STATE BY LOKAYUKTHA POLICE, CHICKMAGALUR Vs. DR. M. HANUMANTHARAYAPPA, SON OF MUDDAIAH, AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS, M.B.B.S. (GENERAL SURGERY), SENIOR SPECIALIST, M.G.HOSPITAL, CHIKMAGALUR, NATIVE OF KAKOLU, BANGALORE NORTH TALUK

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is preferred against the acquittal of the respondent for the offences punishable under Sections 7, 13(1)(d) read with Sec. 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (Hereinafter referred to as the 'PC Act', for brevity).

(2.) It was the case of the prosecution that the respondent herein was working as a Senior Specialist Medical Practitioner at the M.G.Hospital, Chikkamagalur, during the year 2008. On 17-11-2008, one Shruthi, PW-5, was said to have been admitted to the hospital and she was to undergo surgery on her feet on account a condition known as foreign body Granuloma. She was said to have been placed under the care of the respondent herein. One Kantharaju, PW-1, said to be the brother-in-law of Shruthi, was attending to her at the hospital and he is said to have enquired with the respondent as to the probable date on which surgery would be performed on Shruthi. At which, the respondent is said to have made a demand for illegal gratification of Rs.1000.00 before a date could be fixed. Though Kantharaju is said to have readily paid Rs.500.00, the respondent is said to have insisted on being paid a further sum of Rs.500. As Kantharaju was not inclined to pay any more amount, he had chosen to approach the Lokayukta Police Station, Chikkamagalur on 19-11-2008 with a complaint. And the same was said to have been registered at 1-00 PM on the said day, as Crime no.6/2008 and the First Information Report (FIR) was said to have been sent to Court. The police are then said to have procured two official witnesses, namely, a Panchayath Development Officer, PW-2 and a teacher working in the Government Junior College, PW-3 and they were said to have been appraised of a proposed trap to be set against the respondent herein to apprehend him red handed while receiving the illegal gratification he had demanded from Kantharaju. In this regard, it is stated that the bait money supplied by the complainant was said to have been treated with Phenolphthalein powder and the currency notes were placed in the shirt pocket of Kantharaju, PW-1 and other steps were taken as recorded in the entrustment Mahazar that was said to have been drawn up. PW-3 was to act as the shadow witness during the trap.

(3.) Whether the prosecution further proves that the accused person mis-used his position as a public servant to show official favour to P.W.5/Shruthi?"