STATE OF KARNATAKA Vs. G.A.MANJUNATH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is filed by the State-Lokayukta for setting aside the order of acquittal passed by the Sessions and Special Judge, Koppal dated 15.07.2011 and sought for convicting the accused Nos.1 and 2 for the offences punishable under Sections 7, 13(1)(d) r/w Section 13(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act, (hereinafter referred to as 'the P.C.Act ' for short) and Section 8 of the P.C.Act.

(2.) For the sake of convenience, the parties herein are referred with the original ranks occupied by them before the trial court.

(3.) The factual matrix leading to the case are that, the complainant Mehaboob Pasha has lodged a complaint in Koppal Lokayukta Police Station as per Ex.P23 alleging that he has studied upto SSLC and doing electrical work in Koppal. He further asserted that, he had an intention to open two wheeler service station and therefore, he has submitted loan application to the Karnataka Minorities Development Corporation Ltd. at Koppal to recommend his loan application and to provide loan from the concerned bank. His application was not recommended on two occasions and on the third occasion, he has submitted an application on 28.06.2005 and that he approached accused No.1 to recommend his application for sanction of loan for a sum of Rs.1,00,000/-. It is alleged that accused No.1 was the concerned clerk to put up the file and it is alleged that he demanded a sum of Rs.3,000/- as a bribe and Rs.500/- was paid. It is also alleged that the complainant was not willing to pay the bribe and hence, on 22.10.2005 he approached the Lokayukta Police and lodged a complaint. On the strength of the complaint, the FIR was lodged for the offences punishable under Sections 7, 13(1)(d) r/w Section 13(2) of P.C.Act. Then the investigating officer has secured two panchas and an entrustment mahazar was drawn. The entrustment mahazar is marked at Ex.P3. Then at about 4.30 p.m., the trap was laid down and the complainant approached accused No.1. It is stated that accused No.1 demanded the bribe and when the complainant offered the same, it was directed that it shall be paid to accused No.2, who was temporary employee in the office. Accordingly, the complainant has paid the amount to accused No.2 who counted it and then the complainant came out and passed a signal, as directed. In the meanwhile, accused No.2 is alleged to have handed over the amount to accused No.1, and meanwhile the trap was laid down and the hand wash of both the accused was taken which has shown positive for phenolphthalein test, but the amount was not traced with the accused. However, the search in the office went up to 9.00 p.m. and the amount was found in a file in the records room and the same was also seized. Then a trap mahazar as per Ex.P8 was also drawn and both the accused were apprehended. Then investigating officer returned to the office and both the accused were produced before the special court. Subsequently, they were enlarged on bail. Then the investigating officer continued the investigation and after obtaining sanction and other documents, he found that there is material evidence as against the accused and submitted the charge sheet against the accused. After submission of the charge sheet, as there are sufficient grounds to proceed against the accused, the Special Judge has taken cognizance of the alleged offences. The presence of the accused was secured and they were enlarged on bail. The prosecution papers were also furnished to them as contemplated under Section 207 of Cr.P.C. Then after hearing both the parties, the charge under Sections 7, 13(1)(d) r/w Section 13(2) of the P.C.Act is framed against accused No.1, while charge under Section 8 of the P.C.Act is framed against accused No.2 and the same is read over and explained to the accused. The accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.