HANUMANTHAPPA Vs. STATE OF KANATAKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE appellant calls in question his conviction and sentence passed by the trial Court in respect of the offences punishable under Secs.7, 13(1)(d) R/w Sec. 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.

(2.) THE case of the prosecution is that the accused while working as an Inspector in Karnataka Slum Clearance Board, demanded Rs.2,000/- as bribe from the complainant, Aslam Pasha to do an official favour to the complainant's wife in the matter of conducting spot inspection and to send a favourable report, so that the complainant and his wife can avoid vacating the house, where they were put up with and any threat of leaving the house will not arise. THE complainant not willing to pay the bribe amount lodged a complaint with the Lokayuktha police as per Ex.P. 11. This was followed by the entrustment mahazar being drawn as per Ex.P.2. It is the prosecution case that the trap was successful in the accused being caught after receiving the amount from the complainant in a public place, outside the office of the accused. Ex.P.7 is the trap mahazar and sanctioned order was obtained at Ex.P.9 before filing of the charge sheet.

(3.) SRI Sundar, learned Counsel for the appellant referring to the evidence on record argued that the complainant had not supported the prosecution case and consequently, the complainant is not unaware of the contents of the complaint and does not speak about any demand being made by the accused. The complainant also does not say in his evidence that accused demanded bribe amount on 27.5.1999. What remains is the evidence of shadow witness-PW 2. His evidence is in quite contrast with the evidence of the complainant with regard to the manner of the amount being passed on to the accused. The complainant says that he gave a cover to the accused, whereas the shadow witness says that the complainant took out the money from his pocket and gave it to the accused, who received it in the left hand and then transferred it to the right hand before putting it into his pant pocket. Therefore, the evidence of the shadow witness could not have been acted upon by the trial Court to base the conviction. The other defence referred to by the learned Counsel for the appellant is that the trap mahazar was not drawn at the spot which is near Siddartha lay out and outside the office of the accused, some where near the bus stop. Therefore, the trap mahazar said to have been drawn in the Lokayuktha office also cannot be given any credence.