STATE OF KARNATAKA Vs. SHIVAPPA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal by the State is directed against the judgement of the learned Special Judge, Gulbarga, in Special Case No. 9/1987, dated 26-12-88. By the said judgment, the learned Special Judge, acquitted one Shivappa, who was indicted before him on a charge of having committed an offence punishable under Section 161 of the I.P.C. r/w. Section 5 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947. Aggrieved by the same the State challenges the acquittal of the accused therein who is the respondent accused before us represented by Sri A.B. Patil, and seeks a reversal of the same.

(2.) The learned Additional State Public Prosecutor who appears in support of the appeal maintains that the learned Judge committed a serious valte face in completely derailing after having held that all evidence clearly establishes that the accused (we refer respondent as accused during the course of the judgment) accepted the money from complainant P.W. 1 on the date of occurrence and that was illegal gratification for doing the official work. In arriving at the conclusion the learned Judge has no hesitation in rejecting the explanation offered by the accused/respondent in the statement of accused under Section 313, Cr. P.C. The above observations are noticed in para 16 of the impugned judgment and is to the following effect :

(3.) Normally, regard being had to the above observations, legitimate expectation of any one would have been the case resulted in conviction of the accused for the alleged offence followed by a mandatory sentence of imprisonment and fine as enjoined under the provisions of Section 5 of the Prevention of Corruption Act. But as good fortune would have it for the accused, at any rate that result did not follow but instead according to the prosecution it was a largesse by recording a total exoneration to the accused for the aforesaid offences ending in his acquittal. The learned Judge gave reasons as to why he thought the accused is entitled for acquittal instead of conviction. The reasons are fairly elaborate and it would be considered apposite to extract the same as under : "