Bangalore District Court
The State Of Karnataka vs Mr. Suresh G.C on 15 March, 2023
KABC010206162018
IN THE COURT OF THE XXIII ADDL.CITY CIVIL & SESSIONS
JUDGE & SPECIAL JUDGE ( P.C. Act) BENGALURU
(C.C.H.No.24)
Dated: This the 14th day of March, 2023
:PRESENT:
LAKSHMINARAYANA BHAT K.
XXIII Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge
and Special Judge ( P.C. Act),
Bengaluru Urban District, Bengaluru City.
Special C.C.No.496/2018
Complainant : The State of Karnataka, represented by
the then Police Inspector,Anti Corruption
Bureau, Bengaluru.
Now the Karnataka Lokayukta,
Bengaluru Urban Police Station,
Bengaluru.
(By the Public Prosecutor)
-Versus-
Accused : Mr. Suresh G.C.
S/o Late Chandrappa,
aged about 51 years,
Revenue Inspector,
Office of the Revenue Inspector,
Nada Kacheri, Kengeri, Bengaluru.
R/at No.252, 5th Main Road, 5th Cross, 'D'
2 Spl.C.C.496/2018
Group Layout, Srigandhada Kavalu,
Sunkadakatte, Bengaluru.
(By Sri Parameshwar N. Hegde,
Advocate )
JUDGMENT
The accused has been charge sheeted by the Police Inspector, the then Anti Corruption Bureau, (in short the 'ACB') Bengaluru presently the Karnataka Lokayuktha Police Wing, Bengaluru City Division for the offences punishable under Sections 7, 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of The Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (in short the "PC Act").
2. The short facts of the prosecution case are that Cw.1 - Mr. Asif Khan is the informant and he had filed an application to register the mutation of the landed property purchased by Cw.4 and 5 situated at Soolikere village, Kengeri, Bengaluru. The accused is working as the Revenue Inspector, Kengeri and he alleged to have demanded Rs.5 lakhs as the illegal gratification from Cw.1 for registration of the mutation of the property. After negotiation the accused had finally agreed to 3 Spl.C.C.496/2018 receive Rs.4 lakhs and on 18.8.2016 he visited the office of the M/s Rastrakoota Builders Pvt. Ltd., and accepted Rs.2 lakhs from Cw-1 towards the part payment of the illegal gratification. Cw.4 and 5 owners of the property were not interested in making payment of the balance bribe amount. Hence the informant Cw.1 as instructed by Cw-4 and 5 on 1.9.2016 lodged the first information statement before the ACB Police. Cw-1 had recorded the audio conversation containing the demand made by the accused for the bribe. The police after registering the case and on completing the pre-trap formalities laid the successful trap. On 2.9.2016 the accused came to be arrested and after completing the post trap formalities on his production before the Court, he was enlarged on bail. After completion of the investigation and on securing previous sanction, the concerned police submitted the charge sheet against the accused.
3. After taking cognizance, in pursuance of service of summons, presence of the accused was secured and copies of the prosecution papers were furnished as 4 Spl.C.C.496/2018 contemplated under law. Both the sides were heard and the charges were framed against the accused. He pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.
4. In order to bring home the guilt of the accused the prosecution has examined Pw.1 to 12 witnesses, produced Ex.P1 to P-50 documents and M.O.1 to 6 material objects were identified. After the prosecution side evidence, required questions were framed regarding the incriminating circumstances appearing in the evidence against the accused and he was examined under Section 313 (1)(b) of the Cr.P.C. He did not choose to adduce any oral or documentary evidence in his defence.
5. Heard the arguments.
6. After analytical appreciation of the oral and documentary evidence placed on record by the prosecution and appreciation of the defence version from the facts and circumstances of the case the points that would arise for the determination of this court are :
5 Spl.C.C.496/2018
1. Does the prosecution prove the fact that it has secured valid sanction as per Ex.P-5 in compliance of Section 19 of the P.C. Act to prosecute the accused?
2. Does the prosecution beyond reasonable doubts prove the fact that the accused being the public servant working as the Revenue Inspector, Nada Kacheri, Kengeri, Bengaluru, for change of Khata and Mutation of the property had demanded illegal gratification of Rs.4,00,000/- and on 18.8.2016 demanded and accepted the amount of Rs.2,00,000/- and on 2.9.2016 at about 4.00 p.m. near Deepa complex, 2nd stage, Nagarabhavi, Bengaluru demanded and accepted the illegal gratification of Rs.2,00,000/- from Pw.1 Mr. Asif Kahn and thereby guilty of the offence punishable under Section 7 of the PC Act?
3. Does the prosecution beyond reasonable doubts prove the fact 6 Spl.C.C.496/2018 that the accused being the public servant by abusing his official position as such public servant demanded and obtained illegal gratification of Rs.2,00,000/- on 2.9.2016 at about 4.00 p.m. near Deepa complex, 2nd stage, Nagarabhavi, Bengaluru from Pw.1 and thereby committed an offence of criminal misconduct as defined under Section 13(1)(d) and punishable under Section 13(2) of the P.C. Act?
4. What order?
7. The aforesaid points are answered as:
Point No.1 : in the affirmative; Point No.2 : partly in the affirmative; Point No.3 : in the affirmative ; Point No.4 : as per the final order for the following REASONS Point No.1 :
8.1. Section 19 of the PC Act prescribes the requirement of previous sanction to prosecute the public 7 Spl.C.C.496/2018 servant. In the case on hand, the accused as on the date of offence was working as the Revenue Inspector, Kengeri. Therefore, he was discharging the public duty as defined under Section 2(b) and he was the public servant within the ambit of Section 2(c) of the PC Act. Hence, it is incumbent on the prosecution to prove that the valid sanction has been obtained from the competent authority before prosecuting the accused.
8.2. In order to prove the validity of sanction, the prosecution has examined Pw.2 - Mr. K.A.Dayananda who was working as the Deputy Commissioner, Bengaluru Urban district and produced Ex.P5, the sanction order. As per his evidence, he had received the requisition letter from the Inspector General of Police, ACB, Bengaluru along with FIR, pre-trap and post-trap mahazars, chemical examination report, statement of the witnesses and the final report. After verifying all the documents he was prima-facie satisfied regarding the involvement of the accused and commission of the offence of 8 Spl.C.C.496/2018 corruption. Hence, he proceeded to pass Ex.P5 order by according the sanction to prosecute the accused. 8.3. During cross-examination of Pw.2, the accused contended that the Police did not send the first information statement along with the documents. It is also elicited from the mouth of Pw.2 that he has not mentioned the details of the statement of witnesses, production of spot sketch, gist of transcript of conversation in Ex.P-5 order. It is suggested on behalf of the accused that the investigating agency along with the documents also sent the draft sanction order and without verifying the documents Pw-2 had issued Ex.P5 sanction order. But Pw.2 has specifically denied the said contention of the accused and nothing could be elicited from his mouth to accept the contention of the accused. 8.4. During cross-examination the accused has not challenged the authority of Pw.2 as the Deputy Commissioner he is empowered to accord the prosecution sanction. In his evidence as well as in Ex.P5 9 Spl.C.C.496/2018 order Pw.2 has specifically stated that as the disciplinary authority he is empowered and the competent authority to remove the accused from the post of the Revenue Inspector. Hence, as the Deputy Commissioner and disciplinary authority Pw.2 has passed Ex.P5 order in compliance to the mandatory requirements of Section 19(1)(c) of the PC Act. The accused has not disputed that the Pw.2 as the Deputy Commissioner was empowered with authority to remove him from his post. 8.5. In the judgment of the Apex Court in State of Maharashtra vs Mahesh G. Jain, reported in (2013) 8 SCC 119 the Hon'ble court held that the adequacy of material placed before the sanctioning authority cannot be gone into by the court as it does not sit in appeal over the sanction order. If the sanctioning authority has perused all the materials placed before it and some of them have not been proved that would not vitiate the order of sanction. The sanction should not be construed in a pedantic manner and there should not be a hyper- technical approach to test its validity.
10 Spl.C.C.496/2018 8.6. In the case on hand, the pre-trap mahazar contains the transcript of recorded conversation. Pw-2 in Ex.P-5 order has narrated the gist of the first information statement and therefore the court can infer that the said statement was produced before the sanctioning authority. Even in the absence of production of some documents, Pw-2 had the opportunity to go through the remaining documents produced by the investigating agency. After application of the aforesaid decision in Mahesh G. Jain case and the ratio to the facts of the case, the contentions raised by the accused during cross- examination of Pw-2 is not legally sustainable. 8.7. In the judgment reported in (2012) 3 SCC 64 in Subramanian Swamy Vs. Dr. Manmohan Singh case the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that the grant or refusal of sanction is not a quasi-judicial function. The competent authority is required to see whether the facts placed before it by the investigating agency prima-facie disclose the commission of an offence and if it is satisfied that the material placed are sufficient for prosecution of the 11 Spl.C.C.496/2018 public servant, then it is required to grant the sanction. The competent authority cannot undertake a detailed inquiry to decide whether the allegations made against the public servant are true. Therefore the contention of the accused that Pw-2 has not referred the statement of the witness and transcript while passing Ex.P-5 order is not tenable.
