H.P. VENKATESH Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Since these two appeals are arising out of the same judgment pertaining to the same crime number, they have been taken together to dispose of them by common judgment to avoid repetition of discussion.

(2.) These two appeals are filed by the appellants accused Nos.1 and 2 being aggrieved by the judgment and order of conviction and sentence dated 24.2.2014 passed by the Special Judge, Bangalore Urban District, Bangalore City in Spl. C.C. No.17/2009 thereby convicting the appellantsaccused Nos.1 and 2 for the offence punishable under Section 7 of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (for short 'The Act') and sentencing them to suffer rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year and to pay fine of Rs.2,000/- with default clause and further convicting the appellants accused Nos.1 and 2 for the offence punishable under Section 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of the Act and sentencing them to undergo R.I. for 11/2 years and to pay fine of Rs.3,000/- for default clause.

(3.) The case of the persecution as per the complaint Ex.P.23 dated 13.12.2007 is that one P.R. Lokesh-P.W.6 lodged a complaint to the police inspector, Karnataka Lokayuktha, Bangalore city alleging that since 10 years, he is running Fabrication workshop at Rajajinagar under the name and style of M/s. Sri.Rangaswamy Fabrication Workshop. On 12.12.2007, the complainant was taking the fabricated railings in tempo No.KA02/B-1309 towards ECCI Company at Magadi Road. At 1.30 p.m., nearby ECCI Company gate at Magadi Road, a person came in a Tata Sumo and checked the tempo of the complainant and verified the bills pertaining to railings. The said person told the complainant that there is a difference about the wait mentioned in the bill and also the wait of the railings kept in the tempo. Accordingly, he demanded Rs.30,000/-, for which the complainant told that he is not able to pay such amount as he is working in the small workshop. The said person asked to pay at least Rs.25,000/- and the complainant told that it is not possible to pay even Rs.20,000/- also and requested the said person to reduce the amount. Then the said person told to pay Rs.10,000/- for that the complainant told that he will pay Rs.8,000/- on the next day. The complainant requested to release his vehicle at that time, the other two persons of the said department came there and out of the two, one Ganapathyappa gave his mobile number 9448031517 to the complainant and asked the complainant to inform him as soon as he keeps the money ready. The complainant came to know that the person who demanded the bribe amount from him was an officer belonging to Commercial Tax Department. On the name plate of the Tata Sumo, it was mentioned as Government of Karnataka having the registration number as KA-01-G-3035. In the evening, on 12.12.2007, the complainant called the mobile number of Ganapthyappa and told him that he will bring Rs.8,000/- the next day i.e., 13.12.2007. He requested the said person to release the tempo and also asked him to reduce the amount to some extent and this conversation has been recorded in the tape recorder and he has produced the tape recorder along with the complaint. As complainant was not interested to pay Rs.8,000/- to get release of his vehicle along with the railings, he requested the police to take action against Ganapathiyappa who demanded the bribe amount and also the officer of the CTO.