeal is by the Lokayukta, challenging the order of acquittal passed in Special Case No.1/2013 by the Special Judge, Yadgiri, by Judgment dated 19.03.2018. 3. Facts in the nutshell which are utmost necessary for disposal of the present appeal are as under: 3.1. One Mallikarjun lodged a complaint with Lokayukta Police on 24.05.2010 that he is having a business of transporting the sand from Canal situated at Malhar village and he has a necessary permission in the name of Gazuddin. 3.2. About 15 days earlier to lodging the complaint, the accused persons being the Police Officials of Gurumitkal Circle, illegally seized the lorries loaded with sand and moved the lorries to the Gurumitkal Police Station. For the release of lorries, the accused persons said to have demanded a sum of Rs.40,000/- as bribe. On an earlier occasion, the complainant paid a sum of Rs.40,000/- and got released the lorries. But again, four lorries were seized and they were also released by taking bribe of Rs.8,000/- to each lorry. 3.3. When the matter stood thus, on 23.05.2010, Saidapur Police seized the lorries bearing registration Nos.AP-29/U-3024 and AP-29/T-4265, which were kept in the Saidapur Police Station. The complainant tried to get the lorries released from the accused persons for which they demanded Rs.30,000/- as illegal gratification to be paid to Circle Police Inspector and a sum of Rs.10,000/- to be payable to Police Sub-Inspector. This conversation with the accused persons was recorded by the complainant on his mobile phone, being fed up with the payment of illegal gratification away now and then. 3.4. After hearing the conversation recorded in the mobile phone, the Lokayukta Police took his complaint and registered a case in Crime No.4/2010 and after securing the independent panchas, laid a trap on 24.05.2010 at about 8.30 p.m. in the Inspection Bungalow of Saidapur. 3.5. The complainant said to have parted away a sum of Rs.30,000/- as bribe amount to the hands of the second accused and after counting the amount, the second accused said to have kept the same in the pant pocket of the hind side (hip pocket). 3.6. 3.5. The complainant said to have parted away a sum of Rs.30,000/- as bribe amount to the hands of the second accused and after counting the amount, the second accused said to have kept the same in the pant pocket of the hind side (hip pocket). 3.6. Thereafter, the complainant gave a pre- designated signal and Lokayukta Police stopped the jeep, wherein, the accused No.2 was found running away after keeping the amount in a rexine bag of accused No.1. The Lokayukta Police overpowered them and caught hold of them and after detailed investigation filed charge-sheet. 4. After securing the presence of the accused persons, the charges were framed against the accused persons. Both the accused persons denied the charges and therefore, trial was held. 5. In order to bring home the guilt of the accused, fourteen witnesses were examined as P.W.1 to P.W.14 and as many as fourty five documents were placed on record which were exhibited and marked as Exs.P.1 to P.45. Apart from oral testimony and the documentary evidence, the Lokayukta Police placed on record cash of Rs.30,000/-, compact disc, bottles, cassette, bag, shirt and pant. During the course of cross-examination of P.W.1, P.W.2 and P.W.9, contradictory statements elicited are marked as Exs.D.1 to D.3. 6. On conclusion of recording of the evidence, the learned Trial Judge heard the arguments of the parties, recorded the accused statement as is contemplated under Section 313 of Cr.P.C., wherein the accused persons have denied the incriminatory circumstances put to them. Both the accused persons placed on record the written arguments as is contemplated under Section 314 of Cr.P.C. Thereafter, learned Trial Judge heard the arguments of the parties and in the light of written arguments filed on behalf of the accused persons and oral arguments of the prosecution, acquitted the accused by the impugned judgment. 7. Being aggrieved by the same, the Lokayukta Police is in appeal before this Court in this appeal on the following grounds: That the judgment passed by the Trial court is contrary to the facts of the case besides being erroneous, hence the impugned judgment is unsustainable in the eye of law. That the Trial Court without proper appreciation of the facts of the case and the evidence led by the prosecution has passed the order of acquittal, which has led into gross miscarriage of justice. That the Trial Court without proper appreciation of the facts of the case and the evidence led by the prosecution has passed the order of acquittal, which has led into gross miscarriage of justice. That the Prosecution has examined 14 witnesses and got marked 45 documents to prove the case which has been discarded by the trial court without proper appreciation which has led into gross miscarriage of justice. That the Trial Court has failed to appreciate the fact that the complainant, the shadow witness and the mahazar witness along with the Investigation officer has fully