BASAVARAJA BAVIKATTE Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal is by the accused, questioning the Judgment of conviction and order of sentence.

(2.) THE essential facts of the case, leading up to this appeal, with reference to the rank of the parties before the Trial Court are as follows: H.S. Gangadharappa/PW-9, who was working as Lok Ayuktha Inspector at Shimoga from 13.7.2000 to 7.3.2002, received a oral complaint from Y.R.Veereshappa/PW-3, which was reduced into writing vide Ex.P12. It was alleged by PW-3, that when he approached the accused, who was working as the Assistant Director of Horticulture, Zilla Panchayat Office, Shimoga, on 18.5.2001, in a matter relating to payment of subsidy, the accused demanded payment of 5% of subsidy amount, which worked out to be Rs.375/-, i.e., for issuing of a subsidy cheque of Rs.7,500/-. When bargained, the amount was reduced to Rs.300/- and that, he was asked to approach on the following day, with cash of Rs.300/-. Not willing to pay the bribe, PW-3 approached PW-9, at about 4.00 p.m., on 18.5.2001. PW-9 reduced the complaint into writing, obtained the signature of PW-3, registered a case in Crime No.4/2001 for the offences under Ss.7, 13(1)(d) r/w 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (for short 'the Act') and sent the FIR/Ex.P22 to the Court. PW-9 decided to lay a trap. PW-9 sent requisitions, one to the Joint Director of Collegiate Education and another, to the office of the Assistant Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, to depute the staff to be the witnesses. PWs.4 and 5 arrived at 6.00 p.m., and they were asked to come at 8.30 a.m., on the following day. PWs.5 and 6 came to the office of the Lok Ayuktha Police Inspector at 8.30 a.m., on 19.5.2001. PW-9 introduced PW-3 to the witnesses and read over the complaint to both the witnesses. PW-3 gave Rs.300/-, of Rs.100/- denomination notes and the same was treated with phenolphthalein powder. PW-9 gave the demonstration regarding preparation of Sodium Carbonate solution and washing of hands test. THE entrustment panchanama/Ex.P19 was prepared and was signed by the complainant, the two independent witnesses and other police officials. At about 1.00 p.m., the raiding party, headed by PW-9 left in a Jeep. THE complainant/PW-3 and shadow panch witness-P.K. Purushotham/PW-6, were asked to get down from the Jeep and proceed towards the office of the accused by foot and were directed to hand over the tainted currency notes, if bribe is demanded by the accused and to give the pre-determined signal. THE other members of the squad followed them to some distance and hid their presence near the office of the appellant. Complainant/PW-3 and shadow panch witness/PW-6 went inside the office of the appellant at about 1.20 p.m. Appellant, who was standing in the hall, on noticing the complainant, called him to his chamber. Complainant requested the appellant to issue the cheque, to which the accused asked the complainant, whether, he brought the money as demanded on the previous day. PW-3 answered in the affirmative and took out cash of Rs.300/- from the left pocket of his shirt. THE appellant received said cash by his right hand and kept it in the inner pocket of the front side of his pant and thereafter, complainant was guided by the accused to collect the cheque from the clerk. Accordingly, the complainant came out from the chamber of the appellant, went to the clerk by name Sunitha/PW-7, sitting in the hall and collected cheque for Rs.7,500/-, after signing the receipt and the register, by noting the date and time as 19.5.2001, at 1.30 p.m. THEreafter, PW-3 came outside the office and gave pre determined signal to the raiding party. PW-9, with the raiding party, immediately entered the chamber of the appellant and caught hold the hands of the accused. THE complainant pointed out the accused and said that the accused had demanded and accepted the bribe money. PW-9 asked the accused to produce the bribe money. THEreafter, the hands of the accused were washed with sodium carbonate solution and the hand wash of the accused turned into pink colour. THEreafter, trap mahazar (Ex.P16) was prepared, the currency notes given by the accused were verified with the currency notes mentioned in the entrustment mahazar (Ex.P19) and thereafter the police seized the pant (M.O.1) of the accused and the left side pocket of the accused dipped into the solution, which turned pink colour. PW-9 seized the papers pertaining to the subsidy application given by the complainant and prepared the trap mahazar/Ex.P16. THEreafterwards, obtaining the Sketch of the scene of offence/Ex.P2 from PW-2, the report from the chemical examination (Ex.P23) and after completion of investigation, by obtaining the sanction order/Ex.P1 from PW-1, to prosecute the accused, PW-9 filed the charge sheet, which was registered as Special (P.C.) Case No.5/2002, for the offences punishable under Ss.7, 13(1)(d) r/w S.13(2) of the Act, on the file of the Special Judge, Shimoga. THE accused appeared and when the accusation was put to him on 13.11.2003, denied the charge and claimed to be tried. THE prosecution examined PWs.1 to 9 and marked Exs.P1 to P23 and MOs.1 to 13. Accused when examined under S.313 Cr.P.C., it is a case of mere denial. THE accused did not lead any defence evidence. Keeping in view the rival contentions and after appreciating the evidence, the learned Special Judge arrived at the conclusion that the prosecution has proved beyond doubt that the accused has committed the offences punishable under Ss.7, 13(1)(d) r/w 13(2) of the Act. THE accused was sentenced for the offence under S.7 of the Act, to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of 6 months and pay fine of Rs.5,000/-, in default of payment of fine, to further undergo simple imprisonment for a period of 2 months. THE accused was sentenced for the offences under S.13(2) of the Act, to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of one year and pay fine of Rs.5,000/-, in default of payment of fine, to undergo simple imprisonment for a further period of 2 months. THE substantive sentences were ordered to run currently.

(3.) THE prosecution has examined 9 witnesses. PW-3 is the complainant. PWs.5 and 6 are independent trap witnesses. PW-1 has deposed about the sanction accorded (Ex.P1) for prosecution of the accused. PW-2, an Engineer, prepared the sketch/Ex.P2. PW-4, Deputy Director of Horticulture furnished the service particulars of the accused as per Ex.P20. PW-8 provided the photocopies of the relevant records.