AMEER JAN Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE appellant who at the relevant time i. e. , on 19-2-1992 was working as a First Division clerk in the Office of the Registrar of Firms and Co-operative Societies, Bangalore District, is alleged to have demanded illegal gratification from the complainant-P. W. 3 of a sum of Rs. 300/for showing favour in relation to the issuance of a registration certificate. The complainant approached the Lokayuktha Police who arranged for a trap and it is alleged that the complainant accompanied by P. W. 1 went to the office of the accused some time in the afternoon and that pursuant to the earlier demand, the accused asked the complainant whether he had brought the money. The complainant is alleged to have handed it over to the accused who received it in his left-hand and thereafter put it into the drawer of his table. The complainant gave the pre-arranged signal whereupon the raiding party apprehended the accused. The three currency notes of Rs. 100/- each which had been treated with anthracene powder were recovered from the drawer of the accused and it is alleged that when lime water was poured on his hands, that it gave off a pinkish colour. Even though the colouration was extremely faint the C. E. Report indicated traces of the chemical and consequently, the Trial Court accepted the position that the hands of the accused were found smeared with the powder. The Trial Court also accepted the prosecution evidence and convicted the accused for the offence punishable under Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act and awarded him a sentence of one year R. I. , and a fine of Rs. 1,000/- in default to undergo S. I. for 3 months and he was also convicted of an offence punishable under section 13 (1) (d) read with Section 13 (2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act and was sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000/- for the said offence and in default to undergo S. I. for a period of 3 months. The present appeal is directed against this conviction and sentence.

(2.) AT the hearing of the appeal, Mr. Devaraju, learned Counsel who appears on behalf of the appellant along with Smt. Veena Antin have submitted that the evidence in this case does not conclusively make out the charges and it was their effort to focus on the infirmities and inconsistencies in the present case. In the first instance, after referring to the oral evidence of p. W. 1, P. W. 3 and P. W, 5, what is contended is that there is a discrepancy with regard to the time factor. It is true that the complainant originally contends that the initial demand was made at about 11. 45 a. m. and that he proceeded to the Lokayukta Police thereafter and from the evidence of the remaining witnesses, it does appear that the time at which they were sent for and the preliminary formalities, completed does not tally. The appellant's learned Counsel vehemently submitted that this is a serious infirmity insofar as it affects the credibility of the witnesses. The learned Public Prosecutor and very rightly so, pointed out to the Court that the exact time when the witnesses were sent for etc. , are incidental details which do not materially affect their substantive evidence which deals with the basic facts of the case viz. , the trap and to this extent I am in agreement with the learned Public Prosecutor that even if the witnesses have faulted slightly with regard to the statement of the exact time that this is inconsequential and would not affect their credibility or veracity as far as the narration of the main incident is concerned.

(3.) THE next substantial head of attack was with regard to the aspect of recovery of the three currency notes which had undoubtedly been treated with powder. Firstly, what was submitted was that if the accused received the notes in his left-hand and opened the drawer with his right-hand, that at the very highest, the powder would have been found on his left-hand and that there is virtually no explanation for the fact that the bottle containing the lime wash of the right-hand also revealed traces of the powder. What is submitted is that it is clear that the prosecuting authorities were not careful with regard to the type of bottles that were used, the manner in which the treated liquid was filled into each of the bottle etc. , and that consequently the benefit of doubt must go to the accused. Again, in my considered view, this aspect of the case cannot override the rest of the evidence which does substantially indicate that on the date in question the recovery did take place and how the powder could have got onto the two hands of the accused does not require very much speculation because one cannot rule out the possibility that the notes were shifted from one hand to the other before lodging them in the drawer. To my mind, this aspect of the evidence cannot assist the accused to any substantial extent.