STATE OF KARNATAKA Vs. MOHIUDDIN S/O SABJALI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard the learned Special Public Prosecutor appearing for the appellant and perused the record.

(2.) It was the case of the prosecution that the respondentaccused was working as a Sheristedar in the office of the Assistant Commissioner, Raichur and that on 10.5.2000 at about 12.45 p.m., the respondent had demanded illegal gratification of Rs.10,000/- from the complainant, one C.S.Rastapur, Advocate, as a reward for doing an official favour, namely, to issue the certified copies of the awards and had also accepted the illegal gratification from the complainant to his pecuniary advantage, by abusing his position as a public servant and thereby committed offences punishable under Sections 7, 13(1)(d) read with 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (Hereinafter referred to as the 'PC Act', for brevity).

(3.) The background to the said alleged incident was that the complainant had applied for 100 certified copies of the awards and he had obtained 52 certified copies and was yet to obtain 48 certified copies prior to the incident. The complainant was working as a Legal Advisor to the Karnataka Power Corporation and according to the complainant, on 4.5.2000, he had applied for 48 certified copies before the Assistant Commissioner, Raichur and he did not receive the certified copies and hence he approached the office of the Assistant Commissioner for the purpose of obtaining the same and met the accused on 8.5.2000 and the accused had demanded a sum of Rs.10,000/- for issuance of the said certified copies. It is on the said demand that the complainant had approached the Lokayukta Police, who in turn, set up a trap and accordingly had taken steps as a prelude to such a trap, as was the established practice, of identifying the trap witnesses and preparing the currency notes duly tainted with Phenolphthalein powder in order to trap the accused and it is thereafter that the complainant, along with the trap witnesses and the squad of the Lokayukta Police, visited the accused and on a demand being made and the complainant having paid the amount and the accused having received the same, the accused was taken into custody and on the basis of the mahazar drawn up and further proceedings taken up, the petitioner was charge-sheeted and the accused-respondent having pleaded not guilty, the court below had framed the charge and had proceeded to trial. The prosecution had examined seven witnesses, PW.1 to PW.7 and marked Exhibits P.1 to P.11,Exhibits D.1 to D.5 and Material Objects MOs.1 to 11. On the basis of the same, the court below framed the following points for consideration:-