8.8. From the contents of Ex.P5 order and evidence of on record show that after ascertaining the facts of the case, documents placed by the investigating agency Pw- 2 has examined the documents and after arriving prima- facie conclusion proceeded to accord the sanction. The sanction can be proved either by producing the original sanction order or by examining the witness who accorded the sanction by placing evidence regarding the documents produced before the authority. In the case on hand, the prosecution has fulfilled both the requirements. Hence, from the oral and documentary evidence the prosecution has proved after careful analysis of the documents produced by the investigating 12 Spl.C.C.496/2018 agency, Pw.2 has passed Ex.P5 order. Therefore, point No.1 is answered in the affirmative.
9. Points No.2 and 3 :
Both these points are interconnected, hence in order to avoid the repetition of reasons and for brevity, they are taken up together for common discussion and decisison.
10.1. Among the prosecution witnesses examined Pw.1 - Mr. Asif Khan is the informant and he is working in M/s.Rastrakoota Builders Pvt. Ltd. In his evidence he has stated that Pw.9 - Mr. Ravikumar V. is the Chairman of the said company. Pw-9 and Cw.5 - Smt. Rashmi G. in the year 2015 as per registered sale deed have jointly purchased 1.00 acre landed property situated at Soolikere village, Kengeri Hobly, Bengaluru South Taluk. In this connection on 03-5-2016 he had filed an application for change of mutation of the property in the name of and on behalf of the above referred purchasers. He ascertained from the concerned office that the application filed by him for change of mutation is pending 13 Spl.C.C.496/2018 before the accused who is working as the Revenue Inspector. When he made an enquiry, regarding the mutation proceedings the accused had demanded Rs.5 lakhs as the bribe and after negotiation agreed to receive Rs.4 lakhs and assured to do the needful work. 10.2. Pw.1 in his evidence further stated that the accused had called him through phone and demanded the bribe. He came to the office of M/s Rastrakoota Builders on 18.8.2016 and accepted Rs.2.00 lakhs as part of the demanded bribe amount. The witness has stated that he had recorded the audio conversation in his mobile phone containing the demand for the bribe made by the accused. Pw.9 and Cw.5 have refused to make payment of the balance bribe amount of Rs.2 lakhs and hence on 1.9.2016 he went to the ACB Police Station and lodged Ex.P2 the first information statement. At the time of lodging the report he had produced the recorded audio conversation of the accused containing the demand of illegal gratification.
14 Spl.C.C.496/2018 10.3. Pw.8 - Mr. B.Shivankara Reddy the Deputy Superintendent of Police and , he is the investigation and trap laying officer (in short the 'IO'). In his evidence he stated that after Pw-1 lodged Ex.P2 first information statement he has registered Ex.P24 FIR against the accused. Thereafter, on 2.9.2016 he had secured the presence of Pw.3 and 4 pancha witnesses, introduced them to Pw.1, furnished them the copy of Ex.P2 first information statement and on hearing the recorded conversation they had agreed to assist as the witnesses in the proposed trap proceeding.
10.4. Pw.3 - Mr. Rajanna and Pw.4 - Mr. K.N.Rajanna are the pancha witnesses to the trap proceeding. Pw.1, 3, 4 and 8 in their evidence have deposed regarding the details of Pw-1 producing the cash of Rs.2 lakhs, smearing of phenolphthalein powder, making note of the details of the currency notes as per Ex.P6, keeping of the said currency notes by Pw.4 in the jerkin pocket of Pw.1. They further stated that necessary instructions were given to Pw.1 and 3 to be followed during the trap, nomination of Pw.3 as the shadow witness, drawing of 15 Spl.C.C.496/2018 Ex.P-3 trap mahazar and the witnesses affixing their signature on the document. They have also stated that during the pre-trap proceeding Pw.4 was subjected to undergo the chemical hand wash test and in the demonstration process the sodium carbonate solution turned to pink colour. Pw.8 has stated that he has explained to Pw.1 and the witnesses regarding the chemical reaction of the phenolphthalein powder with sodium carbonate solution.
10.5. Pw.1, 3, 4 and 8 in their evidence further stated that after complying all the pre-trap formalities they proceeded to Nagarbhavi and as informed Pw.1 and 3 the informant and shadow witness were waiting for the arrival of the accused near Deepa Complex. The IO, pancha-2 and the other trap team members were waiting for the signal from Pw.1. Pw.1 and 3 in their evidence have deposed that the accused came to the place in a motorcycle, demanded and accepted the bribe. After receiving the pre-determined signal, Pw.8 and other Police officials and pancha-2 came to the spot but at that 16 Spl.C.C.496/2018 time on noticing the arrival of the Police, the accused who was holding the plastic bag in his hands containing the tainted cash thrown it on the ground. Pw.8 has stated that as per his instruction Pw.3 had collected the amount from the ground.
10.6. Pw.1, 3, 4 and 8 in their evidence have stated that, Pw.8 after taking the accused to the custody they went to the nearby Petrol Bunk and in the premises the accused was subjected to undergo the chemical hand wash test and in the process the sodium carbonate solution turned to pink colour. The cash thrown by the accused on the ground was collected by Pw-3 from the place of incident and it was found tallying with the description of the pre-trap mahazar. The said cash was seized and identified during the trial as per M.O.6. The accused has submitted his explanation statement as per Ex.P29 to the IO and the seizure of Ex.P30 and 31 file/documents produced by the accused during trap. 10.7. Pw.8 in his evidence has further stated that on 3.9.2016 he conducted the office search mahazar and 17 Spl.C.C.496/2018 seized Ex.P34 and 35 file pertaining to Pw.1. He has recorded the statement of the witnesses and collection of Ex.P36 certificate from Pw.1 under Section 65(B) of the Indian Evidence Act.
10.8. Pw.5 - Mr. M. Mohan Kumar is working in the Revenue Department as the driver of the Deputy Tahasildar, Yelahanka. He is the subscriber of mobile SIM No.9611885543 and in his evidence he deposed that he had lost his mobile phone along with the SIM. He has not supported the prosecution case and deposed evidence by denying the contents of the statement recorded by the police. Hence he was declared hostile and cross-examined by the prosecutor. 10.9. Pw.6 - Ms. Shruthi K.N., Senior Scientific Officer working in the Forensic Science Laboratory, ( in short the FSL) Bengaluru and she had issued Ex.P15 the voice analysis report relating to the informant Pw.1 - Asif Khan. Pw.7 - Ms. C. Srividya is the Assistant Director in FSL, Bengaluru and she is the author of Ex.P20 voice analysis report. As per her evidence, the respective speeches 18 Spl.C.C.496/2018 said to be of the accused recorded in the memory card marked as Article No.1 and the sample speeches found recorded in the CD marked as Article No.8 are similar. 10.10. Pw.9 - Mr. Ravikumar V. is the Chairman of M/s.Rastrakoota builders and in his evidence he deposed that Cw.5 - Ms. Rashmi, and himself had jointly purchased the landed property at Soolikere of Kengeri hobli. They had authorized Pw.1 to attend the work for changing the mutation of the said property. But Pw.1 had informed them that the accused, who is working as the Revenue Inspector is demanding Rs.5 lakhs as the bribe. He has stated making of payment of Rs.2 lakhs as part payment to the accused. However when the accused has demanded the balance bribe amount, they had decided to initiate the legal action. Accordingly he had instructed Pw.1 to lodge the report to the concerned Police against the accused.
10.11. Pw.11 - Mr. Manjunath K.R., is the Police Inspector and he has conducted latter part of investigation of the case. In his evidence he stated 19 Spl.C.C.496/2018 regarding recording of the statement of witnesses, collection of Ex.P41 to 43 CDR and CAF documents, recording of sample voice of Pw.1. He further stated regarding collection of Ex.P45 and 46 documents and recording of statement of Pw.5.
10.12. Pw.12 - Mr. Stanley Agnelo is the Nodal Officer and in his evidence he stated regrading furnishing of the copy of the documents as sought by the IO which are marked as Ex.P12, 13, 41 to 43 and 45.
10.13. Pw.10 - Mr. Balakrishna C. is the Police Inspector and in his evidence he has stated regarding conducting of the conclusive part of investigation of the case, recording of the statement of witnesses, securing the documents and obtaining of the prosecution sanction. After conclusion of the investigation he has filed the charge sheet against the accused. 11(a). The gist of the prosecution side argument:
The demand and acceptance of the bribe is proved from the documentary and oral evidence of Pw- 1,3,4,8 and 9;
20 Spl.C.C.496/2018 The recovery is proved from the oral and documentary evidence and chemical hand wash test ;
There is corroborative evidence of the expert and the IO;
On proof of foundational facts the court is required to draw the legal presumption.
