Karnataka High Court
State By Lokayuktha Police vs Dr K P Raju on 9 December, 2010
Author: N.Ananda
Bench: N.Ananda
IN THE HIGH coum' OF KARNATAKA AT ~.,
DATED Tms THE 09% DAY 01:' DECEMBLER "
BEFORE': >-
THE HONBLE I\/ER.J'US']E'iCI§..A_t\EZ23LN2XN:3A_
CRIMENAL APP'£a_g};L. No. 1'49/:»:oo4_
BETWEEN: * * -- -'
State by Lokayuktha Police. .j'.AP_}?EAI;LANT
[By Sri.S.G.Ra_jencIra Reddyirt; Advocate}u
AND: .
1. Dr.K.P.Raju.~, I , :
S/o late V.3Kris1h1'1ap.pa« Rain _V "
Aged 52 Years;=33=oVctor__--..__ »
District TB Cejntre " '
S£\f'fi
2. T.E{'.Aodp:nathV's1,2c.Ra::ia:;§;h_. .
X~1'ay..TechI1ici.a11"« _
SNR Hospital, Kola";
3,» 'li\j.Kf1s}1napp'a-V c _
- 8/ Q'Nagappa, 44"Y'ears
A ' 2 .. _1~e;m,..s.a\;R..Hosp;ta1, Kolar. .. RESPONDENTS
._{B"yM$fi'.§:R.E\Ln'sfinakun1ar. Advocate for R-1, Sri.K.M.Rajanna 81
Associates;'Advocates for R-2 [absent], R~3--Appea1 abated vicie
Court oi'der4-'dat.ec1 25.1 1.2010.)
x "iTf1is appeal is filed under sections 378(1} ('SI {3} Cr.P.C to
grant Ieave to file an appeal against the judgment dated
"}..7._C7.2003 passed by the Principal Sessions Judge, Kolar in
jC.C.No. 10/ E998, acquitting the respondents/ accused for oflences
punishable under sections '7. 13[_1]{d} 1'/w section 13(2) of the
" Prevention of Corruption Act. 1988.
This appeal coming on for final hearing this day, the Court
delivered the following: .
J U D G M E N T
The State by Lokayukta Police has filed--- against acquittal of accused l to_.3~€o_r under sections 7, 13{1)(d] r/w APrer/e1tt'iofiiV/oi' Corruption Act, 1988 [for sho_rt;....'the _ On 25.] 1.20t'acceptlin'g "the memo reporting the death of acc1ise'd'll\io.3.._a1ic:1.on. perusal of death certificate. '~«.No.'3;V...co11finned by the learned counselbakayukta has recorded abatement of appeal vrelates'._to~.aIccused No.3. Therefore, this appeal asiit relates to"accused 1 ('St 2 survives for consideration. ' bvriefgthe case of prosecution is as fo1lows:~ the year 1997, accused l\Io.1~Dr.K.P.Raju was A in--charge of District Tuberculosis centre, S.N.R.Hospital at 9' *_Kjo1ar. Accused No.2wT.R.Gopinath was working as a laboratory (x~ray] technician. On 01.01.1997, CW1~ Munivenkatappa (since deceased], who was suffering from tuberculosis. approached accused No.1 for treatment. Accused No.1 demanded illegal gratification of from CW1 to give proper treatment to him. In fL1i'tl1e1_~anee_.V such demand, accused 2 8: 3 accepted illegalgratiiication of, Rs.350/-- from CW1 not only on behalf also on their behalf.
3. The learned tria1.Judge------haps.ae.quitteda.ccu'sed 1 to 3 by recording following'iin_dings:3-Wi] There uispdnot against accused 1 1'egaifdi1'1_g- and-.acce_ptance of illegal gratification. Theredisno docuinenétarpvevidence to prove that CW1 was sufie1"i.ng fro'mV_dtuVberdculosis and he had visited T.B.centre in atkolar on 01.01.1997. There is no evidence and acceptance of bribe by accused ri«o.2.,__* sanction accorded by the Government of n to prosecute accused 2 & 3 is invalid. 114.1 I have heard Sri S.G.Rajendra Reddy, learned counsel. 1 appearing for appellant / Lokayukta and Sri ;\?. x g'.=\. "L cc "4 S.R.Krishnakumar, learned counsel for accused. I have been taken through evidence and judgment.