supported the case of the prosecution which is sufficient to hold the respondent guilty as charged. That the Trial court has committed a grave error by going into minor contradictions, instead of going into sum and substance produced by the prosecution to prove the guilt which has led into gross miscarriage of justice, That the Trial court has observed that the voice recording has not been sent for forensic laboratory for voice test, which is irrational and irrelevant to the case of the prosecutions, the Trial court taking into consideration these discrepancies has held that the prosecution has failed to prove the case. Viewed from any angle the judgment & order impugned is erroneous, unreasonable and against the well-established principles of law, hence the same deserves to be interfered with.” 8. Sri Subhash Mallapur, learned Special Public Prosecutor for the Lokayukta vehemently contended that the learned Trial Judge failed to appreciate the material evidence placed on record in proper manner and wrongly acquitted the accused resulting in miscarriage of justice. 9. He also pointed out that seizure of cash of Rs.30,000/- tendered by the complainant in the inspection bungalow on demand made by the accused persons, to the hands of accused No.2 and recovery of said Rs.30,000/- cash tainted currency from the rexine bag belonging to accused No.1 is totally ignored by the learned Trial Judge while passing the impugned judgment resulting in miscarriage of justice and sought for allowing the appeal. 10. Per contra, Sri Narendra N. Bettad, learned counsel representing the counsel for the respondents/accused supports the impugned judgment. 11. 10. Per contra, Sri Narendra N. Bettad, learned counsel representing the counsel for the respondents/accused supports the impugned judgment. 11. Having heard the arguments on both sides, the following points would arise for consideration: (a) Whether the material evidence placed on record by the prosecution would be sufficient enough in establishing all necessary ingredients to attract the offences under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act (for short, ‘the PC Act’) punishable under Section 13 (2) of the PC Act? (b) Whether the impugned judgment is suffering from legal infirmity or perversity? (c) If answers to point Nos.1 and 2 are in the affirmative, what is the appropriate sentence in the case on hand? (d) What order? Regarding Point Nos.1 and 2: 12. In the case on hand, accused persons namely, police personnel working in Gurumitkal Police Station is not in dispute. It is the case of the complainant that earlier the accused persons used to seize the lorries which transporting the sand, for which, the complainant had possessed the licence from the respective governmental agencies in the name of Gazuddin. 13. It is the further case of the complainant that when the lorries were seized by the Gurumitkal police, they got released on earlier occasions by paying the bribe. 14. When the matter stood thus, according to the case of the prosecution, on 23.05.2010, two lorries bearing Nos.AP-29/U-3024 and AP-29/T-4265 were seized by the Saidapur police for allegedly illegally transporting the sand. 15. The complainant said to have contacted the accused persons to negotiate with the Saidapur police for release of those lorries. At that juncture, accused persons said to have demanded totally Rs.40,000/- as a bribe amount, of which, a sum of Rs.30,000/- is payable to the Circle Police Inspector and balance sum of Rs.10,000/- to the Police Sub-Inspector. Allegedly the said conversation was recorded by the complainant on his mobile telephone and thereafter approached the Lokayukta police. 16. The Lokayukta police thereafter registered the case in Crime No.4/2010 and laid the trap on 24.05.2010 at about 08-30 p.m. in the inspection bungalow of Saidapur. In this regard, material evidence available on record is in the form of oral testimony as well as the documentary evidence on record. 17. The complainant, being P.W.1 has turned hostile to the case of the prosecution. He did not support the case of the prosecution to any extent. In this regard, material evidence available on record is in the form of oral testimony as well as the documentary evidence on record. 17. The complainant, being P.W.1 has turned hostile to the case of the prosecution. He did not support the case of the prosecution to any extent. Therefore, he has been treated as hostile witness and cross-examined by the prosecution. In such cross-examination, the contents of the complaint were confronted to the complainant and no useful material is elicited so as to advance the case of the prosecution to any extent. 18. It is stated that whatever the conversation that was recorded in the mobile telephone was transferred onto a compact disc and the memory card was removed from the mobile phone and thereafter transferred onto the computer. It is pertinent to note that the certificate under Section 65B of the Evidence Act is not furnished by the prosecution and thereby the conversation recorded in the compact disc marked as M.O.2 cannot be considered as the evidence though the conversation is reduced into writing vide Ex.P.18. 