11(b) The gist of the defence side argument:
There was 3-4 meetings were held between Pw.1 and the accused before registration of the F.I.R. but regarding the alleged demand of the bribe by the accused, immediate legal action has not been taken;
In June-2016 Pw.1 recorded the audio conversation made with the accused, but conversation dated 18.8.2016 was not recorded;
There is delay of 3½ months in registration of the FIR and lodging of Ex.P2 first information statement dated 1.9.2016 from the alleged date of first demand; To prove the contents of Ex.P2 first information statement that on 18.8.2016 the accused had visited the office of M/s. Rastrakoota Builders and accepted Rs. 2 21 Spl.C.C.496/2018 lakhs as the bribe the prosecution failed to examine the accountant Mr. Pramoda G. the material witness and to produce the CCTV footage;
Ex.P1 authorization letter is dated 1.3.2016 but the application for change of khata was filed on 2.5.2016 and there is delay and hence Ex.P1 is anti dated document;
There is discrepancy in the evidence of the prosecution witnesses regarding the use of voice recorder instrument to record the conversation during the trap. The chances of suppression of the evidence by the investigating agency is also possible; Cw.10 - Mr. Manik Ram an independent witness who had accompanied with the accused to the place of incident and Cw-7 Mr. Preveen Kumar, the Fuel Station Manager have not been examined by the prosecution; No work related to Pw-1 was pending with the accused as on the date of trap and the investigating agency has failed to ascertain who had deposited Rs.15/- fee to obtain Ex.P-30 certified copy of the document;
22 Spl.C.C.496/2018 Pw.5 in his evidence has stated that he had lost SIM and the mobile phone and the mobile phone of the accused was not seized during investigation; The shadow witness has not accompanied with Pw.1 during the trap, not heard the conversation between the accused and Pw.1, hence his evidence cannot be accepted.
For the aforesaid reasons the learned defence counsel prayed for an order of acquittal.
The ingredients of the offence:-
12.1. The accused is charged for the offences punishable under Section 7, 13(1)(d) read with 13(2) of the PC Act. The prosecution, in order to bring home the guilt is required to fulfill the following requirements:
(i) The accused was a public servant at the time when the offence was committed;
(ii) he has accepted, or obtained, or agreed to accept or attempted to obtain the illegal gratification from Pw-1;
(iii) for himself and
(iv) such gratification was not a remuneration to which he was legally entitled;
(iv) he has accepted such gratification as a motive or reward for
23 Spl.C.C.496/2018
(a)doing an official act,
(b) to show favour to Pw-1 in the exercise of his official functions.
12.2. In order to establish the guilt under Section 13(1)(d) of the PC Act, the prosecution is required to prove the following factors.
i) The accused being the public servant obtained for himself pecuniary advantage,
a) by corrupt or illegal means or
b) by abusing his position as public servant or
c) without any public interest.
The fact of demand and acceptance 13.1. Pw.1 the informant has lodged Ex.P2 first information statement on 1.9.2016 and in pursuance of the said information, Pw.8 registered Ex.P24 FIR against the accused. The Police after registering the case on 2.9.2016 completed the pre-trap formalities as narrated in Ex.P3 mahazar and the trap was laid and M.O.6 the tainted cash of Rs.2 lakhs was recovered from the possession of the accused. The accused in his defence has not disputed his presence in the place of incident as well as handling of M.O.6 tainted cash. He has also not 24 Spl.C.C.496/2018 seriously challenged the procedures followed during the pre-trap and post trap proceedings.
13.2. As per his contention he came to the place of incident at the request of Pw.1 in order to hand over the copy of mutation register and RTC extracts. At that time found a paper bag fallen on the ground and he picked the packet and handed it over to Pw.1. Even during the course of argument the learned defence counsel has fairly admitted that at the time of collecting the paper packet from the ground there is every chance the hands of accused contacted with the phenolphthalein powder is probable.
13.3. The prosecution has produced chemical analysis report dated 19.10.2016 along with the charge sheet. As per the document the chemical examiner is of the opinion that he had noticed the presence of phenolphthalein in the right hand finger wash of the accused and cover with currency notes. Moreover, the learned public prosecutor for the reasons best known has failed get the report marked in evidence during the trial.
25 Spl.C.C.496/2018 In Ex.P-29 explanation statement the accused has specifically stated that he had picked the cover fallen on the ground and returned it to Pw.1. The accused when he was examined under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C. to question No.21, 42 and 87 answered that as per the direction of the IO he picked the cover found on the place of incident.
