G.NARASIMHA MURTHY Vs. KARNATAKA LOKAYUKTA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is by the accused who has been convicted for the offences punishable under Sections 7 and 13 (1) (d) r/w Section 13(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 ('Act' for short) and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for a period of two years and fine of Rs.25,000/- for the offence under Section 7, and five years rigorous imprisonment and fine of Rs.50,000/- for the offence under Section 13(1)(d) r/w Section 13(2) of the Act with default sentence of imprisonment of six months and one year respectively for each of the offences.

(2.) The prosecution case is that, after a prolonged litigation, the High Court passed an order directing the Land Tribunal to confer occupancy right in favour of PW- 5 Ambrose Pinto in respect of a certain extent of land in Sy.No.341 of Beluvai village, Magalore taluk. PW-5 made an application to the Nada Kacheri, Moodabidri for issuing occupancy certificate in Form No.10-A. The accused was the Deputy Tahsildar at Nada Kacheri and for issuing the said certificate, PW-5 alleged that the accused demanded for a bribe of Rs.10,000/- and reported the same to Lokayukta Police, Mangaluru. On 5.10.2001 a trap was laid. PW-5 along with shadow witness, PW-1 went inside the chamber of the accused and as per the instructions of the accused, put the currency notes smeared with phenolphthalein powder amounting to Rs.8,000/- in an envelope and handed over the same to the accused. Little later, accused entertained doubt and came out of his chamber and started running. PW-5 showed the accused to the Lokayukta Police who were waiting outside Nada Kacheri. While running the accused is said to have flung the envelope into a bush. The Lokayukta Police later on seized the currency notes and subjected the accused to phenolphthalein test. His hand wash and pants wash answered positive for the said test. Thus he was charge sheeted for the said offences.

(3.) After appreciating the evidence, both oral and documentary adduced by the prosecution as also the defence, the trial court came to conclusion that the prosecution was able to prove the charges against the accused. It has recorded reasons that the file pertaining to PW-5 was in the custody of the accused who was Deputy Tahsildar at Nada Kacheri and therefore the work concerning PW-5 was pending before him. The evidence given by PW-5 would testify the essential requirement of demand and acceptance of bribe. His evidence finds corroboration from the testimony of PW-1, the shadow witness. The cross examination of these two witnesses doesn't disclose that the defence was able to impeach them, rather their testimonies are consistent and inspire confidence to believe them. The evidence given by the investigation officer fortifies the evidence of PW-1 and PW-5. The evidence given by DW-1 is difficult to be believed, his evidence does not testify that he was present at the time of trap and that PW-5 kept an envelope containing currency notes on the table of the accused without his knowledge. It stands proved that accused demanded and accepted illegal gratification of Rs.8,000/- from PW-5 as a motive or reward for doing an official act and therefore he committed the offences charges against him.