K M MALLAIAH Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal is preferred by the appellant accused being aggrieved by the judgment dated 2.9.2011 passed by the II Additional District and Sessions Judge, Tumkur in Spl. Case No.241/2007 convicting the appellant of the offences punishable under Sections 7 and 13(1)(A) read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act and sentencing him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of nine months and to pay a fine of Rs.3,000/ - and in default of payment of fine, to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of three months on the first count and further sentencing him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year and to pay fine of Rs.5,000/ - and in default of payment of fine, to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of six months on the second count.

(2.) THE case of the prosecution in brief is that one V. Nagabhushan, who was working as Peon in the office of the Social Welfare Department, Sira, Tumkur District, was on leave on medical grounds and for sanctioning of the salary payable during the period of his unauthorized absence, it is alleged that the appellant accused demanded the bribe amount of Rs.3,000/ - and also insisted the complainant that out of Rs.3,000/ -, he has to pay Rs.2,000/ - on 26.12.2006. It is also alleged in the complaint Ex.P.5 that as the complainant was working as peon in the said office, he was neither interested nor willing to give the said bribe amount. He approached the Lokayuktha police and lodged a complaint on 26.12.2006. On the basis of the said complaint, case was registered in the said police station crime No.13/2006 as per Ex.P.6 for the above said offences and there afterwards, entrustment mahazar proceedings were conducted in the Lokayuktha police station at Tumkur in the presence of the panch witnesses. Trap was laid on 26.12.2006 at about 14.40 hours and the appellant accused was found with the bribe amount of Rs.2,000/ -. It is also the case of the prosecution that trap mahazar was drawn in the office of the appellant accused and after recording the evidence of the prosecution witness and on completion of the investigation, charge sheet was filed against the appellant accused for the above said offence.

(3.) I have heard the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the appellant -accused and also the learned special Public Prosecutor for the respondent Lokayuktha.