STATE Vs. GURUMALLAPPA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Based on a complaint (Ex.P-1) dated 15.02.1994 submitted by M.N. Shivananjaiah alleging that the respondent demanded Rs.500/- for transfer of katha of a site, FIR (Ex.P-2) in Crime No.3/1994 was registered by the appellant for the offences under Sections 7, 13(1)(d) r/w 13(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (for short 'the Act'). A pre-trap panchanama (Ex.P-4) was drawn. CW.53 applied and obtained search warrant and conducted the search panchanama (Ex.P-5). The intended trap did not materialise. Permission vide Ex.P-8, to investigate and add Section 13(i)(e) r/w 13(2) of the Act was obtained on 16.02.1994. After the investigation of the case, sanction order vide Ex.P-224 was issued on 30.09.1996, by PW.32. Charge sheet was filed on 15.04.1997 against the respondent, under Sections 7, 13(i)(e) and 13(2) of P.C. Act, stating that the accused was a Village Accountant, Mandal Panchayat in Mysuru Taluk, T.Narasipura Taluk and Udbur Mandal Panchayat from 10.09.1970 to 15.02.1994 and possessed assets worth Rs.9,07,494.84/-, as against his income of Rs.6,56,094.27/- and thus, possessed disproportionate assets worth Rs.2,51,458/-. Charge sheet was registered as Special Case No.69/1997 in the Court of the Sessions Judge and Special Judge at Mysuru. The respondent/accused appeared, pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. To prove the guilt of the accused, the prosecution examined 32 witnesses and marked 237 documents. Accused was examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C. and that he denied the incriminating evidence appearing in the statements of the prosecution witnesses.

(2.) Sri Venkatesh S. Arbatti, learned advocate, contended that the learned Trial Judge has taken liberal view in appreciating the evidence on record. He submitted that the accused having failed to account substantially and the prosecution having established beyond reasonable doubt that the accused has amassed the wealth disproportionate to his known sources of income, the judgment of acquittal passed being erroneous is liable to be set aside. Learned counsel submitted that the evidence of PWs.1, 23 and 27 being credible and the guilt of the accused having been proved, the impugned judgment is liable to be set aside and the respondent is liable to be convicted and punished for the offence under Sections 13(i)(e) r/w 13(2) of the Act.

(3.) Sri C.M. Jagadeesh, learned advocate, on the other hand, by referring to the oral and documentary evidence, submitted that the prosecution having failed to establish its case beyond reasonable doubts, learned Trial Judge is justified in arriving at the conclusion i.e., in respect of the purchase of house property, agricultural income, income from the sale of milk and the sale of sheep and also the food expenses. Learned counsel submitted that there being too much exaggeration on the part of the prosecution and its case being not credible, suffering from discrepancies and contradictions, going to the root of the matter, learned Trial Judge is justified is passing the judgment of acquittal in respect of the charged offences.