P. YATIRAJ Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The accused in Special (Lok) Case No.9/2013 on the file of the learned Principal Sessions/Special Judge, Vijayapura, has preferred this appeal, impugning the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dtd. 29/11/2018 convicting him for the offences punishable under Ss. 7, 13(1)(d) and 13(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act (for short 'P.C. Act') and sentencing to undergo simple imprisonment for 02 years and to pay a fine of Rs.10,000.00 for the offence punishable under Sec. 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act and further, sentencing to undergo simple imprisonment for 4 years and to pay fine of Rs.20,000.00, for the offence under Sec. 13(1)(d), punishable under Sec. 13(2) of P.C. Act, with default sentences.

(2.) Brief facts of the case as per the prosecution are that, the appellant/accused was working as Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation and the complainant is an Advocate, who was practicing before the accused and dealing with the workmen's compensation cases. He approached the Lokayukta Police stating that to pass an order and show the official favour, the accused is demanding illegal gratification. Therefore, the Lokayukta Police gave a voice recorder to the informant to record the conversation regarding demand of illegal gratification. Accordingly, the informant met the accused along with the voice recorder, where the accused demanded payment of the illegal gratification and the same was recorded and produced before the Lokayukta Police.

(3.) On being satisfied that the accused is demanding illegal gratification, the FIR as per Ex.P9 came to be registered. Entrustment panchnama as per Ex.P3 was drawn in the presence of the mahazar witnesses - PWs.2 and 3. The tainted amount smeared with the phenolphthalein powder was entrusted to the complainant with a direction to meet the accused along with shadow witness - PW2 and also to pay the tainted amount if in case accused demands the illegal gratification.