19. Further, P.W.1 has stated that he admits in his cross-examination that in the departmental enquiry also he has been cited as a witness. He admits that he has given statement vide Ex.D.1 in the departmental enquiry. The examination-in-chief and Ex.D.1 do not tally each other. 20. P.W.2 did not support the case of the prosecution in toto and he has supported the case of the prosecution in part and he being the shadow witness, specifically stated that he was standing outside the inspection bungalow when the complainant said to have handed over a sum of Rs.30,000/- to the hands of accused No.2. Ex.D.2 is statement given by P.W.2 which is contradictory in nature to the examination-in-chief. He specifically admitted that when the conversation recorded in the mobile telephone was made to listen, the conversation was not clear and it was not properly audible. He admits that he does not know the person, who has reduced the conversation into writing before the departmental enquiry. He admits that whatever is written in Ex.P.18 was not read over to him. 21. P.W.3 is a co-pancha. He has also stated in line with the trap mahazar. Thereafter, the remaining witnesses are formal in nature except the investigation officer. 22. He admits that whatever is written in Ex.P.18 was not read over to him. 21. P.W.3 is a co-pancha. He has also stated in line with the trap mahazar. Thereafter, the remaining witnesses are formal in nature except the investigation officer. 22. It is pertinent to note that the present accused persons are not the Police Constables of Saidapur Police Station and they were admittedly police personnel attached to the Gurumitkal Police Station. 23. As could be seen from the very complaint averments itself, complainant was acting as a broker for Gazuddin. It is permit of the Gazuddin, whereby, the sand was to be excavated and transported. Gazuddin had the permit in this regard and he has not been examined by the prosecution as a witness. 24. Gazuddin is examined as PW11, who has supported the case of the prosecution. 25. As per the complaint averments, it is the complainant, who has to pay the bribe to Gurumitkal Police Station (accused persons) and get the lorry released. If the lorry contained the sand excavated under the pass and permit there was no necessity for the complainant to pay bribe to the accused persons and get the vehicle released. 26. Lokayukta Police did not enquire this aspect of the matter. Admittedly, the lorry bearing No.AP-29/U-1324 and AP-29/B-4265 were seized by the Saidapur Police, for which the present accused persons had no role whatsoever to play. It is neither the PSI nor CPI who demanded the bribe amount for the release of the vehicle. 27. If at all the lorry is carrying the sand under the permit of PW11, there was no necessity for the complainant to contact the accused persons for release of the lorry, as it is part of the crime and it could have been released only through the process know to law by filing necessary application before the jurisdictional Magistrate. 28. Having not done so, the complainant being a party to illegal transaction allegedly on earlier occasions, could not have offered for the present accused persons as bribe amount for release of the lorry. 29. Further, even according to the complaint averments, what is the amount that was demanded is Rs.40,000/- (Rs.30,000/- for the CPI and Rs.10,000/- for the PSI). If that is so, why only Rs.30,000/- was tried to be given to the hands of accused No.2 is a question that remains unanswered. 30. 29. Further, even according to the complaint averments, what is the amount that was demanded is Rs.40,000/- (Rs.30,000/- for the CPI and Rs.10,000/- for the PSI). If that is so, why only Rs.30,000/- was tried to be given to the hands of accused No.2 is a question that remains unanswered. 30. Further, accused No.2 said to have kept the sum of Rs.30,000/- in his pant hip pocket and later on noticing the presence of Lokayukta police said to have transferred that money into the rexine bag of accused No.1 and the money is recovered from the bag of accused No.1. When there is no demand at all by the accused persons as they were not possessing any work to be done to show the official favour or forbear an act under the capacity of public servant, the ingredients of Sections 7 and 13 only does not get attracted to the case on hand. 31. Accordingly, order of acquittal recorded by the trial Judge needs no interference even after re-appreciation of the material evidence. 32. In view of the foregoing discussion, point Nos.1 and 2 are answered in the negative. Regarding Point No.3:- 33. In view finding of this Court on point Nos.1 and 2 as above, this point would not arise for consideration. Regarding Point No.4:- 34. In view of the finding of this Court on point Nos.1 to 3 as above, the following: ORDER i) Appeal is meritless and hereby it is dismissed. ii) Bail bonds, if any, stand cancelled.