13.4. As per the evidence of Pw.1 and the contents of Ex.P-2 the first information statement, on 3.5.2016, Pw.1 on behalf of Cw.5 and Pw.9 the owners of the property had filed an application for registration of the mutation of the property. As per the contents of Ex.P-50 the documents collected during the investigation on 28.1.2015 Pw.9 and Cw-5 Smt. Rashmi G. had purchased the property comprised in Sy.No.78/1 measuring 1 acre of Sulikere Village, Kengeri hobli, Bengaluru South Taluk for a consideration of Rs.1.02 crores. Pw.1 at the time of filing of the application for registering the mutation, had enclosed the certified copy of the registered sale deed.
26 Spl.C.C.496/2018 13.5. The specific allegations made by Pw.1 in his evidence as well as in Ex.P2 statement are that in the month of June-2016 when he met the accused in connection with pending mutation application, he had demanded Rs.5 lakhs as the bribe for entering the mutation of the property in the name of Pw.9 and Cw.5. The prosecution has submitted that Pw.1 had recorded the conversation made with the accused in his mobile phone containing the demand for the bribe. He has produced the said recorded conversation contained in the mobile phone at the time of lodging Ex.P2 first information statement before the Police. 13.6. Ex.P-27 is the transcript of conversation and Ex.P-22 is the memory card produced by Pw.2 containing the recorded conversation. It is contended on behalf of the prosecution that in these documents there are specific reference regarding the demand and finally the accused agreeing to receive Rs.4 lakhs as the illegal gratification for passing an order to register the mutation in the name of the applicants. Ex.P36 is the certificate 27 Spl.C.C.496/2018 issued by Pw.1 under Section 65(B) of the Indian Evidence Act. When Pw.1 has produced Ex.P-22 the original memory card containing the recorded conversation it is admissible in evidence and hence there is no requirement of complying Section 65B of the Indian Evidence Act. Therefore, Ex.P22 memory card and Ex.P27 transcript of conversation contained in the said memory card are admissible in the evidence. 13.7. The relevant portion of the recorded conversation which throws flood of light on the prosecution case reads as under;
ಫರರರದ ಬರಸಸ3 ಗಗಟಟ ತನಕ ನಟನನಡದದದ ಆಮನಲಸಫನನಸಮರಡ ಕಟನಳಮಮ ನರನದ ತರದಗರ ಫನನಸ ಮರಡಟಡ ನಮಮ ಮಸಟನಜಸ ಬಗದಬಟನರಕದ ನಟನನಡ ನರಟಸ ರನಚಬಲಸ ಅಗತ ಬಗತದ, ಎಲಟನಲನ ಬಸ, ಆಮನಲ ತಗರರ ರಗಗಸ ಆದಟಮನಲಟ ತಹಶಲರಡರಸ ರವರ ಜಟನತಗಟ ಇದಟಡ ನರನದ ಅಗತ ಹಟನಳದದ ಅದನರನ ಈಗ ಏನನ ಎಲರಲ ಇವರಗ ಸಗಟನನಚರಸ ಎಲರಲ ನಮಮ ಫರಮರರಲಟನಸಸ ಏನಟಲರಲ ಮರಡಟನಡಗಡದಡನನ, ನನವವ ಇದಸಕಟನಳದದಲರಲ ಏನಸಹಟಚದಚ ಕಡಮ ಬಟನಕದ ಅದದ ಮರಡಟನನಣ ಬಟನಕರದಟದ, ನನಗಟ ಇವರಗ ಕಟನಟಟದ ರರವರಗ ಎಷದಷ ದನ ತಗಟನಗಡಡನರ ಮರಡಟನನಕಟ ಆರಟನನಪ ಏನಸಒಗದಸನರಲಡ ದನ 3 ದನ ಆಗಟನಗನದದ ಆರಟನನಪ ನರನದ ಜರಸಡ ಹಟನಳಟನನಕಟ ಹಟನನಗಲರಲ, ಸದಮನ ರರರರರರಟನನ ಎಷಟಷಷಟನಷ ಹಟನಳರಡರಟ ಏನಸ ಗಟನತರಡ ನಮಮ ಗಟನತಡರದತಡಲಲ, ಮರಮನಲ ಅದನನ ಹಟನಳತನರವ--------
ಫರರರದ ಸರರಸ ಇಲಟಲನ, ಅರವಗದಸ, ಅರವಗದ ಹರಗ ಅವವದ ಇದದಲರಲ ಆ ಟಟಟಮಲಲ 28 Spl.C.C.496/2018 ಒಗದಸ ಮನನರರಲದಡ ಕಟಲಸ ನನವಟ ಮರಡಟನಡಟಷದಡನರ ಬಟಸ ಇದದ ಜರಸಡ ಎಕಟಕಕಕಸಷ ಹಟನಳಡದಡನರ ಅಷಟಷ. ----------
ಆರಟನನಪ ಅರರ ಆಯದಡ ಅವರಗಸಅಲಸಹಟನನಗ ಮರಡಸಬಟಟದ ಸದಮನ ಆಗರಡರಟ, ಇಲಲ ಅಗತಗದಟದ.... ಅರರ ಆಯಡ ರರರಸ ನಟನರವರಗಟ.....ದಟನಡಡವರಲಲ ನಟನರವರಗಟ ತಗಟನನಳರಟ ಬರಟನನಲಲ ಗಟನತರಡಯದಡ.----
ಆರಟನನಪ ಅವಟಲಲ ಸಮಸಟಸ ನರವವ ಹಟನಳಕರಡಗಲಲ, ಐಎಎಸಸ ಆಫನಸಗರಳದ, ಬರಸಸ ಮಕಡಳದ....ಅಲಲ ಒನಸಬಟಟ ಒನಸಬಟಟ ಇದಯಲಲ ಬರನ ಅದಟನನಟ , ಎಲರಲ ಅದಟನನಟ ಅರರ ಆಯಡ. ಏನಸ ಮರಡಟನನದದ, ನನವವ ಮರತರಡಡನನ ಮರತರಡಡನನ ಅಗತರನಟ ಡನಲಸ ಆಗರಟನನದದ ಇಲರಲ ಅಗದಟದ ಇಷಟನಷನತಟಡ ಕಟಲಕ ರರವಗಟನಲ ಮದಗಸಸಬಡಡದಟಡ, ನನವಸಎರಡಸಮರತಸಹಟನಳದಟದ ಮದಗದಟನನಗರಟನನದದ. ಫರರರದ ನರವಸ ಮರತರಡಟನನಕಟ ಬರಸದ ದದಬಟಟಗಟ ಹಟನನಗದದದ ಅವವದ ಇರಲಲಲ ನರನಟ ಡಸಷನಡಗಟನನಳಟನನಕಟ ಆಗಲಲಲಲ ನರಳಟ ಒಗದಸ ಅರರ ಕಟಲಕ ಮದಗದಸ ಮನಲಟ ಒಗದಸಅರರ ಕಟನಟಟದ ಆಗದತಡ.
ಆರಟನನಪ ನರನಸಮದಗದಸಸಕಟನಡಡನ ಬರರಪಪ ರರಕಸತಲಟ ಕಟಡಸಟನಡಳಡನರರ ಎರಡನಮರಸ ದಸಡಲಲ ನರನಸಮದಗಸಸಕಟನಡಡನನ.
ಫರರರದ ಟಟನನಟಲಸಒಟಷಗಟ ಅಮಮಗಟಸರಲನಸಸಮರಡಟಗನಕರ. ಆರಟನನಪ ಅರವಗದನ ಕಟನಳಸ ನಟನನಡದ ವಚರರ.....ನರನಸ ಮರತರಡಲಲ....ಮರತರಡದಸ ಮನಲಟ ರರವವದಟನ ಕರರಣಕನಡ ಕಟಲಕ ನಲಲಲಲ......ಕಟನಳಸ ಅರವಗದಸ ಗಟ ಕಟನಳದ ವಚರರ.
ಫರರರದ ಸರಹಟನಬದದ ಏನಸ ಹಟನಳಡದರಡರಟ ಅಗದಟದ ಅರರ ಕಟನಡದ ಕಟಲಕ ಮದಗದಸ ಮನಲಟ ಅರರ ಕಟನಡದ ಅಗತ ಹಟನಳದರಡರಟ.
ಆರಟನನಪ ಕಟಲರಕನಟ ಮದಗಸ ಕಟನಡನಲರಲ ಸರಸ ತಲಟನಟನನವಟನ ಇಲರಲ, ಇಲರಲ ಅಗದಟದ, ಬಗದಟದ ರಟನರ ಮರಡಗಡಡನನ 5 ನಮಷರ ಮದಗಸ ಕಳಸಗಡಡನನ ಹಟದರಕಟನ ಬಟನಡ. - ಏನಸ ಗಟನತರಡ ಒಗದದ ನಟಟಸ ಪರಸಕಸ ಬಗದಟದ ನಮಗಟನಗದದ ಚನರರ- ಏನಟನನ ಅನದಕನಲ ಆಗದತಟಡ. ಬಟನರಟ ಏನಸಇಲರಲ ಅದರಗದ... ಫರರರದ ಫಟಟಲಲನಲ ನನವವ 5 ಲಕಕ ಅಗತರ ಹಟನಳಡದರರ? ಒಗದಟನಟನ ಒಗದದ ಹಟನಳ ಬರಸಸ ನನವವ ಬಗದಸಹಟನಳಬಟನಡ ಮರಡಬಟದಷ ಇದ ಮರಡ ಇವರಗ ನರನದ ಅವರಗಟ ಹಟನಳಬಟನಕದ ಆರಟನನಪ ಆಗ ಹಟನಳಟಡ ಇನನ ಎಷದಷಸಲ ಹಟನಳಲ ನರನಸಏನಸಮರಡನರ ಫರರರದ ಅಲರಲ ಇನಟನನಗದಸ ಸರರ ಹಟನಳ 5 ಅಗತ ಹಟನಳದರರ ಅಷಷರಲಟಲನ ಇರಟನನಕಸ ಆಗಲರಲ, ಏನಟನನ ಬಗದಸ.......ನರಳಟನನಟ ಫವಲಸಕಲಯರಸ ಮರಡಡನ ಎಷದಷ ಹಟನಳ.
29 Spl.C.C.496/2018 ಆರಟನನಪ ಯನಳ ಅವರಗಟಲರಲ ಮರಡಬಟನಕದ.......------------- ಫರರರದ ನನವವ ಮರಡದರರ ಇಲರಲ ಅಗತ ಅಲರಲ ನರ ಎನಕಟಡ ನಮಸಹತದ ಬಗದಟ ಹಟನಳ ಸದರಟನಶಸ ಸರಸ ಅಗತ ಹಟನಳಬಟದಷ...ಇವರಗ ನಟನನಡ ಬರಸಸ 25 ಕಟನರಟ ಗರಟ ಎಲರಲ ಬಟನಡರ ಒಗದದ ರಮಗಡಸ ಫಗರಸ ಹಟನಳಬಡ ಕಟನರಟ ಅವರಗನ ಬಟನಡ ನಮಗನ ಬಟನಡ ರಮಗಡಸ ಫಗರಸ ಹಟನಳ ಅಷಷ ಮದಗಸ ಬಡಟನನನರ ನರಳಟನನಟ ತಗಟನಗಡಸಬಗದಸಕಟನಡಡನನ ನಮಮ ದದಡಡನರ ಆಯತರ.- ನರಳಟ ಬರಸಗಕಸಟಟಟಮಮ ಎಲಲಗಟ ಬರಬಟನಕದ ಹಟನಳ ಅಲಲ ತಟನನಬಗದಸಕಟನಡಡನನ.
ಆರಟನನಪ ಕರಲಸಮರಡ ಹಟನಳಡನ.
ಫರರರದ ಫನನಸಮರಡಡರರ ಅಲರಲ ತದಗಟನಗಡಸಬರಬಟನಕದ ಅಗತ ಹಟನಳ ಅಲರಲ ಇವರಗ
ಹಟನಳಬಡ ಎಷದಷ ಅಗತರ.
ಆರಟನನಪ ಹಟನಳದನಲಲನರ ಆಯದಡ ಹಟನನಗ ಮರಡಕಟನ ಬರ ಹಟನನಗದ ಆಯದಡ ಹಟನಳಲಟನನ
ಆಯದಡ.-------
ಆರಟನನಪ ನರಲದಡವರಟಗಟ ಕಟನಡಡಡನನ ಹಟನನಗ ಫಟಟನಲಸಆರರಡ ಇನಟನನನಸಮರಡಟನನನರ ಹರ...
ಫರರರದ ಇದದಲಲ ನಮಡನನದ ಇಲರಲ ಬರಸಸನಮಮ ಮನಟ ಕಟಲಸರ ಮರಡಡರಟನದದ ನರವವ.
