A.K. LAKSHMANAPPA AND ORS. Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is preferred by appellants-accused Nos. 1 and 2 being aggrieved by the judgment and order of sentence passed by the Principal District and Sessions Judge and Special Judge (Lokayukta), Davangere dated 8.2.2013 passed in Spl. Case No. 12/2007.

(2.) The case of the prosecution in brief are that one Smt. Susheelamma examined as P.W. 1 has lodged the complaint as per Ex. P1 dated 11.7.2007 alleging that she is the resident of Honnali town. The Tahsildar, Honnali Taluk has granted one site bearing No. 18 measuring 20' x 30' out of Sy. No. 14 of Honnali village under the Ashraya Scheme. Thereafter, she has constructed a house with ACC sheet in the said site and the said house is registered in her name in the Honnali Sub-Registrar office as per the direction of Honnali Town Panchayath officer on 1.5.2007. On 10.7.2007 in the morning around 11.30 a.m. she went to Honnali Town Panchayath office and met the organizer one A.K. Lakshmanappa and requested him to issue Hakku patra in respect of the site granted to her by the Tahsildar. At that time, said A.K. Lakshmanappa demanded bribe amount of Rs. 1,000/-. When she told she is not able to pay that much amount said AKXakshmanappa asked her to pay Rs. 800/-, for which, she informed him that she was not having money and she will bring and pay the same after two days and came back. As she was not willing to give the bribe amount of Rs. 800/-, she went to Lokayukta office and lodged the complaint informing that she has brought Rs. 800/- bribe amount demanded by A.K. Lakshmanappa and requested to take legal action against him. It is also the case of the prosecution that thereafter witnesses were called to the Lokayukta office and entrustment mahazar proceedings were conducted in the Lokayukta office as per Ex. P2 and then they left the Lokayukta office and went to the office of accused No. 1 to conduct a trap. It is also the case of the prosecution that in the office of the accused trap mahazar proceedings were conducted and thereafter, after completing the investigation, investigating officer has filed the charge sheet against accused Nos. 1 and 2. The trial Court, after conducting trial and considering both oral and documentary evidence placed before it, has ultimately convicted accused No. 1 for the offences punishable under Sections 7, 13(2) r/w Section 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act and accused No. 2 was convicted for the offence under Section 8 of the Prevention of Corruption Act. Being aggrieved by the judgment and order of conviction and also challenging the legality and correctness of the judgment and order of the trial Court, the appellants have preferred the above appeal on the grounds mentioned at Sl. Nos. (a) to (h) of the appeal memorandum.

(3.) Heard the arguments of learned counsel appearing for the appellants.