STATE OF KARNATAKA Vs. BASAVARAJ

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The State of Karnataka represented by Karnataka Lokayukta Police, Dharwad preferred this appeal aggrieved by the impugned judgment of acquittal dated 27.03.2013 passed in Spl.KLA C.C.No.3/2011 on the file of the III Additional District and Sessions Judge, Dharwad (for short, the 'trial Court'), whereby the accused is acquitted for the offence punishable under Sections 7, 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (for short, 'P.C. Act').

(2.) Brief facts of the case are that the informant Kallayya lodged first information with Lokayukta Police on 16.02.2010 against the accused stating that his uncle Madivalayya had died and during his lifetime Madivalayya had adopted Jagadayya i.e. the brother of the informant, as his son. After the death of Madivalayya, Jagadayya had filed an application with the Revenue Department in Garag village seeking change of Khata in his name, on 05.12.2009. The death certificate of Madivalayya was also enclosed with the application. When he met the accused who is working as village accountant, he informed that one Smt.Kamalavva Mathapati had also given an application to mutate her name to the properties owned by deceased Madivalayya, since she is his daughter. Therefore, the accused stated that the name of Jagadayya could not be mutated in respect of the properties left behind by Madivalayya. It is stated that on 23.01.2010 objection statement was filed by Jagadayya with the Tahasildar of Dharwad opposing mutation of the name of Kamalavva Mathapati. It is at this juncture, the accused demanded Rs.10,000/- from the informant as illegal gratification to mutate the name of Jagadayya after rejecting the application of Kamalavva Mathapati. Since the informant was not willing to pay the bribe amount, he approached the Lokayukta Police on 15.02.2010. Lokayukta Police handed over a tape recorder with cassette and informed the informant to approach the accused and record the conversation in the tape recorder. It is stated that on 16.02.2010 the informant met the accused and he again demanded Rs.10,000/- to carry out his official duty. The said conversation was recorded in the tape recorder by the informant and he immediately came back and lodged the complaint as per Ex.P.1 with Lokayukta Police and tape recorder was also produced along with it.

(3.) It is stated that the Lokayukta Police registered the first information lodged by the informant and conducted pre trap procedures and after entrusting the phenolphthalein powder smeared currency notes to the informant, asked him to meet the accused accompanied by the shadow witness. It is the contention of the prosecution that accordingly the informant met the accused along with the shadow witness and again the accused demanded the illegal gratification to show the official favour. The informant paid the currency notes which were entrusted to him and the same were accepted by the accused, thereby he has committed the offence punishable under Sections 7, 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of P.C. Act. It is stated that a trap panchanama was drawn at the spot. The file relating to Jagadayya and Kamalavva was with the custody of the accused and the same was seized in the presence of panchas. After completing the investigation, Lokayukta Police filed charge sheet against the accused for the above said offences.