BASAVANTAPPA MALLAPPA SALI Vs. STATE BY LOKAYUKTA POLICE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD the Counsel for the appellants.

(2.) THESE appeals are heard and decided together by this common judgment, as the appellant are the accused in the same case. The background is as follows. - The complainant was one Sanjeevkumar, a resident of Gajendraged, Ron Taluk. The land bearing Survey No. 127/1 measuring 2 acres, within the limits of Rajur Grama Panchayat, was held in the name of his younger brother and his brother intended to commence a granite cutting and polishing industry in the said land and the therefore an application had been made in the name of the younger brother on 12 -4 -2005 to the Grama Panchayat, Rajur, seeking permission to construct a building for the purpose and had applied for licenses. A week thereafter, the complainant had went and met the Secretary and inquired about the grant. He was told to come two days later. Two days thereafter, when the complainant met accused 2, namely, the appellant in Cri.A.No. 2590 of 2010, he was informed that the licenses would not be issued so earlier and that there needs to be further discussion with the Administrative Officer, accused 1. The appellant in this case Cri.A.No. 2595 of 2010. Accordingly, the complainant was said to have been informed that a fee of Rs.1,300/ - would have to be paid and the conditions would be written on a bond paper of Rs.20/ - and that he would have to pay an amount of Rs.4,000/ - for the licenses to be issued and he was also told that immediately on payment of such amount, the licenses would be issued. On 12 -4 -2005, the complainant went to the office of the accused and the Administrative Officer, namely, the appellant in Cri.A.No. 2595 of 2010, was alone and the complainant was informed that he could meet both the appellants together and that he should come on the next day. Accordingly on 28 -4 -2005, the complainant went to the Panchayat Office, met both the accused and he was told to pay the amount to accused 1, namely, appellant in Cri.A.No. 2590 of 2010. Since the complainant was not happy with the manner in which the accused appellants were delaying the issuance of licenses, notwithstanding his willingness to pay the illegal gratification, he had made a complaint on 30 -4 -2005, to the Lokayukta Police Station, Gadag and accordingly, a case was registered and preparation were made to set trap to apprehend the appellants red -handed while receiving the illegal gratification. Consequently, the Police, after making elaborate arrangements with regard to the trap proceedings, had proceeded to the office of the accused and the complainant along with the shadow witness namely, P.W.1 had followed the instructions of the Police and entered the chambers of the office of the accused 1 and 2 and made an inquiry as to whether the licenses issued were ready and on being asked whether the bribe amount had been brought, it was claimed that the complainant had handed over Rs.2,000/ - each to the accused. It is thereafter he had signaled the Lokayukta Police Team, which was waiting outside, who immediately apprehended the accused and washed their respective hands with Sodium Bicarbonate Solution and the resultant liquid having turned pink in colour, was an indication that they had handled the tainted money which was used a trap the appellants. Consequently, the evidence of such trap proceedings were charge -sheeted 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 the 'PC Act ', for brevity). The accused having pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried, the prosecution had examined P.Ws.1 to 7 and marked Exhibits P.1 to P.31 and Material Objects 1 to 20. After the statement of the accused was recorded under Section 301 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Cr.P.C., for brevity), the Court below on hearing the arguments of the respective side and on the basis of the material evidence, had framed the following point for consideration. -

(3.) WHILE the learned Counsel for the respondent -Lokayukta would seek to justify the judgment and would submit that the so -called inconsistency has been adequately explained by the complainant and cannot be fatal to the case of the prosecution. Further, the possession of currency notes which were treated with Phenolphthalein powder, raises a presumption under Section 20 of the PC Act of having received the bribe amount and the burden of proof of establishing any explanation in this regard was on the accused and the explanation put -forth is untenable as to the same having been thrust on the appellants and it was the framework of the Lokayukta Police only in order to sustain the allegations and the trap proceedings that were carried out. The detailed evidence and the material on record, which has been addressed by the Court by a considered judgment cannot be negated only with reference to the so -called inconsistencies, which are sought to be highlighted. For otherwise, there is no defence available to the appellants insofar as the material documents that are relied upon by the prosecution in support of the charges. Merely on the ground that there is inconsistency between the evidence of P.Ws.1 and 6, cannot be a ground on which the well -considered judgment of the Court below ought to be interfered with and hence, seek dismissal of the appeal.