STATE Vs. H.S. SANTHOSH KUMAR AND ANOTHER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard the Special Public Prosecutor appearing for the appellant and the counsel for the respondents-accused.

(2.) The State seeks to question the acquittal of the accused in respect of 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 Sec. 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (Hereinafter referred to as the 'IPC', for brevity).

(3.) The case of the prosecution was that on 18.9.2001, at about 1.30 p.m., one Lakshmaiah had lodged a complaint with the Lokayukta Police, Madikeri to state that one Bhagvan Das, the proprietor of M/s. Diamond Finance and Investments had filed an application before the Assistant Registrar of Co-operative Societies, Kodagu on 13.8.2001, seeking license to start a finance institution in the name and style of M/s. Diamond Finance and Investments and that he had been authorised by Bhagavan Das to also receive the license from the office after it was granted. Accordingly, on 15.9.2001, the complainant had approached accused No.1, Santhosh Kumar, the Assistant Registrar of Co-operative Societies and requested him to issue license and it was alleged that the said officer demanded a bribe amount of Rs.1500.00 to grant license and it was also stated that accused No.1 had instructed the complainant that the bribe amount should be handed over during the office hours to a case worker, one A. S. Giri, accused No.2 and that immediately on payment of the bribe amount, the license would be handed over. It is in this background that a complaint was lodged. On receipt of the complaint, the Police Inspector, Lokayukta Police Station, Madikeri is said to have registered a case in Crime No.6/2001. It is claimed that the complainant had handed over 15 currency notes of Rs.100.00 denomination in order to trap the accused while receiving the bribe amount red-handed and in this regard, the Police had made elaborate preparations to trap the accused and therefore had requisitioned the presence of panch witnesses for the entrustment mahazar and for drawing up of a trap mahazar and the proceedings that would follow. Therefore, in the presence of two Government officials namely, P.R.Chinnappa, Assistant Apiculture Development Officer and Chandrahasa, Senior Training Inspector were requisitioned to go over to the office of the Lokayukta and they were instructed about the proceedings that would follow and they had agreed to act as panch witnesses. They were named as Panch Witness Nos. 1 and 2 and they were made aware of the contents of the complaint and in their presence, the currency notes were handed over to them to endorse the numbers of the currency notes and thereafter the currency notes were treated with phenolphthalein powder and the notes were accounted and the complainant was asked to carry the tainted notes. The panch witnesses as well as the complainant were instructed as to the manner in which the trap would be executed and after carrying out further proceedings insofar as the trap proceedings are concerned, all of them, namely, the Police Inspector, the complainant and the panch witnesses and other staff members proceeded to the office of the Assistant Registrar of Co-operative Societies and upon reaching the vicinity of the office, the panch witnesses were again instructed as to their respective role and that once the signal was given by the complainant of bribe having been received by the accused, they would move in to arrest the accused. Therefore, at about 3.10 p.m., on the same day, namely, 18.9.2001, the complainant is said to have walked into the office of the accused and had then come out and had signalled the squad, which was waiting outside and immediately, the Police and his staff had moved in and found accused No.2 inside the chamber and he was caught hold of. And thereafter, it was noticed that accused No. 1 was not present inside the chambers and it was only accused No.2 who was present there. It was narrated by the complainant that accused No.2 had demanded the bribe amount in order to hand over license and that he had been instructed by accused No.1 to receive the money and accordingly had received the bribe amount and had placed the currency notes on the table after counting the same. Accordingly, the Police proceeded to wash his hands in Sodium Carbonate solution and the solution is said to have turned pink in colour, thereby establishing that accused No.2 had handled the tainted currency notes. The evidence of the same was collected and further proceedings were taken to complete the trap mahazar. While this procedure was on, accused No. 1 was said to have returned to the office and he was called upon to provide his explanation and he had denied the knowledge of any such demand for bribe or the pendency of any such work at the instance of PW. 1. It is in this background that further proceedings were taken up and a charge-sheet was submitted before the Special Court, Madikeri and the accused had stood trial. They had pleaded not guilty to the charges and claimed to be tried on the charges having been framed. Thereafter, the prosecution had tendered evidence of 13 witnesses and marked several exhibits and material objects. After recording the statements of the accused under Sec. 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, the court below had framed the following points for consideration: