STATE BY LOKAYUKTA POLICE Vs. SRI. MAULASAB BUKITGAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD the learned counsel for the appellant and the learned Counsel for the respondent. The appeal is filed by the State - Lokayukta Police challenging the acquittal of the respondent on charges of 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).

(2.) THE facts of the case are as follows: - It was alleged that during the year 2006, when the respondent was working as a Revenue Inspector, Ward no. 95, of the Office of the Assistant Revenue Officer, Bruhat Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike one Thulasamma, the wife of the complainant is said to have submitted an application for transfer of khata of property bearing no. 17 of Kavalbyrasandra and that the complainant B. Ramaiah had approached the respondent in connection with the pending application. The respondent is said to have demanded illegal gratification of Rs. 5,000/ - to process the application. However, he agreed to receive Rs. 3,000/ -. Since Ramaiah was not inclined to pay the bribe, he had reported the matter to the Police Inspector, Lokayukta Police on 19.8.2006 at about 4.00 or 4.15 p.m. The Police Inspector, in turn, had summoned one Pramod and one Dhanraj and he had prepared a pre -trap mahazar, after instructing the panch witnesses of the routine and the manner in which a trap would be executed. It is claimed that at about 4.35 p.m., the Lokayukta staff and the witnesses went to the office where the respondent was working and the complainant accompanied by Pramod PW. 1 went to the office of the accused and met the accused and he had inquired about the application for change of khata in respect of the property submitted by Thulasamma and the accused is said to have inquired whether he had brought the money and when he answered in the affirmative, the respondent is said to have taken the currency notes, which were treated with phenolphthalein powder, with his right hand, counted the currency notes and placed it in his shirt pocket. It is thereafter that the complainant had signaled the Police Inspector, Lokayukta and his staff, who immediately, apprehended the respondent and washed his hands in Sodium Carbonate solution, to establish that he had handled the currency notes and collected the solution as material evidence to be produced before the court. Thereafter, the currency notes also were seized, which tallied with the numbers which had already been noted down. It is in that background that a case was registered against the respondent and thereafter, a charge sheet having been filed and the respondent having pleaded not guilty and having claimed to be tried, the prosecution examined five witnesses and marked exhibits Exs. P.1 to P.25 and material objects MOs. 1 to 13 and the accused has been examined under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Hereinafter referred to as the 'Cr.P.C.', for brevity). The court below, after hearing the arguments, has framed the following points for consideration: -

(3.) The court below has answered point no. 1 in the affirmative and other points in the negative. It is this which is under challenge in the present appeal.