GK RAJANNA, S/O LATE KARIHANUMEGOWDA Vs. THE STATE. OF KARNATAKA, (THROUGH LOKAYUKTA POLICE), REP. BY LEARNED SPECIAL PUBLIC PROSECUTOR FOR LOKAYUKTA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS criminal appeal is by the accused who has been convicted by the Court below in respect of the offences punishable under Sections 7, 13(1)(d) r/w 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and being sentenced to undergo 1 year imprisonment and payment of Rs. 5,000/ - fine in respect of the offence under Section 7 of the P.C.Act and 3 years imprisonment and payment of Rs. 10,000/ - fine in respect of the latter offences with default sentence. The case of the prosecution in short is that, the appellant visited the shop (Lakshmi Auto Gas Fitting) ran by the complainant and told the complainant that the complainant had taken the permission for retrofitting and also said that as there was a case already registered against the complainant, in order to help the complainant, a bribe of Rs. 10,000/ -was demanded by the accused and at the relevant time, the accused was working as the Dy. Director of food and Civil Supply and Consumer Business Department at Mysore. It is also the case of the prosecution that the complainant wanted to know as to from which authority he has to obtain necessary permission for conversion into commercial purpose and for this, the complainant gave applications, but the accused did not give the necessary information to the complainant nor the applications filed were considered: As the accused made the complainant to come to the office of the accused number of times and also threatened that, if Rs. 10,000/ - is not paid, one more case would be registered against the complainant, the complainant therefore approached the Lokayukta police and lodged the complainant on 24.3.06 (Ex.P1). The said complaint led to the Lokayukta officials conducting the entrustment mahazar Ex.P2 and thereafter the complaint accompanied by the shadow witness (PW -4) and also the panch witness (PW -2) went to the office of the accused and it is the further case of the prosecution that the complainant paid Rs. 10,000/ - to the accused and the accused after receiving the same, put it into his pant hip pocket and thereafter signal was given by the complainant and the Lokayukta officials came and caught hold of the accused and recovered the amount from the accused possession.

(2.) IT is also the case of the prosecution that, the right hand wash of the accused as well as the hip pocket wash of the accused turned the chemical solution into pink colour. After obtaining the FSL report Ex.P11 and the sanction order as per Ex.P9 and on completion of the investigation, charge sheet was submitted.

(3.) FOLLOWING the accused pleading not guilty to the charge, the prosecution examined as many as 7 witnesses and produced several documents which have been marked as Ex.P1 to P12 and M.Os. 1 to 8 were also produced and marked during the evidence. After recording of the accused statement, on behalf of the accused, no defence was placed. However, documents Ex.D1 to D6 were marked.