G N CHANNAPPA Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

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

(2.) The appellant was accused of offences punishable under Sections 7, 13(1)(d) and Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as 'the PC Act' for brevity). The case of the prosecution was that on 26.12.2006, the complainant Anjinappa had reported to the Lokayuktha that he was an unemployed man who intended to set up a piggery farm, and in order to raise a bank loan, he required permission of the Grama Panchayath to set up such a unit and therefore, he had met the appellant who was the Secretary of the Madakaripura Grama Panchayath who had in turn informed him that he would have to make an application to the office of the Grama Panchayath and thereafter to meet him along with the application. It is the complainant's case that on 22.12.2006, he made such an application to the Madakaripura Grama Panchayath along with the relevant documents in relation to the lands on which he intended to set up such a farm and the documents whereby he had entered into an arrangement with the land owner in this regard. It is further alleged that on 23.12.2006, he had come to Chitradurga and met the appellant and enquired about the application made by him, at which point, it is alleged that the appellant demanded illegal gratification of Rs.3,000/- and when the complainant bargained as regards the amount to be paid, it was reduced to Rs.2,000/-

(3.) The learned counsel for the appellant Shri S.S. Koti would submit that the judgment of the court below is in the face of serious infirmities in the evidence produced by the prosecution in support of its case. There is no acceptable evidence on record brought by the prosecution. It is pointed out that PW-1 was the complainant and in the light of the said witness having resiled from the positive complaint that was brought by him in not supporting the prosecution case insofar as the trap having been laid and the accused appellant having made a demand and having accepted bribe as alleged, the substantive evidence that is relied upon by the prosecution was no longer available to it. Therefore, the primary question would be whether the prosecution was able to sustain its case on the basis of the so-called corroborative evidence of PW-2 and the Investigating Officer PW-9. In this regard, he would draw attention to the admitted circumstances that the complainant is said to have approached the office of the Panchayath through the appellant as on 21.12.2006 and claims to have made an application on the very day. The said application is produced and marked as Exhibit P3.