BHUJANGA SHAKUNTHALA Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

JUDGEMENT

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

(2.) The appellant was the accused in the following circumstances:

(3.) The learned Counsel for the appellant would submit that, from the material on record, the Court below could not have arrived at findings against the appellant and further, the Court below had ignored the material, that was available on record. Therefore, there is a serious miscarriage of justice in the Court proceeding to hold against the appellant. Elaborating on this, the learned Counsel for the appellant would point out that, the recovery of money from the possession of the appellant could not be considered as conclusive proof of guilt. The presumption that would arise in favour of the prosecution was strongly rebutted by the established fact, that the money in question was kept on the table of the appellant without any demand and this was a statement made by the appellant in the very first instance of the manner, in which she was sought to be framed by the complainant, who had suddenly barged into the office of the appellant, placed the money on the table and vanished before she could ascertain as to his intention. Immediately thereafter, when the appellant was summoning her subordinates, to find out who the complainant was and why he had come in and put the money on the table, the police had alleged that, she was trapped red handed while demanding and accepting the bribe, which was not the circumstance. Therefore, the mere fact that, it was shown that one of her hands was tainted with phenolphthalein powder, by itself, was not conclusive proof of the demand and acceptance of bribe.