STATE OF KARNATAKA Vs. KHALEEL AHMED

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal is by the state/lokayukta assailing the order of acquittal passed by the Special Judge, Gulbarga in Spl. C 28/1997.

(2.) CHARGE sheet was filed after investigation against this respondent accused to the effect that he being a public servant when the complainant Sharanappa met him on 21-6-1996 requesting him to fix the rent of his house which was allotted to SC/st hostel, at that time he demanded a sum of Rs. 3. 500/- from him and again on 25-6-1996 when the complainant met him, he demanded a sum of Rs. 1,500/- and told him to pay the remaining balance of Rs. 2,000/- later. Thereafter, the complainant being aggrieved, on 26-6-1996 around 3. 30 p. m. after informing the lokayukta Police, went to the accused and the accused accepted a sum of Rs. 1,500/- from the complainant in the presence of P. W. 7 -Manohar and he being a public servant demanded and accepted illegal gratification other than the legal remuneration, as a motive for doing an official favour and thereby committed the offence punishable under S. 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1978. Thus, in accepting the illegal gratification for showing official favour, by corrupt means, for criminal misconduct, the accused was charge sheeted for the offence under S. 13 (1) (d) r/w s. 13 (2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. After laying the charge sheet, charge was framed for the above said offences on 18-2-1998. Since the accused pleaded not guilty, trial was held. The Lokayukta Police examined in all nine witnesses and got marked about twenty documents and about six material objects. Thereafter, the accused was examined under S. 313. Cr. P. C. and his defense was, he did not receive the bribe of Rs. 1,500/-rather, along with the complainant he went to p. W. 4 - Accountant to get him army welfare tickets for Rs. 1. 500/- and since P. W. 4 was not in his seat, while returning from the chamber of P. W. 4, a trap was laid against him and he was booked for the alleged offence although he is innocent of the said offences. Further, according to him. it is not his duty nor was he entrusted with the issuance of the certificate or to fix the rent of the house of the complainant to be let out to SC/st hostel. There was no necessity for him to either demand or accept the bribe rather, he only facilitated the complainant to purchase the army welfare tickets as it was insisted upon by the officers to issue such certificate and nothing else.

(3.) LEARNED Special Judge after hearing the arguments, on the ground that P. W. 5 the complainant has not supported the version of the prosecution, stating that he has given two versions which have created a doubt, went in favour of the accused as per settled law stating that in such a case, the accused is entitled for the benefit of doubt, and accordingly acquitted the accused. Hence, this appeal by the lokayukta Police.