U. RAMAKRISHNA BHAT, SINCE DECEASED BY HIS L.R. Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA, REP, BY THE POLICE INSPECTOR, POLICE WING

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE appellant has challenged his conviction and sentence for the offence punishable under Sections 7, 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 [hereinafter called as "P.C. Act, 1988  for short] , on a trial held by the learned Special Judge, Bangalore Urban District.

(2.) THE facts relevant for the purpose of this appeal are as under: The appellant, who was the accused in the trial Court was an Excise Inspector in the Excise Department and a public servant. At the time of the incident, he was working as an Excise Inspector, Shivajinagar Range, Bangalore -P.W. 2 -V. Rajesh, i.e., the complainant was running a Bar and Restaurant by name Eswar Bar and Restaurant at Nehrupuram, Seppings Road; Shivajinagar, Bangalore with a valid license. It was the case of the prosecution that the accused was constantly harassing the complainant, demanding monthly payment of bribe and due to slack in the business, the complainant could not satisfy the demand of the accused for about 5 -6 months. In this regard, the accused had booked a case against P.W. 2 alleging violation of bar timings and made him to pay a fine of Rs. 8,000.00. As there was constant threat by the accused that he would not allow the complainant to carry on the business unless the arrears for the past 5 months amounting to Rs. 15,000.00 is paid, having no other way and without any willingness to pay the money, the complainant approached the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Lokayukta [P.W. 4] and submitted his complaint [Ex.P10] on 8.10.2001. After registration of the case, entrtistment mahazar was held and the currency notes treated with phenolphthalein powder were given to P.W. 2 to pay the same to the accused on demand and after acceptance of the amount to give a signal by ringing the mobile phone. On the first day, trap failed as the accused was not present in the office and therefore, on the second day, i.e., on 10.10.2001 the trap was successful. P.W. 2 and P.W. 1, a shadow witness went to the office of the accused and on demand made by the accused, P.W. 2 paid the amount and it was accepted by the accused from his right hand and he put the same into his shirt pocket. As per the signal, the Lokayukta police officials entered and took the hand -wash of the accused. It turned to pink colour. Thereby, Mahazar was prepared in the presence of the witnesses and other Lokayukta officials. After completion of the investigation, a charge -sheet came to be filed against the accused for the aforesaid offences. During the trial, P.Ws. 1 to 6 were examined by the prosecution and in their evidence, documents Exs.Pl to 22 and M.Os.1 to 13 were marked. Thestatement of the accused was recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. He took the defence of total denial and contended that the amount was paid for the purpose of purchasing national Saving Certificate [NSC]. He got marked Ex. D1, an inter -office circular of the Excise Department. The trial Court after hearing the prosecutor and the learned counsel for the accused and on appreciation of the material on record, convicted the appellant/accused for the offence punishable tinder Sections 7, 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of the P.C. Act, 1988 and ordered to undergo imprisonment for one year for the offence punishable under Section 7 of the P.C. Act, 1988, 2 years for the offence punishable under Section 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of the P.C. Act, 1988 and ordered to pay a fine of Rs. 10,000.00 and to undergo default sentence. Both the sentences were ordered to run concurrently. Aggrieved by the conviction and sentence, the accused has preferred this appeal.

(3.) I have heard the learned counsel for the appellants and also Sri. S.G. Rajendra Reddy, Advocate for the respondent.