STATE OF KARNATAKA Vs. NAGESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard the learned Special Public Prosecutor for the appellant-complainant and also the learned counsel for the respondent-accused, on admission.

(2.) Learned Special Public Prosecutor submits that though P.W.1-complainant was treated as hostile witness, when the Public Prosecutor was permitted to cross-examine him, in the cross-examination he has stated that there was a demand made by the accused for the bribe amount of Rs. 500/- from the complainant. As per the evidence of P.W.1, he went inside the office of the accused and kept the bribe amount of Rs. 500/- on the table. Thereafter, when he gave signal to the trap party, they all came inside the office of the accused and at that time amount was not on the table. As such, he submits that an inference is to be drawn that it is the accused who took the amount and kept it in the pant pocket and this fact is also ascertained from the FSL report. Insofar as the contention that both the hand wash of the accused was taken in a separate bowl and the solution turned into pink colour, it is his submission that it is wrongly mentioned that left hand wash was done and it turned into pink colour. He submits that the right hand wash was done in the sodium carbonate solution and it turned into pink colour, which shows that accused received the bribe amount and even the wash of inner portion of the pant pocket was taken, which also turned into pink colour. Hence, he submits that if the accused never demanded and received the bribe amount, there was no reason for the right hand wash to turn into pink colour. He submits that even P.W.5, the shadow witness, has deposed that he accompanied the complainant to the office of the accused, then the complainant went inside and he stood outside the office. As such, the contention of the complainant going inside the office of the accused is also supported by the evidence of shadow witness P.W.5. Hence, in view of the FSL report and the oral evidence of P.Ws.1, 5 and other witnesses who were the trap party, the trial Court has wrongly observed in its order that the prosecution has failed to establish the demand and acceptance of the bribe amount. He submits that when the amount is recovered from the possession of the accused, presumption under Section 20 of the Prevention of Corruption Act is to be drawn, which was not done by the trial Court. Learned Special Public Prosecutor referring to the impugned order of acquittal passed by the Court below submitted that there is a case to be tried by this Court in this appeal and accordingly, submitted to admit the appeal.

(3.) Per-Contra, learned counsel for the respondentaccused submits that the first element of payment of bribe amount itself is not established with cogent and worth believable material by the prosecution. He also refers to the oral evidence of P.W.1-complainant and P.W.5-shadow witness and submits that there are lot of inconsistencies in their evidence and does not support the case of the prosecution regarding the demand and acceptance of bribe amount. He drew the attention of this Court to the relevant portion of the evidence of P.Ws.1 and 5 and other witnesses and submits that the trial Court has properly appreciated both oral and documentary evidence and rightly come to the conclusion in holding that prosecution has failed to prove the demand and acceptance of bribe amount by the accused. Hence, submitted that there is no case to be tried by this Court and there is no merit in the appeal. Hence, it is to be rejected at the stage of admission.