STATE Vs. H RAJEEV

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard the learned Counsel for the appellant and the learned counsel for the respondents accused.

(2.) The appellant is the Lokayukta Police, Chitradurga seeking to question the acquittal of the accused. The case of the prosecution was that on 9.1.2006, at about 10a.m., one Basavanagowda had reported to the Lokayukta Police, Chitradurga that his mother Neelamma was the owner of a site bearing No.18, Khata No.722, within the limits of Mathada Kurubarahatty Grama Panchayath, Chitradurga District and at about three weeks prior to his complaint, the complainant, in the capacity of the manager of the family, is said to have filed an application with necessary testimonials to the Panchayath seeking permission for construction of a house in the said site on 7.1.2006. When he went to the Panchayath office, and inquired with the Secretary, and one Hulugeshi, a bill collector, it appears there was a demand made for illegal gratification of Rws.2,500/- to grant permission to construct a house. It is in this background that the complainant had sought the Lokayukta Police to take action against the respondents. On the basis of the complaint, a case was registered in Crime No.2/2006 against the respondents for offences punishable under Sections 7, 13(1)(d) read with section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as the 'PC Act', for brevity). And on the same day, the Investigating Officer, PW.9, secured the presence of two public servants, PWs.1 and 7, to act as panch witnesses and they were informed about the contents of the complaint and of the procedure to be followed in laying a trap. And after collecting the bribe amount of Rs.2,500/- from the complainant and treating the currency notes with Phenolphthalein powder, an entrustment mahazar was drawn up in the presence of the panch witnesses explaining as to the manner and the effect of the phenolphthalein powder coming in contact with Sodium Carbonate solution, which would be proof of the accused having handled the currency notes and instructed the complainant as to the manner in which the bribe amount was to be paid to the accused on demand by him and the panch witness was also instructed to keep track of the sequence of events. It is in this manner that the trap was laid. The raiding party proceeded to the Panchayath office at about 12 noon and the complainant along with shadow witness was sent to the office of the accused and the complainant is said to have then given a pre-arranged signal indicating the handing over of the bribe amount to the accused and it is then that the investigating officer, along with his staff and panch witnesses, immediately entered the office of the accused and trapped the accused and conducted further procedure of immersing both the hands of accused no.1 into Sodium Carbonate Solution prepared on the spot, whereby the hand wash had turned violet in colour. On inquiry by the Investigating Officer, the accused had produced the bribe amount of Rs.2,500/- from his shirt pocket and the number of currency notes is said to have tallied with the numbers already noted down in the entrustment mahazar. And on washing the pocket portion of the shirt worn by accused no.1 again in sodium carbonate solution, it had also turned violet in colour, thereby indicating that the tainted money was kept in the shirt pocket. It is in this manner that a trap mahazar was drawn up and all the articles involved were seized. The statement of accused nos.1 and 2 were recorded. After completion of the investigation, on the final report filed by the Investigating Officer before the Special Court, alleging offences against both the accused and thereafter, the court below having framed charges for the offence, both the accused are said to have pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. In order to bring home the guilt of the accused, the prosecution had examined nine witnesses and got marked 37 documents besides MOs.1 to 11. And after recording the statement of both the accused under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal procedure, 1973, the court below had framed the following points for consideration:

(3.) The learned counsel for the appellants would contend that the primary ground on which the court below has acquitted the accused is that the complainant, who was examined as PW.6 had turned hostile and did not support the case of the prosecution and therefore, the court below having thought it fit to acquit the accused is not tenable. For it is the settled legal position that if the shadow witness has supported the case of the prosecution, along with a panch witness, and if the recovery of the tainted money from the accused is also proved, it was sufficient to hold that the case of the prosecution had been established. In the present case on hand, the shadow witness has certainly supported the case of the prosecution and the panch witness, who was examined, has also corroborated the evidence of the shadow witness. This was more than sufficient to hold that the case of the prosecution is established.