STATE OF KARNATAKA Vs. PARAMESHWAR TOLE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal is filed by the Lokayukta challenging the judgment dated 10.07.2009 passed by the Principal Sessions and Special Judge, Gulbarga, in Special Case No. 85/2008 acquitting the respondent/accused of the offences under sections 7 and 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (for short 'PC Act'). It is the case of the prosecution that the accused being a First Division Assistant in Sub Treasury of Jewargi, on 28.03.2007 at about 1:45 p.m. demanded illegal gratification of Rs. 1,000/ - as reward rather than legal remuneration for issuing arrears of cheque amounting to Rs. 9,397/ - belonging to the complainant, thereby he is alleged to have committed misconduct as defined under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) of P.C. Act, thereby he is charged for having committed the offence under Section 13(2) of PC Act.

(2.) THE prosecution in order to prove the case against the accused has examined in all 9 witnesses and got marked Exs. P1 to P14 and produced MOs. 1 to 9. The defence of the accused is one of total denial. It is his case that the complainant had taken a loan of Rs. 1,000/ - earlier to the date of incident and on the date of incident he has returned the said amount and immediately thereafter a trap was laid on him and he was prosecuted for the said offences. The trial Court after considering the evidence of prosecution witnesses and the defence held that the prosecution has not proved the case against the respondent beyond reasonable doubt and acquitted him of the charges leveled against him. It is this judgment of acquittal, which has been challenged by the State in this appeal.

(3.) DURING the trial, P.W. 1 who is the Gazetted Officer has stated that he is working in the Sub Treasury Office in Jewargi and that accused was working as a FDA in the said office. He has issued certain documents at the request of the Investigation Officer. P.W. 2 Hanmantappa is the complainant. He has spoken regarding his complaint while deposing before the Court. He has also identified his complaint as per Ex. P. 6 and the notes as per MO. 1, which were entrusted to him as per entrustment mahazar. In the cross -examination it is suggested to P.W. 1 that he had taken a hand loan of Rs. 1,000/ - from the accused and that on the date of incident, he had come to return the said amount to the accused. These suggestions have been denied by P.W. 2. It is also suggested to P.W. 2 that accused has not demanded the amount of Rs. 1,000/ -. However, the said suggestion has been denied by P.W. 2.