STATE OF KARNATAKA Vs. A V SATHISH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal is filed by the State against the judgment and Order of acquittal passed by the Principal District and Sessions Judge, chikmagalore in Special Case No. 1/1995 whereby the respondent was acquitted of the charges levelled against respondent for the offences punishable under Sections 7,13 (1) (d) r/w. S. 13 (2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.

(2.) THE main grounds urged by the Appellant-State is that the order of acquittal passed by the Trial Court is erroneous and the reasons assigned are untenable. The Special Judge has also erred in not properly considering the evidence of PW. 1 complainant, PW. 3 shadow witness, PW. 2 another trap witness. Though the evidence of PWs. 1 to 3 prove that there was demand and acceptance of bribe of Rs. 4000/-by the respondent-accused and the amount was recovered from the respondent, the Trial Court has not properly appreciated the said evidence as the witnesses turned hostile. There is no bar to believe and accept the evidence of hostile witnesses. The admissions made by the witnesses should be taken into consideration by the criminal courts but the Trial Court has not considered the admissions of PWs. 1, 2 and 3. There is no much variation, if any, except some minor contradictions but the Trial Court has come to the wrong conclusion in acquitting the respondent. The Trial Court failed to consider the sanction accorded by the Appointing and Disciplinary Authority to the respondent. Sanction accorded is in accordance with the requirement of law but the Court-below has wrongly held that sanction is not valid though demand and acceptance of bribe has been proved, though the trial Court records its finding that the prosecution proved Point No. 1 regarding demand and acceptance but the Trial Court acquitted the respondent only on the point of 'sanction' which is incorrect. Hence, this appeal.

(3.) HEARD the argument of Sri Maqbul Ahmad, learned Addl. SPP for the appellant and Sri H. S. Chandramouli, learned Counsel for the respondent-accused. During the course of arguments, learned Addl. SPP has argued that the respondent was and is a public servant. In order to show some official favour i. e. , not to launch any criminal case against PWs. 4 and 5, the respondent demanded a sum of Rs. 5000/-as illegal gratification and a sum of Rs. 1500/- was paid and agreed to pay the balance bribe amount of Rs. 3500/- on 18. 3. 1993 but which was not paid. Hence, a complaint was lodged on 21. 10. 1993 before pw. 6 as per Ex. P-2 at about 7 AM. Accordingly, a case came to be registered against the respondent and panchas were secured. A demonstration mahazar was drawn in the presence of PWs. 2 and 3. Then after demonstration the bribe amount of Rs. 3500/- was given to pw. 1 with a direction that on demand only the amount should be given to the respondent. Therefore when the appellant conducted the trap and seized the bribe of Rs. 3500/- from the pant pocket of the respondent, a recovery mahazar Ex. P-3 was drawn in the presence of PWs. 1,2,3 and 6.