5. It is not in dispute and i{V«,:_a;:--a;1ot be accused No.2 was Working as_a..pLabora..to1'3.r p'1'_eci'mVi.c'ian and he was a group 'C' e-rnploy&ee'.' Ac-coi=ding to"Rule 7 of the Karnataka Civil Services _(t;'lassifl:catioVrr;»Control and Appeal] Rules, 1957,«_fai1_ Vlvaplpointtnuents the State Civil Services _sliall:ioeV made by the authorities menigionedxoffSchedules H and HI of said Rules. Of if
6. _V On flp'er_:Vusal.'--ofcolumn (2) of Schedules II & HI of the Rules. 1 'firid""that Head of the institution is the "'asppo1:m::;ng" a_u':hority for technical course in Group 'C' services'. O " 1'.
" _lr'; the case on hand. Head of the institution is the .Vi:)fis'i1"i.ct Medical Officer of S.N.R.Hospital at Kolar. The V';Dist1*ict Medical Officer of the said hospital has not accorded
- 5 sanction to prosecute accused No.2. 'l'l1erefore,:
accorded by the Under Secretary to the Department, by order and in the'-nairi_eV"lol Karnataka cannot. be termed as to accused No.2. b A
7. On perusal of J"ey.idence' to find that none of them had ffilresence of accused No.1 when, in Tuberculosis Centre atitaclfied'- at Kolar. Therefore, there is riot an AViota.--«.._o'f.evidence [against accused No.1. In the circuIns._tan.ce's',=. Vthe of learned trial Judge that prolsecyution'-has 'not'adduced any evidence against accused not callior interference.
*8, . '"'.lhe rfirosecution in order to prove its case against a;ccus'ed-No.2 has relied on the evidence of PW} to PW6. The _ Vfirst'=-informant namely G3/Iunivenkatappa, from whom it 'aceused 1 to 3 are alleged to have demanded and accepted bribe died during pendency of case before trial Court. 54K?' -x. L\ ~L~{6L\ 3 r 6 Therefore, first informant could not be examinedheiorieitriai Court. d d d V
9. The evidence of documents produced by him visited tuberculosis centre :'atVV':£v{oiar'Vjeither' on 31.05.1995 or onvoi.V.o1. d it
10. The evidence of relates to preparations pddmade Inspector of Lokayiikta.pfjoiicdefirjito trap accusedz. PW2 was also one of the memb_ers'_of' has deposed: after necessary preparati'ons=Wer_e in the office of Lokayukta poiice; b:e3twe__e:n __1.3Oa"p;n.1,._.and 2.30 p.m., on 01.01.1997, raiding ' entered the premises of S.N.R.I-Iospita}. at " instructed to meet accused and hand over bribzei' if is demanded by accused; PW5 instructed PW3 to it it 'accompany CW1 to observe as to what would transpire hetween CW1 and accused: PW2. PW8, PW5 and other ' members of raiding party took positions in UI}Cf€fI1iS€S of m.
he 7 S.N.R.I~£ospital at Kolar; CW1 entered the -.01"
S.N.R.Hospital; after some time, CW1 came pre~det.ern1ined signal t.o PW5;
by PW5 entered the hospital and' feijfid holding currency notes in tainted ' V currency notes froifn .' «hand liconducted phenolphthalein test hands of accused 2 & 3 in sepayateihowls sodium carbonate solution. re:_sLu.1ta1'j1.t__&\'2iiash--.j'tu'i*ned'"into pink colour. The resupltahnit'exafashdiiats "'coa1'1-ect;ed""in"' separate bottles and the same"was_ sea.led:.," '2 . V' _ V' Atdthis'junctu:'e;'~.i~t is relevant to state that PW2 has r.io't:.de_pos_ed ahout...presence of accused No.1 at the time and ' ;.p1acew_o£' PW2 has not deposed about seizure of tainted '' .cuf1'ency;'ejnotes from accused 2 & 3. PW2 has not deposed aloout"p1ace at which accused 2 & 3 were arrested. PW2 has it not deposed that currency notes seized from possession of Ahgacdcuscd 2 & 3 were tainted currency notes. PW2 has not " deposed that the Investigating Officer (PW5) had noted was numbers found on tainted currency notes if:.>"pffe.gt1"ap mahazar prepared in the Office of Iaokayukia has not deposed; after seizure Vof"'t'ainte--'_r;l cufI'e'11cyvnote.5, ' numbers found on those notes with the rlurnbers foL1nVci~.4:_"011p taint__ed llnotes' mentioned in pre--trap ifnahaz-art: h i
11. PW3--S.N.Krishnan}t1tth3;'lfivhoblzpaéi'.8/§;companied CW1 during trap vdepc-Zsedgl S.N.R.Hospital at Koiarh-'the'-_,r__ accused No.2 was in X» ray itoom; C\'}'i1--«..g'axre"money to accused No.2; immediately, police carne th'e.re"~.a1:d""took. accused No.2 to adjacent room; at ;rhat time;-accused 1 & 3 were in separate rooms; hands 2 were washed in two separate bowls conta.ining Vsodium carbonate solution; the resultant wash Atu__1*nevd pink colour; the resultant wash was collected in A two ..separate bottles and the same was sealed. PW3 has not it 'deposed that accused No.2 had demanded and accepted bribe from CW1. PW3 has not deposed about presence of accused No.1. PW3 has not deposed that CW1 gave bribe to 5%, x. J?/L accused No.3 also. PW3 has not deposed about CW1 gave to accused No.2, so also to accL1sed*.<'1<Io.0d.:Vp:.
