STATE OF KARNATAKA Vs. D.G. MANJUNATH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE respondent/accused (hereinafter referred to as 'accused ™) was tried and acquitted for offences punishable under Sections 7, 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (for short 'the Act ™). Therefore, Lokayuktha police has filed this appeal.

(2.) HEARD Sri S.G. Rajendra Reddy, learned Counsel for appellant and Sri Mahadevaiah, learned Counsel for accused.

(3.) IT is the case of the prosecution that on 23.3.2000 P.Ws. 2, 7 and 8 and other beneficiaries had met accused in the office of Karnataka SC/ST Development Corporation Limited, Kolar and requested him to issue certificates to enable P.Ws. 2, 7 and 8 to get submersible pumpset and necessary accessories to install the same in the borewell sunk by them. In this connection, accused had demanded a sum of Rs. 5,000/ - from P.Ws. 2, 7 and 8 and other beneficiaries as a motive or reward for issuing necessary certificates. When P.Ws. 2, 7 and 8 pleaded their inability, accused told them to bribe him a sum of Rs. 5,000/ - in his house at Bangarpet at about 8.30 or 9.00 a.m. on 24.3.2000. As P.Ws. 2, 7 and 8 and other beneficiaries were not willing to bribe accused, P.W. 2 lodged first information on 23.3.2000 at 4.30 p.m., in the office of Lokayuktha police at Kolar. The Investigating Officer namely, P.W. 9 Lokesh registered Crime No. 3/2000 for offences punishable under Sections 7, 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of the Act against accused and despatched first information report to the jurisdictional Special Judge. Thereafter, P.W. 8 secured witnesses, namely, P.W. 3 -Suresh, P.W. 4 -Thimmaiah. P.W. 2 -Muniyappa and produced before the Investigating Officer, 8 currency notes of Rs. 500/ - denomination and 10 currency notes of Rs. 100/ - denomination. P.W. 9 smeared phenolphthalein powder on the currency notes and entrusted the same to P.W. 2 in the presence of P.Ws. 3 and 4 and also demonstrated and explained phenolphthalein test to P.Ws. 2 to 4. As it was 5.00 p.m. by then, they decided to trap accused on the following day. Therefore, P.Ws. 2 to 4 were instructed to appear in the office of Lokayuktha police at 8.00 a.m. on 24.3.2000. After making necessary preparations, P.W. 9 prepared mahazer as per Ex. P3 and the same was witnessed by aforestated witnesses. On 24.3.2000 at 8.00 a.m., P.Ws. 2 to 4 appeared in the office of Lokayuktha police and thereafter the raiding party led by Investigating Officer which included P.Ws. 2 to 4 and other officials reached Bangarpet. The jeep was stopped at a distance from house of accused situate in Housing Colony at Bangarpet. P.W. 9 asked P.W. 2 to meet accused and he asked P.W. 3 to accompany P.W. 2 to observe what would transpire between accused and P.W. 2. Thereafter, P.Ws. 2 and 3 went near the house of accused. P.W. 3 stood outside the house. P.W. 2 entered the house and met the accused. At that time, accused is alleged to have demanded illegal gratification of Rs. 5,000/ - as a motive or reward to issue necessary certificate for providing submersible pumpset and other accessories to P.W. 2. P.W. 2 paid illegal gratification of Rs. 5,000/ - to the accused who on receipt of the same gave two slips to P.W. 2. Thereafter, P.W. 2 came and gave a pre -determined signal to the Police Inspector. Thereafter, the Police Inspector and other members of raiding parties entered the house of accused. Accused was sitting on a long sofa. P.W. 2 informed P.W. 9 that accused had received tainted currency notes. The tainted currency notes were found beneath the sofa and the Police Inspector seized the tainted currency notes and after conducting phenolphthalein test by dipping the hands of accused in sodium carbonate. The Police Inspector seized the slips said to have been written by accused. The accused was formally arrested on the same day. The Investigating Officer collected necessary documents and sent the incriminating articles to F.S.L. After obtaining sanction from P.W. 5 Anilkumar (Regional Managing Director of SC/ST Corporation Limited) filed charge sheet against accused for aforestated offences.