MEFFLBOOBSAB Vs. UPALOKAYUKTA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) SRI nagarajulu naidu, learned additional government advocate is directed to take notice for respondents 1 and 2. Sri Sri nivasa rao, learned counsel is directed to take notice for respondent 3.

(2.) PETITIONER claims that he is working as junior engineer in Karnataka power transmission corporation limited, third respondent herein. On 5-11-1997 one gopal pandurang pawar gave a complaint to the police inspector attached to lokayukta, bijapur, that petitioner had made a demand for illegal gratification. On the basis of the said complaint, a raid/trap was held and the petitioner was prosecuted in special case No. 20 of 1998 on the file of the special judge, bijapur charging him with the offence of demanding and accepting illegal gratification of Rs. 250. 00 for providing electrical supply to the newly constructed house of complainant's grandfather, punishable under Secrions 7 and 13 (l) (d) read with Secrion 13 (2) of the Prevention Of Corruption Act, 1988. Before the special judge, seven witnesses were examined. Of the seven witnesses, P. W. 5 was the police inspector who laid the trap, P. W. 6 was the sanctioning authority, P. W. 7 was another police inspector, P. W. 4 was the complainant and p. ws. 1 to 3 were the panch witnesses. During trial, complainant and two panch witnesses (p. ws. 4, 1 and 2) turned hostile. As a consequence, prosecution case collapsed and the special judge, by judgment dated 7-12-2001 acquitted the petitioner of the charges against him holding that there was no material to prove that the petitioner demanded and accepted illegal gratification from the complainant.

(3.) THEREAFTER, Karnataka lokayukta has issued articles of charges dated 2-2-2002 charging him with the misconduct of demanding and accepting illegal gratification of Rs. 250. 00 on 5-11-1997 from one gopal p. Pawar to show an official favour of giving power connection to the newly constructed house of grandfather of the complainant. In the said articles of charges, witnesses cited are the said gopal pandurang pawar, complainant, panch witnesses who were p. ws. 1 and 2 apart from the police inspector who was examined as p. W. 5 in the criminal case.