STATE OF KARNATAKA Vs. GOPAL

JUDGEMENT

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

(2.) THE appellant is the State and is aggrieved by the acquittal of the respondent for offences punishable under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as 'P.C. Act', for brevity).

(3.) THE learned counsel appearing for the State -Lokayukta Police would take this Court through the record, while seeking to contend that the Court below was not justified in holding that the State has not established the case beyond all reasonable doubt, when the shadow witness -PW9 had in his evidence before the Court stated that, he had not heard as to what transpired between the respondent and the complainant at the time the bribe amount is said to have been handed over to the respondent. It is on this finding that the Court below has acquitted the accused. Further the learned Counsel would submit that there was material evidence to demonstrate that the respondent had handled the tainted currency notes, as his hands when washed with sodium carbonate solution, had turned pink which would indicate the respondent having handled the currency notes. This would certainly enable the prosecution to press into service Section 20 of the P.C. Act, which provides for a presumption in this regard. Therefore, he would submit that the Court below was not justified in holding that, notwithstanding the above circumstances, merely because the shadow witness had resiled from on his earlier statement to the effect that there was demand and acceptance of the bribe amount, did enable the Court below to acquit the accused.