MANJUNATHA Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Challenging order dtd. 9/4/2025 passed by IX Addl. District and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru Rural District, Bengaluru, in SPL.C.no.565/2023, rejecting application for discharge, this revision petition is filed.

(2.) Sri AV Ramakrishna, learned counsel for petitioner (accused) submitted, prosecution was initiated against petitioner - accused for offences punishable under Sec. 7(a) read with Sec. 13(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 2018 ('POCA', for short) after registration of Crime no.12/2019 registered on 22/10/2019 by Anti-Corruption Bureau, Bengaluru, ('ACB', for short). It was submitted, same was on a complaint dtd. 22/10/2019 filed by one Raju BH, alleging that all required documents for transfer of E-khata of site no.171/719 situated at Kuluvanahalli, measuring 30 X 40 Sq.fts. to his sister's name after death of her husband, were submitted, but there was no action. And when complainant along with his brother L.K. Arasu met accused - Panchayat Development Officer of Kuluvanahalli, ('PDO', for short), accused demanded Rs.1.00 Lakh for registration of E-khata, which he later reduced to Rs.80,000.00 of which Rs.40,000.00 was to be paid at time of Survey sketch and Rs.40,000.00 on registration of E-khata. It was alleged, said conversation was recorded by L.K. Arasu on his Samsung Galaxy A6 mobile phone and accused reiterated demand in telephonic conversation with L.K. Arasu on 17/10/2019, which was also recorded. Unwilling to pay bribe, recorded conversation was transferred onto a CD at computer centre and complaint lodged, which was registered as Crime no.12/2019. And on 23/10/2019, accused was trapped with bribe amount of Rs.40,000.00 in his Car, in presence of complainant and two witnesses. Thereafter investigation was completed and Charge-sheet filed.

(3.) It was submitted, as charge-sheet was filed without basis, accused filed application for discharge under Sec. 227 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, ('CrPC', for short). In application, it was contended complainant and L.K. Arasu were inimical to accused and filed false complaint. Complainant had not disclosed name of computer center where recording of conversation was transferred onto CD and complaint was silent of handing over of CD to Police. It was also contended, accused was only issuing authority of E-khata and it was Executive Officer, who was approving authority indicating entire allegation of demand of bribe was an afterthought and false. It was also contended omission by prosecution to disclose process of transfer of recorded conversation onto CD, investigation of technician who carried out such transfer as well as delay of three years to disclose said particulars were violative of Sec. 45 of Evidence Act, casting them under grave doubt.