SRINIVASA Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard the learned counsel for the appellant and perused the record.

(2.) The facts are that the appellant was a public servant who was working as a First Division Assistant in the Office of the Sub-Treasury, Sindagi. It was alleged by the complainant that on 18.2.2006, when he went to the office of the Sub- Treasury, Sindagi to inquire about a bill of Rs.20,364/- pertaining to his wife, he had met the appellant - accused and had requested that the bill be passed, at which, the appellant is said to have told him that there was no budget and on his repeated request, the accused had demanded a bribe of Rs.1,000/- to pay him finally and that the amount should be brought on the next day.

(3.) At the outset, the learned counsel for the appellant would submit that it was incumbent on the prosecution to establish the primary ingredient of the offences punishable under the aforesaid provisions and that there was a demand for bribe by the appellant and payment of bribe by the complainant. In this regard, not only the evidence of the PW.2, the complainant was relevant, but also that of the shadow witness, who ought to have corroborated that the demand by the appellant was heard and that there was payment made by the complainant as witnessed by him. It is pointed out that the trial court has noticed that PW.1 had deposed that when the complainant PW.2 went inside the office of the accused to give money, he was standing near the door and that the accused had taken PW.2 outside the office near the Tea Shop near Hanmant temple and the complainant had asked the accused whether he had passed the bill and the accused told him that he had already passed the bill and asked the accused to give Rs.1,000/- to the accused and that the accused had received it and had put in his pocket. After coming into the office, PW.2 had signalled the Lokayukta Police who were waiting outside, who in turn, had taken the appellant into custody and carried out further steps to ascertain that he had received the tainted currency notes. But however, the court below has noticed that PW.1 has not in his evidence stated about the demand of bribe by the accused in his office and even though it is evident from the record that the court has held that it does not discard the evidence of PW.1 regarding the demand and acceptance of bribe by the accused and even though PW.1 had admitted in his cross-examination that if one stood near the door of the office of the accused, one could not see and hear what happened near the Hanmant temple. This again, the trial court has held, does not assume much importance as PW.1 had volunteered that he was all along with PW.2. This effort on the part of the PW.1 is apparently an after-thought and hence he would submit that it has not been established as required in law that there was demand and payment of the bribe amount.