13.8. The prosecution has relied upon Ex.P20 voice analysis report and examined Pw.7 the author of the report. As per the contents of Ex.P20 and in evidence Pw.7 has given opinion that the respective speeches of the accused found recorded in Ex.P22 memory card and the sample speeches found recorded in Ex.P23 CD are similar and the sample speeches recorded in Ex.P23 are not disguised speeches. During cross-examination Pw.7 has admitted that the voice analysis is not a definite science. The witness has specifically denied the suggestion confronted to her that since she was not 30 Spl.C.C.496/2018 convinced with the questioned speech and the sample speech, given her opinion both speeches are similar instead of it belongs to the same speaker. During the cross-examination of Pw.7, the accused except the above referred evidence has failed to elicit any damaging admission to disbelieve the opinion given by the witness as well as Ex.P20 voice analysis report.
13.9. Ex.P-8 is the sample voice record panchanama drawn on 2.3.2017. Pw.1 in his evidence has specifically deposed that he had recorded the conversation made with the accused in Ex.P22 memory card. The evidence of Pw.1 regarding recording of the conversation made with the accused is admissible in evidence as it is a primary evidence. Ex.P-8 was marked through Pw.3. The prosecution has placed on record the direct evidence of Pw-1 to prove the recording and the said conversation belongs to the accused in addition to the evidence of an expert.
14.1. As per the evidence of Pw.1 and in the contents of Ex.P2 first information statement it is stated 31 Spl.C.C.496/2018 that on 18.8.2016 the accused went to the office of Pw.9 M/s Rastrakoota Builders and collected Rs.2 lakhs part of the illegal gratification. Ex.P43 the CDR shows that on 16.8.2016 , 17.8.2016 and 19.8.2016 Pw.1 had received three incoming phone calls from the mobile No.9611885543. As per the evidence of Pw.1 the aforesaid mobile and SIM number was with the possession of the accused.
14.2. Pw.5 examined on behalf of the prosecution is the subscriber of mobile SIM No.9611885543. During the course of cross-examination of the witness by the prosecution, he has not disputed Ex.P12 and 13 customer application form and copy of election identity card documents are appearing in his name. The prosecution from the evidence of Pw.5 and by producing Ex.P12 and 13 documents has proved that at the time of purchasing SIM card Pw5 had furnished those documents. 14.3. During the evidence Pw.5 has deposed that he had lost the above referred mobile phone and the SIM card. The evidence of Pw.1 and the contents of Ex.P2 32 Spl.C.C.496/2018 first information statement show that the accused has been using the mobile SIM No.9611885543 and Pw.1 had received several phone calls from the accused through the said number. In Ex.P4 trap mahazar Pw.8 the IO has specifically noted that as on the date of the trap the accused was in possession of mobile instrument and having Airtel Sim card No.9611885543. The IO has allowed the said instrument to remain in possession of the accused.
14.4. Pw.5 has not supported the prosecution case. He was declared as hostile and with the leave of the Court the witness was cross-examined by the public prosecutor. Pw.5 is working as the driver of Deputy Tahsildar. The accused is also working as the Revenue Inspector in the same department and hence the possibility of Pw.5 handing over his Sim card to the accused is more probable. The facts and circumstances of the case show that the accused was using the aforesaid mobile SIM card purchased in the name of Pw.5. The evidence and other attending circumstances show that 33 Spl.C.C.496/2018 the accused and Pw.5 were hand-in-glove with each other. Therefore, in oder to protect the accused from the case it is probable that Pw-5 has given go bye to the prosecution case.
14.5. Pw-5 has not given satisfactory explanation how his mobile phone and the SIM card found in possession of the accused. Ex.P14 is the statement of Pw.5 recorded by Pw.10 during the investigation on 14.3.2018. Pw-5 was examined and his evidence was recorded on 17.12.2020. Therefore, the SIM card is in the possession of the accused was within the knowledge of Pw.5. It appears the accused for his illegal transactions has been using the said sim card. During cross-examination of Pw.5 by the learned Public Prosecutor the witness has admitted that he has not initiated any legal action against the accused for the loss of mobile phone and Sim card even after it was found in his possession. The witness may lie but not circumstance is made out from the evidence of Pw.5. Hence the 34 Spl.C.C.496/2018 evidence of Pw-5 that the SIM card belonged to him was lost is apparently false and unbelievable. 15.1. The argument of the learned defence advocate that Pw.1 has not recorded all the conversations made when he met the accused on several occasions more particularly on 18.5.2016. The other argument of the accused is that Pw.1 either has produced the CCTV footage or the IO has collected the said footage during the investigation to prove on 18.8.2016 the accused went to the premises of M/s Rastrakoota Builders in order to collect Rs.2 lakhs bribe amount. Even in Ex.P2 the first information statement Pw.1 has stated that the accused came near the office and not into the office. During the evidence Pw.1 has stated that in order to avoid the coverage of the CCTV cameras installed in the office, the accused on 18.8.2016 had collected Rs.2 lakhs bribe amount in his vehicle parked on the road. During cross-examination of Pw.1 the accused has challenged the said alleged payment.
35 Spl.C.C.496/2018 15.2. Pw.9 in his evidence has stated that he had informed the accountant of M/s Rastrakoota Builders Mr. Pramod G. to make payment of Rs.2,00,000/- towards the bribe to the accused. Pw.1 in Ex.P1 statement has also specifically alleged that on 18.8.2016 in the presence of Mr. Pramod G, the accountant he had paid Rs.2 lakhs to the accused. The prosecution has not examined Cw.6 - Mr. Pramod G. who was working as an Accountant in M/s.Rastrakoota Builders. The argument of the defence is that in order to prove the alleged demand and acceptance of Rs.2 lakhs illegal gratification on 18.8.2016 Cw.6 - Mr. Pramod G. is the best and corroborative evidence but the prosecution has failed to examine him. 15.3. Pw.9 in his evidence has stated that he had instructed Cw.6 to make payment of the bribe amount. Pw-2 has supported the prosecution case. The evidence on record shows that the demand and payment of Rs. 2.00 lakhs bribe to the accused was brought and it was within the knowledge of Pw-9. Hence non-examination of Cw-6 is not going to create any vacuum in the 36 Spl.C.C.496/2018 prosecution case. Section 134 of the Indian Evidence Act prescribe quality of evidence and not the quantity. Pw-9 was not present at the time of payment of Rs. 2.00 lakhs to the accused.
16. In the case on hand, except the contents of Ex.P2 first information statement and oral evidence of Pw.1 regarding payment of Rs.2 lakhs on 18.8.2016, there is no other corroborative piece of evidence. Therefore, this court arrived to the definite conclusion that the prosecution has failed to prove the acceptance of Rs.2 lakhs by the accused as part payment of illegal gratification as on 18.8.2016. In the absence of any corroborative evidence this Court finds it not proper to arrive to the conclusion that the prosecution has proved the demand and acceptance of illegal gratification of Rs.2 lakhs by the accused on 18.8.2016.
17.1. The accused was arrested on 2.9.2016 (Friday) near Deepa complex, Nagarabhavi, Bengaluru. According to the prosecution case, M.O.6 cash was recovered from the possession of the accused at the place of incident.
37 Spl.C.C.496/2018 Pw.3 in his evidence has once deposed that as directed by the IO the accused had collected the tainted cash found on the road. But during further cross-examination Pw.3 has stated that he had collected the amount found on the ground as directed by the IO. Pw.4 in his evidence has stated that during the trap Pw.3 went to the place of incident along with Pw.1.
17.2. The evidence of Pw.1, 3, 4 and 8 show that the place of trap is public road/place near Deepa complex. The pancha witnesses and Pw.8 were standing on the other side of the road and they had the vicinity to watch conversation between Pw.1 and the accused during the trap. From Ex.P44 the spot sketch, contents of trap mahazar and spot rough sketch Ex.P28 the accused and Pw.1 were standing on the other side of the road, whereas the trap team and other members were standing at a distance of 35 to 45 meters. Even though Pw.3 has admitted that he had not heard the conversation between Pw.1 and the accused on account of noise of the traffic on public road but he could able to see the 38 Spl.C.C.496/2018 accused and Pw.1 were standing together. He has specifically stated that the accused has handed over some documents and Pw.1 has paid the tainted cash to the accused. This portion of evidence of Pw-3 remains unshaken.
17.3. Pw.1 in his evidence has specifically stated that after coming to the place of incident the accused ascertained with him whether he had brought the demanded bribe amount. Thereafter he had handed over Ex.P30 and 31 copy of the RTC and mutation register extract and collected M.O.6 tainted cash of Rs.2 lakhs from him. After receiving the pre-determined signal from Pw.1, the trap team along with pancha-2 went to the place of incident. It appears from the evidence, facts and circumstances of the case on noticing the arrival of the trap team, the accused had thrown the cash from his hands on the road and thereafter tried to escape from the place of incident. The aforesaid immediate conduct of the accused is relevant factor. As per the evidence of Pw.1 and 8 immediately the trap team caught hold of the 39 Spl.C.C.496/2018 accused and he was taken to the nearby fuel station for conducting the post-trap proceedings.
