Karnataka High Court
H M Nanjaiah vs State By Lokayuktha P S on 16 March, 2011
{',irl_17'x "E :3 l8,f'{}4§
EN "i"'E--{I42 E"-.H.GIE'"§ CCELEEQT OF §{ARN.ATAKA Xi" 8AE'v:'G2'~"&_.-i3R§i
DA'§.'E;I:} "YE-'fIS TE-:I.I§ 2.6?" DAY OF' MARCFE 202 1 .
BE:';F'O RE
'm:~: 1~»z0N"'1'3L1<«: E\/ERA} Ej'S'I'1C£%1 ms.PAC:--11»-iA1%fi:2:§_' .
CRIMINAL, APPEEAL NO. 1.318 0z«'_2o04jj »
EBETWEZEN
HM. NANJAIAI»-'1,
S/O. HM. SIDDALMGAIAE-»:,
AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS, --
SECOND DWISION sURV£::Y0R,«VA4""' - _'
OFFICE OF THE Ass£sTAmj<--DI1I~:EQTo1«§'._. _
OF'LA1\}I)RECORI)S§
SAGARV SEEM-{Q6-A D§ST'£{I{Tl.'V. .. A;PP'E1Z§,L;5.1'€"i';'S
[BY SR3. J.M. UME§:~jg3:iA M?-.}R'T}i'i}, AI).:V;:) =
AND
STATE I3Y'§,OI{AY'L}.§{T}:i;A P;-.;..~=:_.;=
CHITRADURQA, _ _ *
REPRESENTEI) BY .
STA'1TF*3¢PULBLIC PRQSEC L"I'OR,
" *~;ADV"-QCATE G~ENERAI;"{)P"E"ECI:L
Hr«:;H COURT? B~1J1.LD'1NG:
V' B;"xNC§ALO},_§E..-- 3: " . M RESPONDENT/S
grégrsiél. S,G';?'jR§;JraNI)RA REDDY, ADM]
=%$He'=3§'-=5!
n .-..f1"=;~II'5 CREMENAL. A.PPE3AL IS FELEZD UNEDEZR SE:CT"IO'£\J 374(2)
E->.<;_«. BY THEE AEDVQCATEZE FOR Tfiffii A§'PELLAE.\E'I' AGAI}'~E'S'§' THE
~_J'L';::s<,-e1x;1§::N1' DT. $8.04 PASSED BY THE i)1S'FRICT AND 3.3"
' ;Z)A?\:'ANAG£3RE, E';'~E SP1}. .LOK¢C¢NO.3f2000_CONV1CTING THE',
.. £%--.I'5'PEZ§,1AN7I'jACCUSED ma '1';-31:; 0:»-'Fszzxéatzgs 1223133.? AND
9 <::~:..A 1.328,/04
i3fI}{d) Rfw 13:23 or: 'm.:«: I3I{§1V'EiNT£ON 0? CORRUPTION Ac';
ANS SENTEZNCENG HIM TO UE\}§)¥ZRC:O RA, FOR 1 '&"I:'<3AR AND Ha:
is ALSO LLEXBLE *§o PAY A F'Ii\EI:'§ SF' 9.8.5000/~ QR 1.1).. T0
UNDEZRGQ 3.1. FOR 3 MONTHS 1v:'0'R1«: ma AN OF"P* EE\ICE
P/{J/S.7 or? TE-{E PREZVENTION OP' CORRUE3T'EOE\E 4A{:*§_ AND
FURTHER SENFPZNCING EiI£\:'i TO UNDERGO R.I. mp. 2"-<sf'E:A:;2s
AND FEE IS ALSO L-IABLE TO PAY A FINE 0%' Rs.7,5;0"G';'~~.,'[email protected]"133:;%
TC) UNDERGO 8.1 FOR 6 }\r'£OI\§T}~I'S MORE F'OR--'..:ANVOF'i?EI~5Cf3,"~
P/U/S.£3(1){d] R/W 13(2) 01? THE PREV__'E3'N"i'IQi\§_ QR. '
CORRUPTION ACT. IT IS FURTHER QRE)£§.REI} *1';:~;A':*..Bo'm;.'r1::iE '
SENTENCES SHALL RUN c0NcURRE;v'r;;g W11:-iji £§AC_E-1 ~€;}7f_'HB}R.f
'm1's CRIMINAL AI>p'13A1,cQ_MiNG".9N FQ1.:=,€5zg£>§zRs_;';
BAY, THE COURT DE;LIv'r£RE;:) ~'HQ1.LO*A_%II\:ri;;T
h'
The elppeilami hés I _ conviction and
sentence for the Qfikzxgce 7 and 13(1)
(d) readwiih :'é<V'3rruptAioI1 Act, 1988
Ehereinziiffgez" A for -Short].
