STATE OF KARNATAKA Vs. CHANNAKESHAVAIAH AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal is preferred by State of Karnataka by Lokayuktha police, Hassan being aggrieved by the judgment and order dated 24.10.2007 passed by the learned Spl. Judge, Hassan in Spl. Case No. 54/2002 acquitting respondents -accused Nos. 1 and 2 for the offences punishable under Sections 7, 13(1)(d) r/w Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 r/w Section 34 of IPC.

(2.) BRIEF facts of the prosecution case are that during the year 2001 accused No. 1 was working as Superintendent of Accounts and accused No. 2 was working as First Division Assistant at Hemavathi right upper canal division, Hallimysore, Holenarasipura Taluk. P.W. 1 -R.Jagadeesh approached the respondents -accused persons to discharge him from the charges leveled against him and to hand over revised charge list and also to recommend a letter to their superiors stating that stock is in tact. For doing the said official favour, accused Nos. 1 and 2 demanded Rs. 5,000/ - from P.W.1. On 22.5.2001 at about 1.30 p.m. accused No. 1 demanded and accepted bribe of Rs. 3,000/ - and accused No. 2 demanded and accepted bribe of Rs. 2,000/ - from P.W.1 and at that time, they were caught red -handed by the Lokayuktha police and were accused of the offences punishable under Sections 7, 13(1)(d) r/w Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 r/w Section 34 of IPC. After conducting investigation the Investigation Officer has filed the charge sheet against the respondents for the said offences and the trial Court framed charges. Trial was conducted and after considering the materials both oral and documentary, ultimately, the learned Special Judge acquitted the accused for the said offences. Against the said judgment and order of acquittal, State has preferred this appeal on the grounds mentioned at Sl. Nos. 1 to 7 of the appeal memorandum.

(3.) LEARNED Spl.P.P. during the course of his arguments submitted that though the prosecution placed acceptable material by way of oral evidence of prosecution witnesses with regard to demand and acceptance of bribe amount, the Special Judge has wrongly observed that prosecution has not at all established demand and acceptance of bribe amount with cogent and satisfactory material. He has submitted that the complainant was posted to look after the stores since the person in -charge of said stores had expired and thereafter, when one Krishnappa was posted permanently as store keeper in his place and complainant handed over the charge to him, there was shortage of materials kept in the store and in that connection when complainant requested the respondents to prepare the fresh charge list and absolve him from the liabilities, they demanded the bribe amount. He has submitted that the trap mahazar was conducted and tainted currency notes were seized from the possession of respondents 1 and 2 and when their sodium carbonate solution hand wash was taken, the same turned into pink colour. Even the FSL report is positive and supports the case of prosecution. All these aspects were not properly appreciated by the trial Court. Hence, it is submitted that the judgment and order of the trial Court be set aside and respondents -accused Nos. 1 and 2 be convicted for the above said offences.