STATE BY LOKAYUKTHA POLICE CHICKMAGALUR Vs. C. SEENAPPA S/O. CHENNAPPA RETD. F.D.C., TALUK OFFICE, KADUR NOW R/AT SIDDARAMESHWARA CIRCLE, 1ST CROSS NEAR RAILWAY STATION AJJAMPURA,GOPAL S/O. THIMMAIAH AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS TAHASILDAR, KADUR NOW WOR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) STATE by Lokayuktha Police has filed this appeal assailing the judgment and order of acquittal dated 6.10.2009, passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Chikmagalur in Spl. Case. No. 10/2007, whereby and whereunder, the respondents who were tried for the offences punishable under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) r/w Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 were acquitted from the charge. The case of the prosecution in brief is that, complainant/PW. 1, applied for change of katha in respect of a revenue site to his name from the name of his deceased father and when he approached the respondents, they demanded payment of bribe to each of them. Having no mind to pay the bribe amount, PW. 1 lodged a complaint/Ex.P -1 on 28.01.2004 at the Lokayuktha Office, Chikmagalur. The Lokayuktha Police, Chikmagalur registered a case, submitted FIR in a sealed cover, procured two official panch witnesses, conducted entrustment mahazar in their presence as per Ex.P -2 and the trap party left Chikmagalur in a departmental vehicle to Kadur and that the complainant and shadow witness went to the Taluk Office and the others were waiting for signal, but the first and third accused were on leave on that day and the complainant and the shadow witness waited for the second accused and were able to meet him at 6.30 p.m. and they were told by A2 to come on the next day as the first accused would be present on that day and the trap party returned to Chikmagalur and a mahazar Ex.P -3 was drawn in respect of the events of the day. On the morning of 29.01.2004, instructions to the witnesses were reiterated and mahazar as per Ex.P -29 was drawn and the trap party left Chikmagalur at 10.45 a.m. reached Kadur at 11.35 a.m. and the complainant and the shadow witness went inside the Taluk Office and another panch witness and remaining members of the trap party were waiting outside. The complainant met A1 and enquired about his application and at first instance A1 told him that his application is objected but another official in the office told that there is no such objection. After confirming from the complainant that he has brought the bribe amount, A1 told him to get the number of his application from the counter and after the application number was procured, the complainant's application was traced and thereafter A1 demanded the bribe amount and the complainant gave the tainted currency notes of Rs. 900/ -, which A1 received by his right hand and set it right by using his left hand and the conversation between them was recorded in a micro cassette that was handed over to the complainant during entrustment mahazar. Thereafter, the complainant came outside the Taluk office, gave signal and the tap party entered into the office and A2 was procured from his chamber to the office room wherein A1 and A3 were sitting and they were informed about the registration of the case against them and when both the hands of A1 was washed separately in sodium carbonate solution, the solution changed its colour, thereby evidencing the presence of phenolphthalein and the tainted notes/bribe money was produced by A1 on the direction of the Police Inspector and all the three accused gave there explanation in writing. The pocket portion of shirt of A1 was washed in sodium carbonate solution which proved the presence of phenolphthalein. When the tape recorder was played, the same confirmed the conversation between the complainant and A1. Two applications given by the complainant for change of katha were produced by A1. Attendance register and other documents were seized from the office. Sketch of scene of offence was prepared and mahazar as per Ex.P -4 was also prepared. Photographs were also taken. Accused were arrested and released on bail. Police Inspector recorded the statement of the witnesses. After receiving the sketch from the PWD department, FSL report, service particulars of the accused persons and sanction order to prosecute A3, the charge sheet was laid. The accused appeared and denied the charge. To prove the charge, prosecution examined PWs 1 to 9 and marked Exs.P -1 to P -40 and MOs 1 to 14. Accused were examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C. No defence evidence was adduced. Considering the rival contentions and the record of the case, the learned Special Judge did not find merit in the prosecution case and as a result passed the judgment/order of acquittal.

(2.) THE reasons which lead the learned Judge to hold that the prosecution has failed to prove its case beyond all reasonable doubts are the following:

(3.) SRI . S.G. Pandit, learned Advocate appearing for the respondents 1 and 3, on the other hand, contended that the complainant/PW.1 has not supported the prosecution case and the evidence of the shadow panch witness/PW. 2 is inconsistent and has rightly been disbelieved by the trial Judge. He submitted that credible evidence has not been brought on record by the prosecution and since the case was not proved beyond all reasonable doubts, the learned trial Judge is justified in recording the judgment of acquittal. Reliance was placed on the decisions in the case of A. Subair Vs. State of Kerala, (2009) CriLJ 3450 . Learned counsel submitted that A1 has retired from service and in the circumstances of the case no interference with the impugned judgment is warranted.