12. The evidence of PW4-S11ahn1§arapp«a.B' material discrepancies. 1' 1 1 A. 1
13. PW5~A.N.Swarny (lnvestiéatingx 111.asv111de1posediV on 01.01.1997 at came to the Office of Lokayukta lodged first iraforniationg ' 1 pp * fl4PW5 has admitted that on 01.01'.¢I'1§397V had sent a memo to secure PW2 and PW3"'as Witnvesdses.'
0. Thus, Axdidrev evidence of PW5 is not consistent. The 1 ?~V';f11'S_t"i.I11:01f1'fl.0l1OI'1 was lodged at 1.30 p.m., on 01.01.1997. It .1Ais"tnottrnde£'standab1e as to how PW5 had sent a memo to securewitnesses PW2 81 PW3 at 10 a.m., on 01.01.1997. VPW5 has deposed; after making necessary preparations to trap the accused, they reached the hospital; CW1 & PW3 were sent to meet accused; after some time, CW1 carne out
31.). (ix x 4/\ 10 and gave pre-determined signal to PW5; when-«jPi7lZ'5:"a,nd other members of raiding party entered told PW5 that accused No.2 had received .:'iiég'aii ' of Rs.5()/~ from him; at that time' company of accused No.2:
had received illegal gratificati_o.n:A'of Rs_V.L30.(.)l/'"~ when PW5 enquired about No.3 informed PW5 that acetigpd N9'; with some body on a scooter he _v«}aVs n.ot: hospital. PW5 has deposed' lllfiiienlotnhthaleintest conducted by him by dippinglthe of accused No.2 in separate bowls conitaiiiingsodiurril carbonate solution. already stated, CW1 died during pendency of trial . hie'-«cou:Id.--:not be examined. Elven first information does not in'sp.ireAconfidence. In the first information, it is stated x that 31.05.1996, CW1 had visited Tuberculosis Centre in V' ~S=l\l.R.Hospit;al at Kolar. After taking x-ray, it was confirmed F that he was suffering from tuberculosis. At that time, accused No.1 demanded iiiegai gratification of Rs.200/» to E <~iC\« is give medical treatment, to CW1. in the first. information it is stated that on 01.01.1997 i.e.. after a period Vvoflseven months, again CW1 visited S.N.R.Hospita_l;""'¢Xzy*.l._:_ accused No.3, who took him to accused..._:N.o. accused No.1 demanded CW1 to:;'give_,_illeg2;l 'gr'at.ificatgion.v Rs.200/-- for himself, illegalfl gratiificatiori .'asZ5o}/§'t:§"'.g accused No.2 and illegal gratification of--t§o accused No.3. 9
16. As already Stated.' the prosecution do not es_tatA5vlis'i:~«wtl'i&1;g had visited S.N.R.Hospita1 either on 31.05., .1996 orbs' o4i":Qi'.'i997. If CW1 was suffering from l;1,1'[):E"I'"C31,_1lOSllS on_l3 1996, it is not made clear as to where taking treatment for tuberculosis during period .Q'5..lvi 996 and 01.01. 1997.
in. View of highly discrepant. evidence adduced by Avprosecution, it is hardly possible to hold that accused Nos.1 had demanded and accepted illegal gratification of we ..~Rs.350/-- from CW} to give medical t'reat'.rner:3.o him. The A: .
"x x 5/'\- x T12 learned trial Judge on proper appreciation of eyid:e'11cec..V}:.as acquitted accused I to 3. I do not find ar.i_f interfere with the impugned judgm'eI1't-.. '
18. Accordingly, the appeal is --. , et3L}'DGE SNN