BALAJI NAIK Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is by the accused in Spl. Case No. 6/2011 on the file of Principal Sessions Judge, Chikkamagaluru, challenging his conviction for the offences under sections 7 and 13(1)(d) read with section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. He has been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three years and pay fine of Rs.20,000/- with a default sentence period of six months for each of these offences.

(2.) On 3.11.2009 PW1 approached the Lokayukta police with a report that for releasing the last installment cheque for Rs.7,500/- to his wife Shanthamma PW4, who had been allotted a house under Ashraya Scheme, the accused demanded bribe of Rs.1,000/-. As he was not willing to pay any bribe, he made a report of the demand made by the accused and thereafter the Lokayukta police laid a trap and recovered the tainted money from the accused. The investigation resulted in filing charge sheet against him.

(3.) The trial court having assessed the evidence of eleven witnesses, PW1 to PW11, the documents Exs.P1 to P15 and the material objects MO1 to 12 and also one document from the defence side Ex.D1 came to conclusion that the prosecution was able to prove its case. The demand made by the accused for bribe and its acceptance has been proved. The conclusions drawn by the trial court are that from the oral testimonies of PWs1, 2, 5 and 10, the prosecution case has stood proved. The contents of Ex.P1 are proved by PWs1, 2 and 5. The tainted money was recovered from the accused at the time of trap. The explanation given by the accused at the time when he was examined under section 313 Cr.P.C cannot be believed, as when he was asked to give explanation soon after trap he did not say that PW1 gave him Rs.1,000/- towards the tax to be paid in respect of the house belonging to him. Ex.P8 is the explanation in which such an explanation is not forthcoming, if really what he stated under section 313 examination was true, the same should have been disclosed by him at the earliest point of time. The trial court has also held that in view of the presumption available under section 20 of the Act, the prosecution case further would become strengthened and thus the prosecution has stood proved.