MALLEYAIAH, SON OF MALLEYAIAH Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard the learned Senior Advocate Shri C.H.Jadhav appearing for the appellant and the learned Standing Counsel for the Lokayukta.

(2.) The appellant having been convicted 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), was sentenced to undergo imprisonment for one year for an offence under section 7 and two years for an offence punishable under Section 13(2) of the PC Act, apart from imposing fine.

(3.) The facts leading to this case are that the appellant was a Second Division Assistant in the Taluk Office. It transpires that the complainant had a land dispute and that he wanted to prefer a writ petition before this court and he required certain documents, which were available in the Taluk Office and therefore had filed an application seeking certified copies of the same and since the appellant was in a position to expedite the preparation of the certified copies, the complainant is said to have approached him and requested that the copies be made available with expedition. For which, the appellant is said to have demanded illegal gratification of Rs.200/- to issue the relevant records. Since the complainant was not inclined to pay any such amount, he is said to have brought it to the attention of the Lokayukta Police, which in turn had, after due preparation, laid a trap for the appellant with the assistance of the panch witnesses. It then transpires that the appellant was approached by the complainant along with a shadow witnesses and other panch witnesses and the Police squad together and the appellant was caught red-handed while having received the bribe amount, which was tainted with phenolphthalein powder. After carrying out the process of establishing that the tainted money was received, proceedings were taken against the appellant and he stood trial. The court below having framed charges, the appellant had pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. The prosecution had then examined seven witnesses and got marked several exhibits and material objects. After closure of the evidence and on recording the statement of the accused under section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 the court below had framed the following point for consideration: