HANAMANTNAIK BHIMANAIK PATIL Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard the learned counsel for the appellant and the learned counsel for the respondent.

(2.) The appellant was accused no.1 in the following circumstances:-

(3.) The learned counsel for the appellant would contend that the court below has failed to view the material evidence, in support of the case of the prosecution, in its right perspective as also the admitted circumstances, in order to examine whether the charges had been proved beyond all reasonable doubt since from the very admitted circumstances, it cannot be said that the charges have been proved beyond all reasonable doubt as against the appellant. The very complaint at Exhibit P.1 is not duly signed by the complainant and no sanctity could be attached to such a complaint in as much as the allegation that there was a demand for bribe and it was duly accepted by the appellant would have to be established with reference to the same and in the absence of the same having been duly signed by the complainant, it cannot be cited in support of the case of the prosecution, as Exhibit P.1 cannot be termed as a complaint at all and this would vitiate the entire proceedings that have followed. Though it is alleged that the First Information report having been duly signed would take away any such difficulty in the complaint not having been signed by the complainant.