17.4. Ex.P30 is the copy of mutation order and Ex.P31 is the copy of RTC extract and as per its contents, the print copy of the document was taken on 1.9.2016. The reason behind the accused on 2.9.2016 (friday) at about 4.10 p.m. during the office hours went near Deepa complex for delivering Ex.P30 and 31 documents appearing in the name of Pw.9 and Cw-5 Rashmi to Pw-1 has not been properly and satisfactorily explained. When the accused was examined under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C. he has filed the written statement. In the said statement he stated that on 2.9.2016 Pw.1 called him through the land line phone and requested for one more set of copy of the RTC and mutation. Hence he claimed to have informed Pw-1 that when he is leaving the office and proceeding towards his house, assured to bring the documents and informed Pw-1 to meet him on the way near Deepa complex. But these facts does not find place in Ex.P-29 explanation statement. Therefore this court 40 Spl.C.C.496/2018 can easily draw an inference that the aforesaid explanation of the accused is an after thought contention and hence cannot be believed.
17.5. The other limb of the argument addressed by the learned defence counsel is that there is no investigation touching the aspect to ascertain who had paid Rs.15/- fee to the department to obtain copy of Ex.P30 and 31 documents as per receipt No.20160901 as reflected in the document. It is not the case of the accused that Pw.1 or on his behalf any other person have deposited the amount to obtain the copy of the document. Therefore, cross-examination of Pw.8 regarding failure to ascertain who had paid the amount to obtain the copy and argument addressed in this connection is having no legs to stand.
17.6. The accused had brought the documents to the place of incident is proved from the evidence of Pw- 1,3,4, and 8. The evidence and other attending circumstances clearly show that in order to collect the bribe amount from Pw-1 and in proof of the change of 41 Spl.C.C.496/2018 mutation of the property in the name of Cw-5 and Pw-9, the accused had brought Ex.P30 and 31 copy of the mutation order and RTC extract to the place of incident. Moreover, in the event the accused claims that Pw.1 had deposited the amount to obtain the copy of Ex.P30 and 31, he could have secured the documents and there was opportunity for him to confront it during the cross- examination of Pw.1 or Pw.8. In the absence, the only inference to be drawn from the facts and circumstances of the case is that the accused himself had deposited Rs.15/- in order to obtain the certified copy of Ex.P30 and 31 and brought the documents to the place of incident.
18.1. Ex.P34 copy of the mutation register extract and Ex.P35 is the copy of the extract of the register seized during drawing of Ex.P39 office search mahazar dated 3.9.2016. The originals of Ex.P-34 and 35 documents were marked in evidence as Ex.P-48 and 49. As per the contents of (Ex.P34) Ex.P-49(a) the accused as the Revenue Inspector has passed an order on 17.8.2016 by accepting the report of the Village 42 Spl.C.C.496/2018 Accountant recommended registering the mutation in the name of Cw-5 and Pw-9. The relevant portion of Ex.P34 order reads as follows:
ಗರದ.ಲಟ. ರವರ ಷರರದಗತಟ ಹರಗನ ಕದಯ ಪತದದಗತಟ ಅಗಗನಕರಸದಟ sd/-
G. Suresha 17.8.2016 18.2. The accused during the course of the trial or in his defence has not disputed the fact that he had passed Ex.P-49(a) order on 17-8-2016. The entries made in Ex.P- 48 original register ( Ex.P-34 is the copy) shows that on 3-9-2016 at the time of seizure of the documents, Pw.3 and 4 pancha witnesses and Pw.8 the IO had affixed their signatures on the register. However the learned defence advocate has tried to mislead Pw-1 during his cross-
examination and also the court during the argument that the signature appearing in Ex.P 48(a) register belongs to Pw.1. But Pw.1 has specifically denied this aspect. From the entries made in Ex.P48(a) original register seized during the investigation show that the file was sent to the computer section on 17-8-2016.
43 Spl.C.C.496/2018 18.3. Therefore, the contention of the accused that on 17-8-2016 Pw-1 had received the copy of mutation order is apparently false and the argument holds no water. The submission of the learned defence counsel that in Ex.P-48(a) top of the page the date shown as 23- 5-2016 is the date of application filed by Pw-1 is also not correct. The said entry is not relating to the pending application of the informant in MR No. 15.
19. Ex.P29 is the explanation statement submitted by the accused to Pw-8 the IO immediately after the trap during the post trap proceedings. The relevant portion of the said explanation statement reads as under:
ವಷಯ : ಖರತಟ ಮರಡ ಕಟನಟಷದದಡ ಹಣ ನನಡದ ಬಗಟಮ ಮನಲಡಗಡ ವಷಯಕಟಡ ಸಗಬಗಧಸದಗತಟ ಖರತಟ ಕಟನನರದದಡ, ಖರತಟ ಮರಡ ಕಟನಟಷರದತಟಡನನಟ. ಅವರದ ನನಗಟ ಒಗದದ ಕವರಸ ನನಡರದತರಡರಟ. ಅದದ ಕಟಳಗಟ ಬದಡದದಡ, ಕಟಟಯಗದ ಎತಡಕಟನಗಡದ ವರಪಸಸ ನನಡರದತಟಡನನಟ ಎಗಬ ಬಗಟಮ ಇದಡ ವಚರರವನದನ ಬರಟದರದತಟಡನನಟ. The aforesaid contents of the explanation of the accused show that in the subject he has stated in connection with 44 Spl.C.C.496/2018 registering the mutation money was paid. The accused further stated that Pw.1 has dropped one cover from his hand and it was fallen on the ground and hence he picked the cover and returned to Pw.1. During the trial it is not the defence that Pw.1 has tried to keep the cover containing the tainted cash in order to falsely implicate the accused. The defence has also failed to show from the evidence that Pw-1 was having enmity to implicate the accused in a false trap case. The facts and circumstances of the case show that the accused came to the place of incident and brought Ex.P-30 and 31 documents to collect the money and he was aware of the fact that Pw.1 had brought the balance cash of Rs.2,00,000/- as demanded by him.
20.1. It is argued on behalf of the accused that he had passed Ex.P-49(a) mutation order on 17.8.2016 and no work of Pw-1 was pending before him as on the date of incident i.e. 02-9-2016. Therefore there was no necessity or occasion for him to demand and accept the bribe from the informant. Ex.P2 the first information 45 Spl.C.C.496/2018 statement was lodged on 1.9.2016 and the trap was laid on 2.9.2016.
20.2. The contents of Ex.P-50 documents collected by the IO during the investigation, show that on 03.5.2016 Pw.1 had filed an application for change of mutation. The contents of Ex.P-50 page-78 the reference number finds place in Ex.P2 first information statement. Therefore, from the date of application 03.5.2016 the official work pertaining to Pw.1 regrading passing of mutation order was pending with the accused up to 17.8.2016. Ex.P-50 contains all the documents furnished by Pw-1 in order to register the name of Cw-5 and Pw-9 in the mutation register.
20.3. During cross-examination Pw.1 in para-12 has specifically denied that he had deposited the required fee to collect Ex.P30 and 31 documents. The evidence of Pw.1 shows till the date of trap he was not aware of the fact that on 17.8.2016 the accused had already passed Ex.P-49(a) order to register the mutation in the name of Pw.9 and Cw.5 Mrs. Rashmi. It appears for the very same 46 Spl.C.C.496/2018 reason after passing order on 17-8-2016, on the very next day on 18.8.2016 the accused alleged to have went to the office of Pw.9 - M/s Rastrakoota Builders to collect Rs.2 lakhs portion of the bribe amount. But in this regard this Court has already arrived to the conclusion that the prosecution has failed to prove the aforesaid acceptance of the payment. But the evidence of Pw.1, the contents of Ex.P1 and other documents, facts and circumstances show that on 17.8.2016 the accused went to the office of Pw-9 is more probable.
20.4. As per Section 7 of the PC Act any public servant accepts or obtains or agrees to accept or attempts to obtain any illegal gratification other than legal remuneration as motive or reward for doing any official act or for showing any official favour will be held guilty of the offence. It is well settled law that mere acceptance of the tainted money would not be an offence under Section 7 of the PC Act. But it must be as a motive or reward for an official act. The motive refers to a future act while the reward is to a past service. What is 47 Spl.C.C.496/2018 forbidden under Section 7 is the receiving of any gratification as a motive to do or as a reward for having done any official act. Therefore in the case on hand whether the official work of Pw-1 was pending before the accused as on the date of trap i.e. 02-9-2016 is immaterial.
20.5. In the case on hand in Ex.P2 first information statement, Pw.1 has specifically alleged that before passing of Ex.P34 order dtd.17.8.2016, the accused had demanded Rs.5 lakhs as the illegal gratification and after negotiation finally he agreed to receive Rs.4 lakhs. The prosecution has made out the demand and acceptance of the amount as a motive for performing the public duty. Therefore, whether the amount was received before or after passing of mutation order dated 17.8.2016 makes no difference. The accused cannot take defence that any gratification received after performance of the official duty is not illegal gratification and such contentions are not tenable under law.