2. Sans ufi'ne€::3'ssa r3z details, the QTOSCCLIUOB Vf3i'S'§O"1"l
V unfoidgjéd dL11*ingV"Lh_§_:utriaI.is as under:
'£'.h.é ,ap$'r3312:n%; Efiffiifi is 2: S€'3C€?~i1i'j Division Asgistam
vL5o.:}.{i._1f;g; i11: £_.h_<j3 of the Assistam. Director of Land .Rec,o'rcis
V V' _ {he;'é'i'"r:afi--ef cziiied as the 'ADLR' ibr short). Davzmagere. It is
$11.. 2L}--O7'Ai.995 at z1b0L1'{. 7.00 p.m., it is clainied that the
" A.acci;::;ed denaarzded an 8;.I11{3'L1F1[ of R3500/-A at his; re$i.denr::e as
A /
5 (>2: .
§.==
CELA §3l€?§f{}z§~
1Z.1.IegaI g:jra1'i,:if§{it2iI§§.e:1 235:; a z."z10"£§ve. G3' I"€3'9..-'£il;'(§ frerrz the crempfziirzant.
from Maheshwanzppa. for iestxiztg the Survey :'s1~:eteh ef L:1_r1d
ef the »::en"1pEa.i:1a1"1t meas-sured and it is on
3.35 p.m. it is aiiegeci that the accused den1a:nd_er}, '
an amount of R3500/- as itiegal §§t'£1ti§;;it(?aE.it;tf1':iIi'.tHf:A :3ffi(;e'
ADLR. Davanagere for issuirtg the _sket.eit.Ao'f--t.he I2.r}.d}i1eaei;,11"e:§.
and thereby, 1'1avI':1g e0mmi1It.ed efE'e11ee"p:if1i3'haEgEe under
Section 37' 0!" the Act and haying e~.:{{,»'rz'imit.tec"£ eritninal mis
Conduct under Section 13 (1) the Act.
The })rose_ci;tiC--§i1._o -establish examined PW. 1.
the complainant, ':'§?'W,2 itSh3fi(3\?&?i't\A7iL:§1€SS, PWS.3 and 4 the
officials of the_AD£;R.__c5flice«._é£t..._13a\?az1agere, PW6 an attesting
witness, }?W'...6e, initially paid. an amount of
Rs. 1.00/5' tq the aee'us:ed'V'.at.the request of the complainant,
the t=§i1"'iee.r.¢_ who giented the sanction to prosecute the
appei.'Lgmi.t; :8 :1:';_TELngineer who drew the sketch of the scene
' of ee<§z:.1fre:";ee I-"W.9 the Police Inspeeter. After rrecorciing
" ste1te'mei'1t. the trial Court" eomricted the appellant.
by the <:c:3m»"ietien and Sentence this appeal is tiled.
' .3, I have heard the I.earned courzssel for both the partiee.
