SHRIPAD Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellant/accused has filed this appeal under Sec. 374(2) of Crimial P.C. challenging the judgment passed in Spl.(Lok) C. No.6/2004 dated 26.07.2010 on the file of the Court of Special Judge at Haveri convicting the appellant herein for the offences punishable under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) read with Sec. 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (for short, 'the Act') and sentenced him to undergo simple imprisonment for one year and to pay a fine of Rs.2,500.00, in default to pay the fine amount, he shall undergo further simple imprisonment for three months. The Court below also sentenced him to undergo simple imprisonment for two years and to pay fine of Rs.3,000.00, for the offence punishable under Sec. 13(1)(d) read with Sec. 13(2) of the Act, in default to pay fine of Rs.3,000.00, he shall undergo simple imprisonment for further period of four months. The Court below also invoked Sec. 13(2) of the Act. for setoff, if he was in custody. Being aggrieved by the judgment of conviction and sentence, the appellant has preferred this appeal.

(2.) The factual matrix of the case is that the appellant herein was working as a Village Accountant in Haveri. During 2004, the complainant had filed an application to enter the name of himself, his brother, mother and sisters in respect of the property bearing RS No.245/1-B/2-B, Plot No.17 and 18, Haveri since the father of the complainant died and hence, the application was filed which was pending for transfer of Katha, and that the sisters of the complainant had relinquished their rights in the property.

(3.) The case of the prosecution is that the appellant herein has demanded illegal gratification of Rs.5,500.00 as bribe in order to do the official favour for change of mutation of the names of the complainant and his family members, hence, he has lodged the complaint. Based on the complaint, case has been registered and after following due procedure, trap was laid and tainted money was recovered at the instance of this appellant and after completion of investigation, charge sheet has been filed. The prosecution in order to prove the charges relied upon the evidence of PW1 to 12 and got marked Exs.P1 to P37 and also marked MOs 1 to 21. The Court below after hearing both sides, passed the impugned judgment of conviction and sentence.