THIPPERUDRAPPA Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) CASE was registered against the appellant in Crime No. 3 of 2006 for the offence punishable under Section 7, 13(1)('d) read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947. The incident, as it is alleged in the complaint, was on 6th March 2006 and on the same date complaint was also made. The crime was committed and was registered as Special Case No. 78 of 2006. The Trial Court, by its order, dated 16th September 2011 has convicted the accused for the offence punishable under Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 and sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of two years and to pay fine of Rs. 5,000/ -; and in default to pay fine to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of nine months. The accused was also convicted for the offence punishable under section 13(1)(d) read with 13(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 and sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of three years and to pay fine of Rs. 10,000/ -; and in default to pay fine to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of one year. Challenging the said order, the appellant has preferred this appeal.

(2.) THE prosecution has proved its case by examining PWs. 1 to 10, of which PW2 is the shadow witness; PW4 is the complainant; PW5 is the mediator; PWs. 7 and 8 are the Investigating Officers and PW9 is the sanctioning authority who has sanctioned to prosecute the appellant for the said offence. Documents have been marked as Exhibits P1 to P29 and MOs 1 to 18.

(3.) ON the contrary, the learned counsel appearing for Lokayukta supports the order of the Trial Court. He read over the evidence of PWs. 2, 4 and 8. PW4 is the complainant who supports the prosecution. PW9 is the sanctioning authority, who has deposed that the accused person was the Scrutinizing Officer who has processed the application filed for sanction of loan. He submits that PW2, PW4 and PW5 have supported the case of the prosecution in respect of the acceptance of illegal gratification and PW2 who is the shadow witness, has deposed that he has seen the accused having received the amount from PW4 the complainant. The learned counsel further submits that recovery has been made by the accused and for recovery PWs 2, 4 and 8 have supported the case of prosecution. Change of colour of phenolphthalein solution after washing the hands, is also supported by both prosecution witness as well as PW10 the Forensic Science Laboratory chemical examiner and also PW9 who is the sanctioning authority supports the prosecution case. All these would prove that the accused has accepted illegal gratification for showing official favour to the complainant. Hence, the learned counsel submits that since material witness and evidence supports the case of prosecution, rightly the Court convicted the accused and there is no reason for interference by this Court.