LAWS(KAR)-1999-4-10

THAMMANNA Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

Decided On April 08, 1999
THAMMANNA Appellant
V/S
STATE OF KARNATAKA Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) P. W. 9 Chandrakanth Bhandare who was the Police Inspector and Inspector of Lokayukta at the relevant time received an oral complaint from P. W. 4 Mounesh which was reduced into writing as per Ex. 9-12 alleging that P. W. 4 had registered his name in the employment Exchange, Raichur for the post of peon and in that connection he had approached this appellant on 19. 11. 93 to sponsor his name for the appointment of peon in the office of the Director, animal Husbandry, Raichur, and at that time the appellant demanded a bribe of Rs. 250/ -. PW. 9 obtained the signature of P. W. 4 and sent the FIR to the Court through the P. C. Siddaramappa P. W. 7 as per ex. P. 25. Immediately thereafter, he sent two requisitions - one to the RTO Office and another to the health office to depute its staff to be the witness for the raid as per Exs. P. 26 and P. 27. He introduced p. W. 4 the witnesses and read over the FIR to both the witnesses and the complainant which the complainant has admitted as having stated before P. W. 9 in the presence of witnesses. Thereafter, P. W. 9 prepared an entrustment panchanama and complainant had given rs. 200/- of Rs. 100/- denomination which were treated with phenolphthalein powder. He had also asked P. W. 5 Govindaraj to touch the notes and thereafter his hands were washed and he then instructed them as to how the money was to be paid to the appellant in the presence of P. W. 5 Govinda Raju. For that purpose a panchanama was drawn as per Ex. P. 18. Immediately thereafter, P. Ws. 4 and 5 went to the office where the appellant was working and at that time, the appellant asked as to whether he had brought the money and P. W. 4 answered in the affirmative. Immediatety he took p. Ws. 4 and 5 to the record room of the Employment Exchange where he was given two currency notes. The appellant received that amount and kept it in the handkerchief M. O. 5 and thereafter, P. W. 4 signalled as instructed by P. W. 9 and immediately they came and recovered the money from the floor of the room and they washed the notes m. O. 6. They also put a seal marked as 'aj' for purposes of identification marked as M. O. 7. The appellant also gave a statement as per Ex. P. 19. The engineer had prepared the spot mahazar. The seized articles were sent to the Chemical Examiner's office for report. After completing the investigation, he submitted the charge sheet in spl. Case No. 4/94 for the offences punishable under Sections 13 (1) (d) of The Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, (for short 'the act') on the file of the Sessions Judge, Raichur. The appellant has denied the charges levelled against him and claimed to be tried. Therefore, the prosecution has examined P. Ws. 1 to 9 and Exs. P-1 to P-34 and M. Os. 1 to 7 were marked. After assessing the evidence, the Court has come to the conclusion that the prosecution was able to prove the guilt of the appellant for the offence punishable under Section 7 and failed to prove the offence under Section 13 (1) (d ). Accordingly, he sentenced to undergo imprisonment for six months and to pay a fine of Rs. 200/- in default to undergo imprisonment for a period of 15 days. However, he was acquitted for the offence punishable under Section 13 (1) (d ). Being aggrieved by the Judgment, the appellant has preferred this appeal.

(2.) HEARD the learned Counsel for the appellant and the learned Addl. S. P. P. for the respondent.

(3.) AT the very outset the learned Counsel for the appellant submitted that the complainant himself has turned hostile and there is no evidence whatsoever to hold that the appellant has demanded and accepted bribe of Rs. 200/- on 19. 11. 93.