SRI B. CHANDRASHEKAR, S/O BASAVEGOWDA, POLICE SUB-INSPECTOR (TRAFFIC) Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA, BY P.I., POLICE WING, BANGALORE DIVISION

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS criminal appeal is by the accused, who has been convicted by the trial court in respect of the offences punishable under Sections 7, 13(1)(d) read with 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and sentenced to undergo one year simple imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs. 5,000/ - in respect of the offence under Section 7 and two years S.I. and Rs. 5,000/ - fine in respect of the offence tinder Sections 13(1)(d) read with 13(2) of the P.C. Act, with default sentences.

(2.) THE case of the prosecution in short is that, the Appellant' herein, while working as a Police Sub -Inspector at Ulsoor Gate Police Station, demanded Rs. 10,000/ - from the complainant in order to release the vehicle No. CAW 6060, which vehicle had met with an accident on 24.4.2002. The complainant, being the husband of the vehicle owner, approached the accused for the release of the vehicle and the accused demanded Rs. 10,000/ - at first to release the vehicle and finally, the amount was brought down to Rs. 4,000/ -. As the complainant was not willing to pay the bribe amount, he approached the Lokayuktha Police with his complaint as per Ex.P -6. Entrustment mahazar followed as per Ex.P -8 and everything was arranged for the trap of the accused.

(3.) AT the trial, the accused denied the charge levelled against him and the prosecution led evidence bys examining P.Ws. 1 to 8, out of whom P.W.3 is the complainant and P.W.1 Mohan accompanied the complainant and P.W.7 panch witness also accompanied the complainant to the office of the accused. The hand wash of the accused tested positive when' immersed in the chemical solution. The trial court, based on the evidence on record and after recording the accused statement and taking note of the documents marked on behalf of the accused viz., Exs.D -1 and D -2, as well as M. Os. 1 to 8, held that the prosecution had brought home the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubt. There was no rebuttal evidence placed by the accused. Therefore, the trial court had no difficulty in convicting the Appellant and sentencing him as mentioned earlier.