M S CHANDRASHEKAR Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard the learned Counsel for the appellant and the respondent.

(2.) The appellant herein accused no.1 was accused of offences punishable under Sections 7, 12 and 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of corruption Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act' for brevity). The facts of the case are as follows:

(3.) The Learned Counsel for the appellant, while canvassing the grounds urged challenging the judgment of the Trial Court, would firstly point out that the very complaint does not implicate the appellant at all. The complaint is generally made against all the officials attached to the office of the Block Education Officer and is not specific against any particular individual including the appellant. It is pointed out that the specific sentence in the kannada language in the complaint which loosely translated in english would read as follows: