B HANAMANATHAPPA Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard the learned counsel for the appellant and the learned Special Public Prosecutor.

(2.) The present appeal is filed by accused no.2, who has been convicted for offences punishable under sections 7, 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (Hereinafter referred to as the 'PC Act', for brevity).

(3.) It was the case of the prosecution that one Smt.Gurudevi was seeking obtain certified copies of the RTC extracts pertaining to land bearing Sy.No.1286 of Kottur town as also the certified copies of mutation extracts and had made an application to the Nada Kacheri, Kottur for the grant of such certified copies. The present appellant was working as the Deputy Tahsildar. It is further alleged that accused no.1 one Siddaveerappa was assisting accused no.2 in clerical work at the said office, though he was not a regularly employed public servant. It was the case of the prosecution that the present appellant had made a demand for a bribe of Rs.2,000/- through accused no.1, in order to issue the certified copies required by Smt.Gurudevi. It is pursuant to which, that she is said to have paid Rs.1,000/- to the present appellant on one occasion and had paid a further sum of Rs.700/- later. It is alleged that on 22.11.2000, accused no.1 is said to have visited the house of Smt. Gurudevi and informed her that the certified copies of documents that she had sought for were ready and that she can collect the same after paying the balance amount of Rs.300/- as against the total bribe amount of Rs.2,000/-. It further transpires that Gurudevi wanted to obtain a residential certificate from the very same office, in respect of which, accused no.1 is said to have demanded a further sum of Rs.50/- for the issuance of such certificate. In view of this continuous demand for bribe, Gurudevi is said to have informed her husband, who in turn, had approached the Lokayuktha Police, Hospet and lodged a complaint alleging the demand for bribe. It is pursuant to the said complaint that a case was registered and investigation was commenced and a successful trap was also laid and the bribe amount received by accused no.1 was recovered in the presence of panch witnesses.