S SURYANARAYANA RAO Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal is directed against the judgment dated 26-2-1996 passed in Special Case No. 10/1987 by the Special Judge of Dakshina Kannada,mangalore, convicting the appellant and sentencing him to undergo R. I. for a period of one year for the offence punishable under Section 13 (1) (d) and Section 13 (2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.

(2.) BRIEFLY stated the case of the prosecution is that the Appellant was working as A. D. L. R. in Mangalore. PW1 was looking after the property of his mother-in-law. On 16-7-86, he had given an application to conduct survey in respect of Sy. No. 187/2 as PW 1 was interested to fence the same. The application was given in the name of his monther-in-law. On that date, the appellant was not present in the office. On 22-7-86, again PW1 visited the office and made enquiry with the Appellant as to what has happened to the application given by him. After some discussions, it appears that the Appellant has demanded Rs. 150/- for completing the work. Since PW1 was not interested in giving bribe, he visited the office of the Lokayuktha and gave a complaint. After performing all the preliminary tests, the police along with PW1 and the panchas set-out for traping the Appellant. PW1 went to the appellant and made an enquiry and after the demand, he gave the amount of Rs. 150/ -. After the Appellant received this amount, PW1 gave signal. As such, the I. O. and the panchas came inside and seized the amount and conducted mahazar and collected the wash. 2a. For the prosecution, PWs 1 to 7 are examined and Exs. P1 to P11 are marked. The Lower Court has come to the conclusion that the evidence led by the prosecution is sufficient to bring home the guilt of the accused for the charges levelled against the Appellant. Hence the Appellant has been convicted and sentenced to undergo R. I. for one year as stated above.

(3.) MR. Raghavachar, learned counsel for the Appellant submits that even assuming that there was recovery of the amount, it is not the sign of the guilt. According to him, except self-serving testimony of the complainant, there is nothing on the record to show that there was actually demand and payment. The another trumpcard according to him is that the panch who is alleged to have accompanied with PW1 has not been examined. Hence self-serving testimony of PW1 is not sufficient to warrant the conviction. On the other hand, Sri Srinivasa Reddy, learned Govt. Pleader vehemently submitted that there was demand and after the demand, the bribe was given and it was accepted and after acceptance, signal was given then the mahazar was conducted. In view of these rival submissions, now it is to be seen whether the evidence is sufficient to bring home the guilt of this appellant.