48 Spl.C.C.496/2018 20.6. The other argument of the learned defence advocate is that there is inordinate delay in lodging of Ex.P-2 first information statement. Even though as per the evidence of Pw.1 the demand was made in the month of July and August-2016, Ex.P-2 was lodged on 01-9-2016. The contents of Ex.P2 statement and evidence of Pw.1 and 9 show that on 18.8.2016 they had paid Rs.2 lakhs portion of the amount in favour of the accused. But the evidence of Pw.1 and Pw.9 in its entirety and the contents of Ex.P2 show that Pw.9 and Cw.5 were not inclined in making the payment of the bribe/balance amount of Rs.2 lakhs as demanded by the accused. Therefore they have instructed Pw.1 to approach the jurisdictional Police and to lodge the report. In this regard, there is proper, satisfactory and acceptable explanation is forwarded in the evidence of Pw.1 and 9 and in the contents of Ex.P2 first information statement regarding the delay in lodging the report.
20.7. During the cross-examination of Pw.1 and 9 the accused has failed to establish that he has been falsely implicated in the trap proceeding. Moreover, the 49 Spl.C.C.496/2018 evidence of Pw.9 shows that he is having trust with Pw.1. Therefore, the contention of the accused that the chances of Pw.1 had collected Rs.2 lakhs from M/s Rastrakoota Builders for mutation proceedings and thereafter misappropriated the said amount by stating that the accused had demanded and accepted the bribe is apparently false and unbelievable. 20.8. Moreover, the aforesaid contention was taken during cross-examination of Pw.1 and Pw.8, but the accused has not made any such efforts to elicit this aspect during the cross-examination of Pw.9. The accused has made efforts to show that Pw.1 has failed to get the mutation order within the stipulated period as directed by Pw.9 and Cw.5. Hence, he has created an imaginary story that the accused demanded and accepted money. However, he has utterly failed to prove the contention and it is false and unbelievable. Therefore, the accused has been falsely implicated in the case is ruled out. 20.9. Pw.8 the IO in his evidence has specifically stated that due to technical fault he could not download 50 Spl.C.C.496/2018 the photos taken during the pre-trap and trap proceedings. He further stated that in the year 2016 the ACB investigating agency was not equipped with voice recorder and camera for the purpose of using the instruments during the trap proceedings. It is true there are same minor contradictions appearing in the evidence of Pw.3 shadow witness, but the said contradictions are not going to the root of the prosecution case or it will result in causing any damage to the case of the prosecution.
21. From the aforesaid oral, documentary and circumstantial evidence the prosecution proved that the accused has demanded Rs. 5 lakhs as illegal gratification and finally agreed to receive Rs.4.00 lakhs. It is further proved from the evidence that on 2.9.2016 at about 4.10 p.m. near Deepa complex the accused has accepted Rs.2.00 lakhs from Pw.1 and at that time he was trapped and caught red handed by the police.
22. The learned defence advocate has relied upon the following judgments in support of his case.
51 Spl.C.C.496/2018
(i). In the decision reported in (1972) 3 SCC 652 in the case of Ramprakash Arora Vs. State of Punjab the Hon'ble Supreme Court after considering the facts of the said case held that the prosecution has examined interested and partisan witnesses and search witnesses were found not independent and on account of absence of corroboration the accused came to be acquitted.
(ii). In the other judgment reported in (2015) 16 SCC 350 in the case of Khaleel Ahmed Vs. State of karnataka the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that the demand of illegal gratification is a sine qua non for the constitution of the offence under the provisions of the PC Act and in the absence, the offence cannot be made out. In the event considerable doubt in the prosecution version and two views of the matter are possible, it is held that the benefit of doubt must go to the accused.
(iii). In the decision reported in (2015) 10 SCC 152 P. Sathyanarayana Murthy Vs. State of the Apex Court the complainant had died prior to the commencement of the trial and on said circumstances held mere acceptance 52 Spl.C.C.496/2018 of any amount of illegal gratification or recovery would not be sufficient to bring home the charge under Section 7 and 13 of the PC Act.
(iv). In the decision reported in (2017) 8 SCC 136 in the case of Mukthiar Singh Vs. State of Punjab the Hon'ble Court held that failure of the prosecution to prove the demand for illegal gratification would be fatal and mere recovery of the amount from the accused would not entail his conviction. As per the facts of the said case date or time of first demand / payment was not forthcoming and the court found evidence is omnibus, vague, sweeping and the person in whose presence the amount was paid was absent.
(v). In regard to the above decisions, in the case on hand, the informant was examined as Pw.1 and he has fully supported the prosecution case. Pw.3 and 4 are the official pancha witnesses have supported the prosecution case. Even though Pw.9 was not present during the trap, he has stated regarding the demand of the bribe and he had made arrangement for the payment of the amount 53 Spl.C.C.496/2018 from the account of M/s Rastrakoota Builders. Therefore, the ratio laid down in the aforesaid judgments are not applicable to the facts and circumstances of the case.
(vi). The accused has relied upon the judgment reported in (2002) 7 SCC 317 in Ashish Batham Vs. State and in the said case the Hon'ble Supreme Court held mere suspicion however strong or probable is not substitute for legal proof required to substantiate the charge and graver the charge is, greater should be the standard of proof. In the case on hand, there is direct evidence of Pw.1, 3, 4 and 8 regarding the demand and acceptance of the bribe supported by other corroborative and circumstantial evidence. The said judgment was delivered for an offence punishable under Section 302 of the IPC. In the case on hand in addition to the evidence adduced by the prosecution, there is also statutory presumption under Section 20 of the PC Act. The Presumption of Law 23.1. As per Section 20 of the PC Act, there is a statutory presumption wherein if it is proved that a 54 Spl.C.C.496/2018 public servant accused of an offence has accepted or obtained for himself or for any other person any undue advantage it shall be presumed, unless the contrary is proved, that he accepted or obtained that gratification as a motive or reward for performing or to cause performance of a public duty either by himself or by any other public servant.
23.2. The Hon'ble Supreme court in the judgment reported in (1995) 3 SCC 567 M.W. Mouhiuddin vs State of Maharastra held that once the complainant parted with the tainted money and the same comes under the control and possession of the accused, the requirement is satisfied and the only inference to be drawn is that the accused has obtained the pecuniary advantage. In the absence of satisfactory explanation from the accused the irresistible inference must follow that he has voluntarily accepted the amount. In the case on hand from the evidence of Pw.1 3, 4 and 8 the accused has received M.O.No.6 tainted cash from Pw-1 is proved from the foundational facts.
55 Spl.C.C.496/2018 23.3. In the recent constitutional bench judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court reported in 2022 SCC OnLine SC 1724 in the case of Mr. Neeraj Dutta Vs. State, in para-68 held that in order to bring home the guilt of the accused the prosecution has to prove the fact of demand and acceptance of illegal gratification either by direct evidence or by circumstantial evidence. The demand by the public servant and the bribe giver tenders the demanded illegal gratification has been received by the public servant has to be proved by the prosecution. When the foundational facts are proved, the presumption of facts by way of inference may be drawn. On proof of the fact in issue, Section 20 mandates the court to raise the legal presumption that the illegal gratification was received for the purpose of a motive or reward. The accused is required to show that the gratification was legally due to him or it is lawful. The burden resting on the accused would not be as light where a presumption is raised under Section 114 of the Indian Evidence Act. The reasonable and probable explanation offered is not sufficient. The presumption 56 Spl.C.C.496/2018 has to be rebutted by proof and not by plausible explanation. In the case on hand from the documentary and oral evidence of Pw-1 3,4, 8, and 9 the demand and acceptance of the illegal gratification of Rs. 2,00,000/- by the accused is proved. Moreover he has failed to rebut the presumption by submitting Ex.P-29 explanation and during the cross examination of the prosecution witnesses. Even though the accused has referred the aforesaid judgment, but the ratio laid down in any way is not helpful in support of his case and the defence.
23.4. The explanation of the accused in Ex.P-29 that he picked the dropped cover handed over by Pw-1 without knowing it contains the tainted currency notes is proved to be false. On the other hand it is proved from the evidence and other circumstances that the accused intimated Pw-1 to bring the balance amount of Rs. 2.00 lakhs to the place of incident. Hence this court arrived to the conclusion that the prosecution has proved that the accused has obtained the illegal gratification as motive for the performance of public duty i.e. to register 57 Spl.C.C.496/2018 the mutation in the name of Cw-5 and Pw-9. The accused during the trial has miserably failed to rebut the presumption appearing against him.
