STATE OF KARNATAKA Vs. C.LASUMANAIK

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is preferred by the appellant-State being aggrieved by the Judgment and Order, dated 18.06.2015, passed in Spl. (Lokayukta) Case No.3/2008, by the learned District and Sessions Judge and Special Judge (Lokayukta), Haveri, whereby the learned Special Judge has acquitted the accused - the respondent herein.

(2.) Respondent/accused herein was chargesheeted for the alleged offences punishable under Sections 7, 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. The Trial Court framed the charge as against the respondent/accused for the said offences. The prosecution examined, in all, 11 witnesses as P.Ws.1 to 11, produced the documents Exs.P.1 to P.45 and also got marked material objections M.Os.1 to 9 and closed its side. On the side of the defence, D.Ws.1 and 2 were examined and three documents were got marked as Exs.D.1 to D.3. After considering the materials placed on record, both oral and documentary, ultimately, the learned Special Judge acquitted the accused of the charges leveled against him. Being aggrieved by the said judgment and order of acquittal passed by the Trial Court, the State is before this Court in this appeal.

(3.) Brief facts of the case of the prosecution, as per the complaint averments, are that during the year 2007, the accused/respondent was working as Junior Project Officer in the Urban Development Authority, Haveri. The complainant, who is the owner of house bearing Plot No.3317/C/27 situated at Daneshwari Extension, Haveri, wanted to put up construction of first floor and, in this regard, he had made an application to the City Municipal Council, Haveri. The CMC, Haveri, had forwarded the said application to the Urban Development Authority, Haveri, on 23.08.2007. The complainant, having realised that his application was not attended to by the Authority in spite of lapse of six months, met accused on 06.12.2007. On meeting the accused, he demanded Rs.2,000/- by way of illegal gratification from the complainant and asked the complainant to come few days later. The complainant approached the Lokayukta Police, Haveri, on 10.12.2007 and to ascertain the correctness of the allegation, a voice recorder was given to the complainant to record the conversation. Thereafter, the demand of illegal gratification was recorded in voice recorder and a complaint was lodged against the accused. On going to the office of the accused, the complainant and the shadow witness waited till evening. On contacting the accused over his mobile phone, they were asked to wait till evening near the office of the accused. On the evening of 10.12.2007, the accused came on his motorcycle. P.W.1 followed the accused and told the accused that he waited for the accused till evening and at that time accused asked P.W.1 whether money was brought. P.W.1 told that he had brought Rs.1,500/-. The said money was received by accused, who kept the same in his pant pocket. The further story of the prosecution is that, after receipt of the said amount of Rs.1,500/-, the trap was conducted and the amount of Rs.1,500/- was recovered from the possession of the respondent/accused in the presence of panch witnesses, then phenolphthalein test was conducted by taking the hand wash of the respondent/accused and when the right hand washed in sodium carbonate solution, the solution turned into pink colour, whereas on the left hand wash, the solution did not turn into pink colour. A trap mahazar under Ex.P.3 was also drawn. The explanation of the respondent/accused was asked and he offered his explanation that the said money was forcibly thrusted into his pocket by the complainant.