MEHABOOBSAB Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is preferred by the appellant/accused No.1 being aggrieved by the judgment and order of conviction dated 12th August 2011 passed by the Special Judge at Haveri in Special (Lokayukta) Case No.1/2005. By the said judgment and order passed by the learned Special Judge accused No.2 is acquitted of the offences punishable under Sections 7, 13(1)(d), 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, and accused No.1 who is the appellant herein was convicted for the offences punishable under Sections 7, 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act. The appellant herein challenged the legality and correctness of the judgment and order of conviction passed by the trial Court on the grounds as mentioned in the appeal memorandum.

(2.) Brief facts of the prosecution case as per complaint averments (Ex.P-77) that, one Maylareppa (PW-5) is the complainant in this case. He lodged the complaint on 21.12.2004 before the Police Inspector, Karnataka Lokayukta, Haveri, wherein complainant has stated that, he is having landed property at Kancharagatti village in Haveri Taluka bearing R.S.No.80/5B-5, measuring 20 guntas and in the said landed property he has constructed house for their residence, so also he has constructed the shed abutting to the said house for cattle. He got constructed the said house one year prior to filing of the complaint and he has not taken any prior permission for construction, in that connection village elders told and advised to the complainant that, in order to construct the house he has to get land converted into the non- agricultural land and asked him to give the application to the Tahashildar office. Accordingly in order to get the 20 guntas of land in Sy.No.80/5B-5 into the non- agricultural land, complainant gave the application on 08.12.2004, along with the said application he has annexed the property extract, mutation entry and all other documents which are necessary in that connection. He personally met the sheristedar-Maydoor, that is the petitioner herein who is in-charge of the lands belonging to Kancharagatti village and when he enquired, at that time the accused No.1 questioned the complainant with whose permission he has constructed the house, he threatened him and asked him to pay Rs.2,000/- as bribe amount and he will prepare the file by putting a note for the conversion of the said land getting the signature of the Tahasildar and he will send it to the office of the Assistant Commissioner. At that time the complainant told the appellant herein that firstly it is to be converted into the non-agricultural land and thereafter he has to come and pay Rs.2,000/-. On 21.12.2014 morning at 11-30 p.m. complainant went to the Tahasildar office and he met Sheristedar-Maylareppa the appellant herein and he enquired with conversion of his land to non- agricultural land, at that time the appellant asked the complainant whether he brought the bribe amount of Rs.2,000/-, complainant in turn stated that, he has not brought it because he has to get the amount by presenting the cheque, for that the appellant herein told to the complainant that, he has to pay money and the appellant herein called one Mahadevappa/accused No.2 the clerk, who was working in the office of the accused No.1 and after talking with the appellant herein, directed the complainant to pay the bribe amount of Rs.2,000/- into the hands of Mahadevappa/accused No.2 and it is also told to the complainant that, in case he has not paid bribe amount, then the file for conversion of the non-agricultural land will not be sent to the office of the Assistant Commissioner. Accordingly the complainant met with Mahadevappa-accused No.2 and he also asked whether complainant has brought Rs.2,000/-, for that complainant told that, he has not brought and for that accused No.2- Mahadevappa stated to the complainant to immediately bring Rs.2,000/- and give it to him and then will they keep the file ready and he will send it. The complainant enquired with accused No.2 whether he has to pay any other fees and accused No.2 told that no other fee has to be paid for the present and told that at the time of KJP by the ADLR Office, they will issue the notice for conducting the survey at that time he has to pay the fees and after issuing notice from the Assistant Commissioner Office, then he has to pay the fees as ascertained and same will be paid later. As stated by accused No.1, accused No.2 told the complainant that he has to pay Rs.2,000/- of bribe amount, then they will keep the file ready and they will send it to the office of the Assistant Commissioner, then the complainant told that, he will bring the amount in the noon time and he returned back. As the complainant was not willing to pay the bribe amount to accused Nos.1 and 2 and in order to take legal action against both of them, he approached the Lokayukta Police stating that he has already brought the bribe amount.

(3.) Thereafter the Lokayukta police secured the panch witnesses, they have also registered the FIR the pancha witness were introduced to complainant then they all were explained about conducting the entrustment mahazar and accordingly entrustment mahazar was conducted in their presence as per Ex.P.1 and the Lokayukta Inspector explained about the chemical reaction of the phenolphthalein powder with sodium carbonate solution that it will turn into pink colour. Thereafter they all were instructed about their role to be played as mentioned in the entrustment mahazar Ex.P-1.