S. VASANTH KUMAR Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal is preferred by the appellant being aggrieved by the judgment and order dated 28.12.2012 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge and Special Judge for Lokayuktha cases, Bangalore Urban District in Spl. C.C. No. 66/2007 convicting the appellant accused for the offence punishable under Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act sentencing him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year and also to pay a fine of Rs. 10,000/ - and in default of payment of fine, to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of five months and further convicting the appellant accused and sentencing him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of 11/2 years for the offence under Section 13(2) for violation of the provisions of Section 13(1)(d) of the said Act and also to pay fine of Rs. 15,000/ - and in default of payment of fine, to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of six months.

(2.) THE case of the prosecution in brief as per the averments in the complaint Ex. P.24, one Badarinath filed a complaint to the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Lokayuktha City Division, Bangalore alleging that he availed a loan of Rs. 1,87,000/ - from KSFC in the year 1997. Subsequently, the unit became sick and after six months, the KSFC auctioned the plant and machinery in the year 2002. During auctioning or from the date of closure, the complainant was not informed nor served with any notice for closure of the loan account. For availing loan, he has deposited Rs. 75,000/ - as an FD as collateral security. Suddenly, after seven years the issue opened up and the concerned officer Mr. Vasanth Kumar, who is the appellant accused, called up the complainant asking him to meet him after office hours at Malleswaram on 3.12.2005 and threatened him that he has to pay Rs. 8.00 lakh towards dues to KSFC. The complainant was shocked to know the dues and requested the accused to settle the issue for the balance of the amount which was due after auctioning the machinery by adjusting FD. He has also given the details as below:

(3.) ON the basis of the said complaint, FIR was registered against the appellant accused as per Ex. P.36 for the alleged offences under Sections 7, 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act. After investigation, police filed the charge sheet for the said offences. When the charge was framed against the appellant accused for the said offences, he denied the charge and claimed to be tried. The prosecution examined eight witnesses as P.Ws. 1 to 8 and got marked the documents Exs. P.1 to 39 and got marked the material objects as M.Os. 1 to 13. After hearing the arguments on both sides and considering the merits of the case, ultimately, the Special Court has convicted the appellant -accused for the said offences.