/2
xx
CrE.A 'E3i.8/O4
4». The perzzsat of 'size evide1'1ee of PWL1 reveals-; that
;'.z1E[.1'a§1y an appIi.<:21ti.c)z'1 was flied by him to the A.I)Ej«Z'd _fb:j ihtif
purpose of 5,-;t11*veyi11g his ianci on 8.6.1995. He a1pp'2*aé1jc:h_}_e'.d' the
accruseol 0:": 1.71985 and the1"eafi.e1", L116 2:1eeti$~--r:.ci'--.i.§3&s;1ed'~a__
notice on 13.7.1985 fixing the n1e2'tSL1re:1'1e:T!_ <31" --t_1f.V1:3:.VVlVz3,:1'1'duV_{3V'i1
2'7f7.1995., it is '1ih€1'(3Eifi.€I' 011 1.8.1995 t,i1_e SL1{f"'5'§'YTQ"I'
Sur°vey of the Land sL1bn'zitted a £"e_f§(2r'L wit}1._é_.'1t1.;?§p éindmon 0.1-
()9~1.995, when PW .1 had~..gfl<)11eV"i£$ dE'E§._ee, edteged that
the accused demanded ~. In these
Circ'u171star1Ces_. :.vil1l§ the Lokayukta
bgiice on complaint EXP. 1. It is at
that 1%;-;.::a1c'c};1V'-mt; de'u;'1-'ev11cy note of R3500/» and
e_nt,1'ust:1VVé;er1t oh that day. Instr'ueti0r1s were
given to thet4_ec):;;;:$1aitiaiét.:'éi_sto what he has to do with the
shadow ".'.'f"71;11f3SVS'-.?Jt'IiCi"i1'1 What circumstances, the amount is 10
be p33d~ tp._i,1';.e ace1ise*d"aV.nd accordingiy. after the emmstment
d"--.ma:191g;,:car--v offieiais went, to the office of the accused
om the accused wzzs not in the house on that
r
1 /
day the ufap wébis not sucieessihl.
5 CI"},A €3.18,/O4
5. U%i,in121i,e1y, 0:: 3}.8.I995, the c<3m;}1.a:*112:11t, met {he
e1eez:sec§ again cm. which day-', the accuses} insésieted fer" i4}fs;e§3ribe
arrzourzi ei' I?-Es5S€)O,/~ and the eampliazai. ha1vi.:'1g as;su1"'ed'-f':§;a_fi§ay
the amouzli: approached the L::)I>:ayuk'£.a P'o1i'ee Vageii-Ii"
1.9.1985. 80 as ceuld be seen fI"O1'1'1.:?fih{3-€Vid'e'n§jVePi7\/?.--!.1; he
states in his evidence that the note x£;*hic%:hTi;§?as >;in_i tja_1i;;
with Phenolphihaiein powder vL§kayL.{1;':a~V Ej'0Iice'"
and on 1.9.1995, they gave f;'heV_.sajr1:.e"nQt<a afidv._thei'eafter. it
was in his pocket: and later, §3.ai(:*{the"afin.eunt to the accused
in the c)ffiee on the same 'i'r{'th.e' ;n1:aQ:: Iaeafrs.
that the hate 'iyjzifialiy ftaken on 2.81995 was given
back to PE/V7.9 states that the
e0mp}.a.ignar1I. bre'Lzght' note and the trap was done' Sea the
pemgsal o.f'7t'he"' evidence of PWs.1 and 9 reveal a serious and
ri1;1tes:_:i.aI ai:.1em1Sisfie:Vf1ey, so far as ihe pzf0dL1eU10.n GE the currency
" r.1ote.A
7' "iT?L__z§"the1':ne1'e, the witnesses PWs..£ and 2 eonsistemly
' 4-.1,hu:}ug1f: 'estate that the note was given 1:0 the accused in the
,, ,.."'{)ALI.kfiCE§ 0? {he AI)LR near the chamber' of ;PW.3, after the }')£1}'E'I1€}'3i/"E
.
