G. PARAMESHWARAPPA, PEON Vs. STATE BY POLICE INSPECTOR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE Appellant, who was A -2 in the court below, calls in question his conviction and sentence passed 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. For the first of the offence, the trial court sentenced the Appellant to six months imprisonment and to pay fine of Rs. 3,000/ - and in default, to undergo further R.I. for one month. As regards the conviction for the offence under Section 13(1)(d) read with 13(2), the Appellant was sentenced to undergo R.I. for one year and to pay fine of Rs. 5,000/ - and in default, to undergo further two months imprisonment.

(2.) THE case of the prosecution put in a nutshell is that, A -1, the Labour Inspector, Circle -Il, Davanagere, and his peon A -2 i.e., the Appellant herein, demanded illegal gratification of Rs. 200/ - from complainant P.W.1 Yashodharappa in order to issue renewal certificate in respect of his tailoring shop. As per the complaint of P.W.1, as the licence had not been renewed by P.W.1 in respect of his tailoring shop, a notice was issued to him and thereafter, on 9.4.1993, A -1 and A -2 came to the shop of P.W.1 and demanded Rs. 400/ - to issue the renewal certificate and the amount was brought down to Rs. 200/ - later on and the accused came again on 16.4.1993 asking for Rs. 200/ - to be given to them for issuing the certificate. As the complainant was not willing to give the bribe amount of Rs. 200/ -, he lodged a complaint with the Lokayuktha police on 17.4.1993 as per Ex.P -2.

(3.) TO establish its case, the prosecution led evidence by examining P. Ws.1 to 9 and got marked 13 documents along with 5 M. Os. The accused statement was recorded followed by the accused not leading any evidence. Ex.D -1 was marked on behalf of the accused. The learned trial judge, after appreciating the evidence on record, held that there was no evidence to show that A -1 had demanded the bribe amount or had accepted the same and further, there being no evidence to show that A -1 had authorized A -2, the trial court acquitted A -1. However, evidence was found to be sufficient and convincing to convict A -2, peon in the office of the Labour Inspector, Davanagere, and accordingly, judgment of conviction and sentence was passed against him.