SHIVALINGAMURTHY Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD the learned counsel for the parties. The accused is in appeal. The case of the prosecution against the accused was as follows. One M. Marulasiddappa was the office bearer of an Educational Society, namely, Rameshwara Education Society. The said society was running Industrial training institutes. Malnad Industrial Training Institute at Hassan, Rameshwara Industrial Training Institute at Arisikere and Sahayadri Industrial Training Institute. The controversy pertains to the Rameshwara Institute, above named. The accused was the Joint Director of the Office of employment and Training at Mysore. The above said training institutes were all within his jurisdiction. It transpires that the list of students admitted to the respective institutions each year was required to be sanctioned by the office of the accused. So also the salary grant provided to the employees of the Society had to be released through the office of the accused. It was the case of the above said Marulasiddappa, the complainant, that the list of students for the year 2005 had been submitted and the release of salary grant had also been requisitioned. But there was no action taken by the accused even up to December 2006. Therefore, it was claimed, that the complainant visited the accused and enquired about the same. It is alleged that the accused had demanded illegal gratification of Rs. 20,000/ - to attend to the same.

(2.) THE learned Senior Advocate, Shri C.H. Jadhav, appearing for the learned counsel for the appellant would contend that the evidence on the basis of which the appellant has been convicted is ridden with inconsistencies and is wholly unnatural and hence, on the face of it, the prosecution could not be said to have discharged the burden of establishing its case beyond all reasonable doubt. It is pointed out that the alleged bribe money was recovered from the table drawer of the accused and the same is also reflected in the recovery mahazar which would conclusively establish that the accused did not receive the alleged bribe money. The mere recovery of the bribe money from the table drawer of the accused would not be sufficient to establish the guilt of the accused. It is also pointed out that Ex. P.6 (g) and (h) indicated that the funds in respect of the salary grant which was to be released by the accused, had been released much earlier to the date of the complaint. It is clear that the complainant had submitted salary bills of Rameshwara Centre as on 18.11.2006. The salary bills were duly approved and submitted to the Treasury for release of payment to the Rameshwara Centre, the relevant documents are to be found at pages 83 to 107 of the paper book. This is a glaring circumstance that would completely dislodge the foundation of the charges, as there was no official favour that could be shown by the accused in return for the bribe. The alleged demand and acceptance of the bribe - was the sine qua non of the offences alleged. But the discrepancy in the evidence of PW -1 and PW -3 and Ex -P.4 (the recovery mahazar) with regard to the alleged demand of the bribe money by the appellant, being completely inconsistent - the same could not have enabled the court to reconcile the same to hold that the charges have been proved. It is in evidence, as per Ex. P.4, the recovery mahazar, that the hands of the accused when washed in sodium carbonate solution, the solution had not changed colour, this was contrary to the FSL report that was produced, there is no explanation forthcoming as regards this contradictory material placed before the court. The trial court could not have glossed over the same. It is further pointed out that the trial court has completely ignored the evidence tendered by the accused in support of the defence. It was evident that a letter dated 23.5.2006 had been written by the accused calling upon the complainant to submit the admission list pertaining to the Rameshwara Training Centre, which was overdue. Further, as per Government Order dated 11 -8 -2006, (Ex. D -1) tuition fees had to be collected from aided institutions such as that of the complainant. The complainant had submitted the admission list for 2005, only as on 19 -9 -2006. (Ex. D -8) By a letter dated 2 -12 -2006, (Ex -D -1) the complainant was called upon to pay tuition fees as per the above Government Order, but since the fees was not paid, the admission list was not approved as evident from Ex. D -9. Hence the learned Senior Advocate would submit that the appeal would have to be allowed in the light of the glaring circumstances on facts and places reliance on the following authorities to contend that the law would also have to be read in favour of the appellant.