z/' CrI,A EIEE8/'O4 of the bribe 2~t:'tmL1z'21,, the ec>r11p§aiI'1amt, went ::>'L1isi::§e and game am iI1dt::at.i0n to the pofiee cfificiiztis 2-md mezmwhtie, *;f..h§:.§fae1§'s1§0x>J Vs.~'.i1'.E':€S:-"5 mad the accused ctame ti} the ehambez" 2111(i"tx>e.:je:--. M there and that the police ()£'i'i<:ie1Es of the IJeka.gr.::.k1:a.efit:;e1*ect .. ' Chambers of the accused. It is Stated t._1f1é1€; t.f1e':4;*teite'~.\x.r:;;s 3110:
found in the pocket. of the ae,c't2;s_ed and 0:9. eearett,.it Wat; m bag kept. nearby. None of the \3mi.t}f1esees what. eiretzmstattees, the 1':ot.e': th_e~ g;{;"(;uSed was placed in the bag. wflnesses state that the t::rap ef the ADLR, the perusal of the police entered the chamber' the trap ma.ha'/;a1~ in his ehambere".. ']'S'0,' 1'n.c0ns2'steney, even with regard to the place and mahaztar.
«V 3F'urut}aerr11o1*e, it is relevant to note that when the ee.nipi-21iVf1a.tt't...v :E1V'riC1_.:~'n"1f3i the etecused on 2.8.1995, he had den1én4dedv_.i,he3 :E1I I10'L1I'}i. and ag'ai'n on 1.9.1995, i.e,, after about ette :I1on.ih__tihez'eaft,er, that the trap party came to the office of VA the 'a:_§:e}§;sed. inbetween this time, a<:ee.r&§ng to PWZE the note fitvasftvitilt the Ifikztytzkta Pc:»it(:e and according" 110 the Lok3.yukta {1r.§.A i3I8,«'C=e» &.C.CU§StZ;'.d on {he said da.y received 'ihe bribe arnouni offereci by the eo1n;_>I2s1i.nza;nt' or that" it was Eeeeit in the bag by the een;1p1a§z1an't, wii.hr:;13't the krmwledge of the aceuseci. 10¢ F'urihennore, could be Seen from 1.133 ev'i&eL:n.ce"~-of {he eor11p1ainanE:§ the adjoining landmowner--'i's";z1«s_e. éis "
oificial and there was 3 suwey of h:_is..1'and., W'£k;}*i€fC:ifl1r1_'V';i?I_€ encroaehmeI1f; by the eo::r1pIai11;1;n't.was silown toV'so::1e.ce;g1;ent in. V * the land of the said surveyor. isvfiaiso some di9E3u'€e with regard 'to 'trees and some controversy ih1's.._ ali the circumstances gbgfize, 'raeher unbelievable to accept the: "pT1foe.e_c:';1t'1on and therefore, I am of the opinion tnéuE'._ tE'1e not at 2111 1"efer1'ed to these aspects,' --whi1euappfeeiaiieng. the evidence on record. In that .\}§.¢2x:rV'o1"A £}§.eA uiaiter, of opinion that the prosecution has VvtV'=€=. }g:».1~oxre the gulilfs of the accused beyond reasoneb1e.do'o.--bi and the Trial Court has con1r:r1itt:,ed an error in c:o11x?iei'ing the appellant for the abovesaid offences. "EH11. In the result, {he appeal is aflowed. The conviction ">:»1_;j1_£i; sentence of the appeliarlt. passed by {he 'I'ri.al Cotxri, in /E 9 ,_ _ .
241.;-2. 1:3}.8;'{}4 S£>.1.L<:k.<Zf.3,/'2OGG cizxieci 3 1 --08~2004 far U163 <;f1'Te:ECe p'umshab1€ undez" SecE:i0:1s '2? and 136.] {d} z.'e21durii.h 13(2) oE"1h»:3 A<_:1_ is 5561. aside, T138 211Jp€311£1}"Ei'. is £i(7.C§1lifl'{€d 0%' the amid (:h21r'gr§s«;_"'ifhe amoum of firm, if emy deposited, shaii be F€,f'L4:f1d€:5'~ i'G« appellzmi. _ :§§$% 1;
J L