SHIVANNA Vs. STATE BY POLICE INSPECTOR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The judgment and order of conviction dated 30.9.2013 passed by the Special Judge, Bengaluru Urban District, Bengaluru City in Spl.C.C. No.62/2008 is challenged in this appeal by the appellant accused. By the said judgment and order of conviction, the trial Court convicted the appellant accused for the offences punishable under Sections 7, 13(1)(d) and 13(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.

(2.) Brief facts of the prosecution case as per the complaint averments in Ex.P.6 is that Hameed Khan (P.W.3) lodged a complaint on 11.7.2000 before the Deputy Superintendent of Police, City Division, Karnataka Lokayuktha, Bengaluru, wherein it was stated that there was water connection by Bangalore Water Supply and Sewerage Board (for short 'BWSSB') to the residential house of the complainant. Earlier, the water charges were Rs.73/- or Rs.77/-. As the meter was damaged, the minimum bill amount of Rs.265/- used to be collected and there afterwards, BWSSB authorities fixed the new meter by collecting Rs.550/-. The complainant stated that for the month of April 2000, bill amount of Rs.1,548/- and for the month of May 2000, bill amount of Rs.3366/- were collected from him. Out of the same, he has paid Rs.1700/- to BWSSB. There afterwards, the complainant met the appellant accused Shivanna and enquired as to why there was so much of water bill. Shivanna told that from the following month, they will put the bill amount of Rs.12,000/- and asked the complainant to meet inspector Muddegowda. Accordingly, the complainant met the BWSSB inspector and when enquired about increase in the bill, the inspector told the complainant that he has to pay Rs.8,000/- to the inspector and the meter reader Shivanna i.e. the accused and then they will correct the water meter to get the bill of Rs.75/- as getting earlier otherwise, they will put the bill amount of Rs.12,000/-. The accused Shivanna and Muddegowda told the same to the complainant for that the complainant told that it is not possible for him to pay the said amount. The accused Shivanna and Muddegowda told the complainant that out of the amount to be paid by him, they have to pay some amount to the Assistant Engineer also. The accused Shivanna and Muddegowda both told the complainant that on 11.7.2000, the complainant has to bring Rs.4,000/- and to pay them in their office at Jayamahal. Out of the said two persons, he can pay the amount to any one in the said office. But the complainant was not interested in getting the work done by giving the bribe amount. Hence, he lodged the complaint requesting the Lokayuktha office to take action against the accused Shivanna in accordance with law. The complaint was received in Lokayuktha office on 11.7.2000 at 10.30 a.m. and registered FIR in LA Crime No.18/2000 for the said offence.

(3.) Thereafter, the trap of the appellant accused (Shivanna) was conducted by the Lokayuktha police and the amount was recovered from the possession of the appellant accused. Then the matter was investigated by the police inspector and after completion of the investigation, the police inspector filed charge sheet against the appellant accused for the said offences. It is mentioned in the charge sheet that as no evidence was available against the inspector Muddegowda, he was not sent up for trial.