STATE BY POLICE INSPECTOR, BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION, KARNATAKA LOKAYUKTHA, CITY DIVISION, BAN GALORE Vs. H. MANJUNATHA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The State of Karnataka has assailed the order of acquittal recorded in favour of the respondent-accused in C.C. No. 19 of 1994 by the learned Special Judge, Bangalore. The accused who was at the relevant time a Police Constable was arrested on a corruption charge and the allegation against him was that on 4-3-1993 at about 9 a.m. he is alleged to have gone to the residence of one Dr. Sadashivachar who is the complainant, and that he is alleged to have demanded a sum of Rs. 1,000.00 from the complainant. It is alleged that the accused is supposed to have told the complainant that he had dealt with stolen property and that he would take action according to law against him and the offer was that if an amount of Rs. 1,000.00 were to be paid, that the accused would not take action. The complainant evaded the payment on the ground that he did not have the money and the accused is supposed to have insisted that a sum of Rs. 200.00 be paid as this was the transport charge for coming there and an appointment was fixed for 3 p.m. on 8-3-1993 when the complainant was to pay the balance amount. The complainant approached the anti-corruption authorities and a trap was laid. On 8-3-1993, the accused came to collect the money. The amount was paid to him and he was caught with the currency notes which had been specially treated. On completion of -the investigation, the accused was charged with having committed offences under Sections 7 and 13(1) read with Sec. 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. It is very necessary for me to briefly record the defence taken in this case which is extremely interesting. The complainant is a medical practitioner and the accused contends that he had been suffering from a skin trouble for a long time and that he had been treated by the accused who charged him Rs. 2,000.00 for the treatment. He states that despite the treatment, there was no improvement in the condition and that therefore, he went to the complainant and demanded his money back. According to him, the complainant had promised to make the payment on 8-3-1993 at 3 p.m. which was why he went there. It is his case that the complainant has falsely implicated him only because of the fact that there was an unpleasant incident when he had demanded the money back and they almost came to blows. The learned Trial Judge held that the charge has not been proved by the prosecution and at the same time, that the defence pleaded appears to be plausible and consequently acquitted the accused. It is against this order that the present appeal has been directed. Since the accused had not appeared despite notice, this Court appointed learned Advocate Sri Mallikarjun Mylar as Amicus Curiae.

(2.) At the hearing of the appeal, I have reconsidered the evidence that is on record and heard the learned Additional State Public Prosecutor, Sri S.S. Koti and the learned Advocate who has been appointed as Amicus Curiae on behalf of the accused. Mr. Koti relied on the evidence of the complainant, the neighbour and the landlord both of whom live in the vicinity in order to establish that the first incident had taken place on 4-3-1993 when the demand was originally made. It is true that the complainant has alleged that an amount of Rs. 5,000.00 was originally demanded him which figure was ultimately settled at Rs. 1,000.00. He contends that the accused was forcibly dragging him to the police station and in order to exonerate him from the false allegations which the accused was threatening him with, that he agreed to pay the sum of Rs. 1,000.00. He denies that the accused had been his patient or that he had charged him Rs. 2,000.00 for treating him for the skin problem. The supporting witnesses do corroborate the complainant to the extent that some unpleasant incident had taken place on that day but their evidence is vague as far as the material aspects are concerned. Even as far as the complainant goes, he was very vaguely worded with regard to what precisely the accused had demanded from him and secondly, as to whether or not there was any justification in the charge that he had purchased valuable stolen property such as a T.V. and a V.C.R. Also, it has been pointed out to me with some justification, that there are variations between the version set out in the complaint and what has been deposed to before the Court and this is the principal reason why the learned Trial Judge has expressed reluctance in the matter of relying on this evidence.

(3.) Even though the learned Additional State Public Prosecutor has vehemently submitted that the doctor's evidence is fully corroborated by the evidence of the other two witnesses, what I need to take note of is the fact that the complainant is most certainly holding something back from the Court. Even if the complainant had dealt with stolen property and the accused sought to blackmail him about this incident and extort money from him, there would have been no difficulty about holding the accused guilty on a corruption charge because those ingredients would have been satisfied irrespective of the complainant's conduct. What creates a degree of doubt as far as the complainant's evidence is concerned is the fact that in the first instance, as pointed out by the respondent's learned Advocate, he appears to be posing as a doctor but there is something dubious about him insofar as he does not even have registration certificate. In addition to this, the prosecution itself has not produced any material before the Court to indicate that some investigation was in progress in the course of which an offence of theft or dealing with stolen property came to the notice of the Investigating Officer, that the name of the complainant transpired and that therefore, it was decided to investigate about his culpability in the case. On the complexion of the present prosecution, this material was absolutely essential as it would have fully established the correctness of the complainant's allegation. Even though as many as four police officers have been examined, the prosecution has not led this vital evidence and inevitably, on a crucial aspect of the case if the vital evidence is not forthcoming, then an adverse inference would have to be drawn by the Court. In totality therefore, it would be impossible to attach the level of credibility to this evidence that is essential to sustain a corruption charge.