BHIMAPPA BASAPPA BHAJI Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard the learned Counsel for the appellant and the learned Additional State Public Prosecutor.

(2.) The appellant was the Village Accountant and the accused in the following circumstances:

(3.) The learned Counsel for the appellant would straight away point out that the sine qua non for the offence punishable under the provisions of the PC Act is the fact that there was an official favour to be extended by the accused in favour of the complainant, in respect of which there was a demand for illegal gratification. In the instant case, the entries in the record of rights were to be made to indicate the division of properties between the complainant, his wife and his sister-in-law. This is an exercise which had not been carried out in the usual course and the material documents in this regard were already on record. In that, there is no dispute as to the competent authority, namely, the Tahsildar having issued necessary orders to carry out the said entries on the date prior to the alleged demand and acceptance. Therefore, in the absence of any motive to demand and accept such illegal gratification, it cannot be said that the prosecution had established its case beyond all reasonable doubt and therefore, the very foundation of the case that there was an official favour that could be extended by the accused, for which he had demanded and accepted bribe, when to the knowledge of all, it was evident that there was already an order passed in favour of the complainant's wife and her sister and there was nothing further which the appellant could supply to be in a position to demand and accept bribe, is a circumstance, that has been completely overlooked in convicting the accused. The learned Counsel for the appellant would candidly admit that such a contention however, was not made at the time of final arguments before the court below, though the material in support of the contention to this effect is available on record on a plain examination of the same.