S.ARUNDATH Vs. KARNATAKA LOKAYUKTHA POLICE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is preferred against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed by learned Prl. District and Sessions Judge, Chikkaballapura in P.C.A.C.C.No.6/2012 dated 16.12.2016, whereby the appellant(hereinafter referred to as 'accused') is convicted for the offences punishable under sections 7 and 13(1) (d) r/w 13(2) of The Prevention of Corruption Act , 1988( hereinafter referred to as ' P.C. Act ', 1988) and is sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year six months and a fine of Rs.25,000/- for the offence under section 7 and rigorous imprisonment for one year six months and a fine of Rs.25,000/- for the offence punishable under section 13 (1) (d) r/w section 13(2) of P.C. Act, 1988.

(2.) The case of the prosecution as unfurled during trial is that on 22.03.2010, the complainant(PW-1) lodged a written information before the Karnataka Lokayuktha police, Chikkaballapura alleging that his father owned a site bearing House list No.559/6 measuring 30ft x 40 ft of Ulavadi village. On coming to know that the appellant herein viz. the accused who was then the Secretary of Ulavadi Grama Panchayathi, Chintamani had cancelled the boundaries of the said site, he approached the accused at his house and requested for restoration of the boundaries as per the original records. The accused is stated to have demanded Rs.5,000/- and a bottle of VAT 69 Whisky and asked the complainant to make an application in this regard. It is alleged that after negotiation, the demand was scaled down to Rs.3,000/- and a bottle of whisky and accordingly, the complainant submitted an application before the Grama panchayath, Chintamani. In this regard, the complainant rang up to the accused two or three times and on 20.03.2010, once again, he submitted another application. Since the complainant was not inclined to pay the bribe demanded by the accused, he approached Lokayuktha police. The Dy.S.P., Lokayuktha, Chikkaballapur asked the complainant to record the conversation in the voice recorder.

(3.) In order to bring home the guilt of the appellant/accused, the prosecution examined five witnesses viz., the complainant PW-1, shadow witness PW-2, the investigating officers-PWs-3, 4 and 5 and produced in evidence, 27 documents marked as Exs-P1 to P27 and material objects at M.Os.1 to 16. In his examination under section 313 Cr.P.C. the accused denied the incriminating evidence brought on record and took up a plea that he knew the complainant since about six months prior to the incident. Complainant had submitted an application for change of boundaries in respect of a Government land situated in Gopasandra village. Accused asked him to produce original documents and to get an order from higher officers for change of the boundaries. Since the complainant did not produce any such documents, he could not attend to the work of the complainant and hence, the complainant had lodged a false proceedings against him. The accused did not examine any witnesses on his behalf.