PRAKASH KAPTE Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellant, at the relevant point of time was working as Assistant Professor, Radiotherapy Department, Victoria Hospital, Bangalore. He was put on trial for commission of the offences punishable under Ss.7 and 13(1)(d) r/w S.13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (for short 'the Act'). The Special Judge, Bangalore Urban District, Bangalore City by Judgment and Order dated 28.4.2008, passed in Special C.C.No.38/2006 held him guilty of the said offences and sentenced him to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of one year and pay fine of Rs. 1,000/-, in default, to further undergo simple imprisonment for a period of one month for the offence under S.7 of the Act. The appellant was further sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of one year and pay fine of Rs. 1,000/-, in default, to undergo simple imprisonment for a further period of one month for the offences under S.13(1)(d) r/w S.13(2) of the Act. Both the substantive sentences were directed to run concurrently. This Appeal has been preferred by the accused assailing the said Judgment of conviction and Order of sentence.

(2.) Material facts and circumstances giving rise to this appeal with reference to the rank of the parties in the Trial Court are:

(3.) Sri S.G. Bhagavan, learned advocate, contended that, to hold the appellant guilty in respect of the charged offences, the prosecution has to prove the demand of bribe amount beyond all reasonable doubts and that mere recovery of tainted money or mere acceptance thereof is not enough. He submitted that, PW-1 has voluntarily thrust the money into the shirt pocket of the appellant, for which satisfactory explanation was furnished as per Ex.P5 and apart from that, when examined under S.313 Cr.P.C., answer was given and was probabalised by deposing as DW-1. He submitted that, PW-2 has not heard the conversation between PW-1 and the accused and has also not witnessed the alleged demand and hence, there is no corroboration to the version of PW1. By relying upon the decision in the case of C. M.Girish Babu Vs. CBI, Cochin, High Court of Kerala, 2009 3 SCC 779, learned counsel contended that the prosecution case is false and not established beyond reasonable doubts and hence, the Judgment of conviction and the Order of sentence passed by the Trial Court being illegal, interference is warranted.