S SIDDARAMEGOWDA Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE appellant has challenged his conviction and sentence for the offences punishable under Ss. 7, 13 (l) (d) r/ w. Sec. 13 (2) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (hereinafter called as 'the Act') on a trial held by the Special Judge at Shimoga.

(2.) SANS unnecessary details the prosecution version unfolded during the trial is as under: pw-1 Shekarappa, is a retired employee of VISL factory, Bhadravathi. He obtained voluntary retirement on 30th September, 1992. After his retirement, the Tahsildar, bhadravathi has granted site No. 148, measuring 30' x 60' under Ashraya scheme in Sy. Nos. 11 and 14 in Hunasekatte village in the name of his wife, vide order dated 18-2-1993. In the year 1994 he constructed a house in the said site and was residing in the said house along with his family. In the year 1995, the electricity connection was given. Thereafter, in the year 1996 he received the notice from the Assistant Engineer in the name of his wife calling upon her to produce the map to show that his house is situated within the gramtana (village layout) of Hunasekatte and if it is within the limits concession regarding the electric pole charges, would be given. Accordingly, on 15-2-1996, the complainant went to the office of the Tahsildar and requested to issue the layout sketch pertaining to site No. 148 and submitted an application in this regard. The copy has been produced at ex. P. 1. He went to the office of the Tahsildar on 8 to 10 occasions and met the accused, the case worker who by putting forth lame excuses was postponing the issue of the copy. Ultimately on 22-5-1996 at about 12. 30 p. m. he went to the office and approached the accused and again requested for the copy: The accused told the complainant that he is a person to get the work done without payment and asked him to pay Rs. 150/-, so that he would do the work. The complainant agreed for the same, but had no mind to pay unlawful remuneration. In the circumstances, the complain-ant approached P. W. 8, the police inspector, lokayuktha on 23-5-1996 at about 11. 45 a. m. and submitted the written complaint, Ex. P. 4 and it came to be registered by P. W. 8 in Crime no. 4/96. He sent the complaint, Ex. P. 4 and the FIR, Ex. P. 13 in a sealed cover to the special Court. P. W. 8 made a request to the officer of the regional Transport Authority and the KGID to send an official from their office and P. W. 2 arrived from the office of the Regional transport Authority and P. W. 4 from the kgid office at 12. 40 p. m. and he introduced them to the complainant. He also informed the facts as stated by P. W. 1 and secured three notes of Rs. 50/- denomination from the complainant and prepared the mahazar mentioning the number of notes and its denominations and as per his instructions the staff smeared the phenolphthalein powder and after preparation of sodium carbonate liquid kept it in a sealed bottle and instructed P. W. 4, Suresh to touch the notes which were smeared with the phenolphthalein powder and kept them on the table. The fingers of P. W. 4 were washed in the liquid and it turned into pink colour. He retained the said liquid in a bottle, Ex. No. 2 and after completing the formalities sealed the articles (M. Os. 1 and 2) by use of a seal. He instructed the accused about the consequences of handling the phenolphthalein smeared notes and washing the fingers in the liquid. The notes were given to the complainant who kept them in his pocket and was asked to give the same to the accused on demand. He also instructed the complainant to come out of the office after giving the money on demand and to give a signal by wiping his face. He also gave instruction to P. W. 2, the shadow witness to observe the conversation. Thereafter all the persons including the staff and others washed their hands. The mahazar, Ex. P. 5 was held with regard to these proceedings and after explaining the contents of the mahazar, P. W. 1 and Selviraj signed the said mahazar. On the same day, at 2. 45 p. m. P. W. 8 along with the two witnesses, the complainant and the staff went to the office at 3. 15 p. m. They stopped the jeep in Hanumanthanagar extension and P. Ws. 1 and 2 were sent to the office of the accused. P. W. 4 and P. W. 8 and the staff were standing near the office and at about 3. 35 p. m. when they came in front of the office, the complainant came out and gave the signal as instructed and immediately P. Ws. 8 and 4 approached him and after questioning p. W. 1, he told that the accused demanded the amount of Rs. 150/- and he paid the same. They went to the accused wherein P. W. 8 disclosed his identity and introduced the witnesses and informed about the registration of the crime against the accused, who admitted the acquaintance of the complainant and thereafter, asked the accused to produce the notes given by the complainant and the accused in-turn took out the amount of Rs. 150/- and produced the same from his shirt pocket. P. W. 2 stated about the demand and also as to what happened at the time when the accused received the money. He prepared the sodium carbonate liquid in two bottles, as per articles 3 and 4 and the left hand fingers of the accused were washed in the liquid in article No. 3 and it did not turn into pink colour. The right hand fingers were washed in the liquid contained in bottle under article No. 4. It converted into pink colour. The liquid of the hand wash was kept in the bottle at article Nos. 3 to 5. He seized them and pasted the labels. The notes produced were the same which were given by the complainant and he mentioned the said notes in the mahazar and kept the said notes in a cover (M. O. 6) and M. O. 7 are the notes. The accused gave his shirt as instructed and his left side pocket of the shirt was washed in the sodium carbonate liquid which also turned into pink colour. He sealed the same and marked as article No. 7 (M. O. 8 ). The shirt of the accused was also seized and numbered as article No. 8 (M. O. 9 ). On interrogation, the accused stated that he told the complainant that the surveyor is on the leave and that he has come to the office today and asked the complainant to come after two days and that the complainant stated that some amount may be paid to the Surveyor for tea, he refused to receive the same and the complainant kept the money on the table and went away. P. W. 8 recorded his statement. P. Ws. 1 and 2 told that the statement made by the accused is false. P. W. 8 secured the file pertaining to the application of the complainant and found the application of the complainant, the copy of which has been produced at ex. P. 1. He obtained the xerox copy and got it certified by P. W. 5. He seized Exs. P. 10 and 11, the registers which were certified by p. W. 5 and arrested the accused and released on bail. After following the other procedures, he prepared mahazar, Ex. P. 8 and gave the seal to P. W. 2 asking him to produce it before the Court. He seized M. Os. 3 to 9 under the said mahazar. He recorded the statements of the witnesses and a letter to the office and obtained the xerox copy of the property extract of the site of P. W. 1 at Ex. P. 7. He sent the seized articles to the forensic experts through the constable and secured the service particulars of the accused as per Ex. P. 16. He also seized the notice received by the wife of the complainant at Ex. P. 2 and also other documents pertaining to the supply of electricity, ex. P. 3 and the letter of the Assistant executive Engineer, Ex. P. 17. He received the FSL report, Ex. P. 18 and secured the sketch of the scene of occurrence, Ex. P. 20 from the PWD authorities. On completion of the investigation, he filed the charge sheet against the accused. During the trial, the prosecution examined p. Ws. 1 to 9 and in their evidence got marked the documents, Ex. P. 1 to P. 23 and M. Os. 1 to 9. The statement of the accused was recorded under S. 313, Cr. P. C. He has taken the defence of total denial and has not led any defence evidence. The trial Court on appreciation of the material on record, convicted the appellant for the offence punishable under Ss. 7, 13 (l) (d)r/w. Sec. 13 (2) of the Act and ordered the accused/appellant to undergo simple imprisonment for six months and to pay fine of Rs. 1,000/- for the offence punishable under S. 7 of the Act and simple imprisonment for one year and to pay fine of Rs. 1,000/- for the offence punishable under S. 13 (l) (d) r/w. Sec. 13 (2) of the Act. Aggrieved by the conviction and the sentence, the accused has ap-proached this Court in appeal.

(3.) I have heard the learned counsel for the appellant and the respondent.