N.A. SURYANARAYANA Vs. STATE BY INSPECTOR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Appellant was the lone accused in Spl. C.C.57/98 on the file of XXI Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge and Special Judge for CBI, Bangalore. He has been convicted for the offences punishable under Section 7 and 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, (hereinafter referred to as the Act, for brevity) read with Section 13(1)(d) of the said Act, on 31.7.2003 and has been sentenced to undergo R.I. for 2 years for the offence punishable under Section 7 and to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/-, and to undergo R.I. for 3 years for the offence punishable under Section 13(2)(d) of the Act and to pay fine of Rs.5,000/-, in default, to undergo further imprisonment for a period of three months. It is this judgment of conviction and sentence which is called in question on various grounds as set out in the appeal memo.

(2.) The facts leading to the filing of the special case at Bangalore are as follows:

(3.) Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted his arguments elaborately and has relied on innumerable decisions in regard to the alleged demand of bribe and receipt of bribe, his capacity to do any official favour and the defense taken on behalf of the accused. It is argued that the initial burden cast upon the prosecution has to be effectively discharged and unless it is discharged, the onus does not shift on the other side. It is argued that the presumption available under Section 20 of the P.C.Act cannot be taken into consideration unless the alleged receipt of bribe money is preceded by demand, as contemplated under Section 7 of the Act. It is argued that there was absolutely no scope for the accused to do any official favour since the telecast certificate had to be issued only by the Director and that he is only a subordinate to the Director and that he had instructed his subordinate not to issue telecast certificate until the requisite amount due from the complainant was paid.