MAMTAZ BEGUM Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is filed challenging the judgment dated 30.11.2005 passed by the Principal Sessions and Special Judge, Dharwad in Special (SVC) Criminal Case No. 6/1997, convicting the appellant for the offences punishable under Section 7 and Section 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and sentencing her to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year and to pay fine of Rs. 2,000/-, in default to undergo simple imprisonment for two months for the offence punishable under Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and further sentencing her to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year and to pay fine of Rs. 3,000/-, in default to undergo simple imprisonment for three months for the offence punishable under Section 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 with the further direction to run substantive sentences concurrently. It is the case of the complainant - Lokayukta Police that the appellant being a public servant employed as Headmistress of Boys Urdu Primary School No. 5, Bora - Imam Galli, Dharwad, on 07.12.1995 demanded and agreed to accept a sum of Rs. 500/- from the complainant - Bashasab Khadarsab Hubballi of Dharwad, as illegal gratification for issuing a marks-card of 4th standard and Transfer Certificate in respect of the complainant, thereby she is alleged to have committed an offence punishable under Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. It is further charged against the accused that being a public servant, employed as a Headmistress of Boys Urdu Primary School, Dharwad, on 07.12.1995 at about 14:10 hours in her office room at Dharwad, in furtherance of her demand, she accepted a sum of Rs. 500/-, by corrupt or illegal means or by using her position as a public servant and thereby obtained pecuniary advantage of Rs. 500/- to herself, which amount is other than the legal remuneration, as a motive or reward for her official favour referred to above, thereby the accused is alleged to have committed criminal misconduct, which is an offence punishable under Section 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.

(2.) The prosecution in order to prove the case has examined in all six witnesses and got marked Exs. P-1 to P-35 and produced M.Os. 1 to 10. The defence of the accused was one of the total denial. However, by the impugned judgment, the learned Special Judge was pleased to hold the accused guilty and sentenced her, as hereinbefore mentioned. The convicted accused has filed this appeal.

(3.) Heard Shri B.V. Somapur, learned counsel appearing for the accused - appellant and Shri M.B. Gundawade, learned counsel appearing for the respondent - Lokayukta.