23.5. The presumption under Section 20 is obligatory and it is a presumption of law and it is an obligation on the court to apply in every case comes under Section 7 of the PC Act. In the present case it is proved from the evidence that the accused had obtained M.O.6 Rs.2.00 lakh cash from Pw-1. Therefore on application of the above principle to the facts of the case on hand, from the proved facts, this court proceeds to legitimately draw the presumption that the accused had demanded and obtained Rs.2,00,000/- illegal gratification from Pw-1. Accordingly, the presumption as prescribed under law is drawn against the accused.
23.6. The evidence placed on record by the prosecution is consistent with the guilt of the accused and inconsistent with his innocence. The minor discrepancies and contradictions appearing in the evidence of Pw-3 which do not affect the merits of the 58 Spl.C.C.496/2018 case requires to be ignored. The courts do not merely discharge the function to ensure that no innocent man is punished, but also that a guilty man does not escape and both these aspects are the duty and the responsibility of the judge.
23.7. The charges framed against the accused are proved. The accused demanding and obtaining the illegal gratification constitutes an offence both under Section 7 and 13(1)(d) of the P.C. Act. There is evidence to the effect that the accused has obtained the pecuniary advantage from Pw-1 by corrupt and illegal means by abusing his position as the Revenue Inspector. Therefore the ingredients to bring home the act of the accused within the ambit of Section 7, and 13(1)(d) of the PC Act are fulfilled by the prosecution. 23.8. The evidence of the prosecution show that in the absence of demand of the bribe, there was no necessity or occasion for Pw.1 to lodge Ex.P2 first information statement against the accused at the earliest point of time. Therefore the theory of the 59 Spl.C.C.496/2018 accused that he is innocent or he has been falsely implicated are beyond reasonable doubt is ruled out. In the above circumstances, the prosecution from the facts, the oral, documentary and circumstantial evidence beyond reasonable doubts has proved that the accused on 02-9-2016 has demanded and accepted M.O.6 illegal gratification of Rs.2,00,000/- from Pw.1. The prosecution has failed to prove beyond reasonable doubt the charge regarding the demand and acceptance of Rs. 2.00 lakhs as on 18-8-2016. After considering the aforesaid evidence this court arrived to the definite conclusion that the prosecution has proved the charges framed against the accused under Sections 7, and 13(1)(d) of the PC Act. In the result, point No.2 is answered partly in the affirmative and point No.3 is answered in the affirmative.
24. Point No.4 :- In view of the above findings on point No.2 and 3, the accused is liable to be convicted of the offences under Sections 7, and 13(1) (d) of the PC Act. Accordingly this court proceed to pass the following:
60 Spl.C.C.496/2018 ORDER Acting under Section 248(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1973, the accused is convicted of the offences punishable under Sections 7 and 13(1) (d) read with Section 13(2) of The Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.
The bail bond and surety bond executed by the offender and his surety are hereby stand discharged.
Office is directed to return M.O. No.1. metal seal to the Karnataka Lokayukta Police Bengaluru Urban District.
M.O. No. 2 to 5 sodium carbonate solution bottles are worthless and hence office is directed to destroy those properties after completion of the appeal period M.O. No.6 cash of Rs.2,00,000/- (Rupees two lakh) is ordered to be confiscated to the State after expiry of the appeal period.
(Dictated to the judgment writer, transcribed and computerized by him, corrected, signed and then pronounced by me in the open Court on this the 14th day of March, 2023) sd/- 14.3.2023 (LAKSHMINARAYANA BHAT K) XXIII Addl.City Civil & Sessions Judge & Special Judge (PCA), Bengaluru.
61 Spl.C.C.496/2018 15.3.2023 The judgment is pronounced and the offender is found guilty of the offence punishable under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of the PC Act.
2. Heard the offender in person and the learned Sri. HJN advocate regarding the quantum of sentence proposed to be imposed against the offender. The offender and the learned defence counsel would submit that he is having wife and two children. He is the only earning member of the family and they are depending upon him for their livelihood. The offender is aged 56 years, he is suffering from blood pressure and is diabetic patient. Hence the learned counsel prayed for an order of sentence below four years of imprisonment by taking the lenient view.
3. In the case of The State Vs. Parthiban reported in 2006 Crl.L.J. 4772 the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that demanding and accepting the illegal gratification constitutes an offence both under Section 7 and 13(1)(d) 62 Spl.C.C.496/2018 of the PC Act and the offence being single transaction but falling under two different sections, the offender cannot be liable for double penalty. It is further held that the benefit of Probation of Offenders Act cannot be extended for the offenders under the PC Act.
4. In the decision reported in AIR 2015 SC 2678 in the case of Shanthilal Meena vs State of NCT Delhi, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that the punishment for the offences under the PC Act, there is no scope for reforming of the convicted public servant.
5. As per the facts of the case the offender as on the date of the offence was working as the Revenue Inspector. He had demanded Rs.5.00 lakhs as the bribe and after negotiation agreed to receive Rs. 4.00 lakhs. He was caught red handed while accepting Rs. 2.00 lakhs as on the date of trap 2-9-2016. Pw-1 the informant had applied for registering the names in the mutation register on basis of the registered sale deed. Hence the offender should be punished by apposite sentence of 63 Spl.C.C.496/2018 imprisonment, after taking into consideration his age and other mitigating factors.
6. In the judgment reported in (2006) 8 SCC 693 State of M.P. Vs. Shambhu Dayal Nagar, the Hon'ble Supreme Court expressed its concern against passing of lenient sentence on conviction of public servants under the P.C Act. In AIR 2013 SC 1682 Niranjan Hemchandra Sashittal case the Apex court held that the gravity of the offence under PC Act is not judged on the measure of quantum of bribe, as corruption is not to be justified in degree.
7. In the recent judgment the Hon'ble Supreme Court dated 01-3-2023 in the case of The State vs. Aman Kumar Singh held that corruption is a malaise, the presence of which is pervading in every walk of life. If the corrupt succeeds in duping the law enforcers, their success erodes even the fear of getting caught. To get caught, for them, is a sin. Tracking down corrupt public servants and punishing them appropriately is the mandate of the PC Act. The courts owe a duty to the 64 Spl.C.C.496/2018 people of the society to show zero tolerance to corruption and come down heavily against the perpetrators of the crime while at the same time saving the innocent public servants who unfortunately get entangled in the case. The above findings aptly applicable to the facts of the case.
8. By virtue of 2018 amendment the offence under Section 13(1)(d) is deleted from the statute book and the said offence is incorporated in Section 7 of the PC Act. In the present case on hand, the offence was committed on 02-9-2016 prior to the coming into force of 2018 amended to the P.C. Act. As on the date of offence Section 7 of the PC Act was punishable with imprisonment for seven years and Section 13(1)(d) was punishable with imprisonment for 10 years. Therefore after the amendment the demand and acceptance of the bribe by the public servant is punishable only under Section 7 of the Act.
9. In this regard, whether the benefit of the aforesaid amendment can be extended to the offender 65 Spl.C.C.496/2018 this court placed reliance on the judgment reported in (2020) 10 SCC 763 in the case of Trilokchand Vs. State of Himachal Pradesh. In the said decision the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that if the amendment is beneficial to the accused it could be applied with respect to earlier cases as well as which are pending in the Court. If the amendment of the act reduces the punishment for an offence, there is no reason why the accused should not have the benefit of such reduced punishment. The rule of beneficial construction requires that even ex post facto law of such a type should be applied to mitigate the rigor of law. The aforesaid ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court is applicable to the facts of the case on hand.
10. After 2018 amendment the punishment prescribed for the offence under Section 7 of the PC Act is imprisonment for 7 years. After considering the forgoing aspects this Court finds that it is just and proper to strike a balance between the maximum and minimum punishment prescribed under the law. The sentence to 66 Spl.C.C.496/2018 be imposed on the offender is having far reaching consequences in particular and the other like minded public servants working in the Revenue Department who are involved in the corruption in general. After considering the age and other mitigating factors this court finds just and proper to sentence the offender to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of five years.
11. As per Section 16 of the PC Act while fixing fine the court has to take into consideration the amount the offender has obtained by committing the offence. In the case on hand the accused had obtained Rs. 2.00 lakhs as the bribe from the informant. Therefore it is proper to sentence him to pay the double the amount of the bribe as the fine. In view of extending the benefit of the 2018 amendment of the PC Act, this court is not inclined to sentence the offender separately under Section 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of the PC Act. Accordingly, this court proceed to pass the following:
ORDER The offender Mr. Suresh G.C. is sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment of five years 67 Spl.C.C.496/2018 and to pay fine of Rs.4,00,000/- (Rupees four lakhs) for the offence under Section 7 of the PC Act.
In default of payment of fine, he shall undergo simple imprisonment for further period of four months.
Acting under section 428 of the Cr.P.C the period of detention undergone by the offender during investigation from 03-9-2016 to 16-9-2016 shall be set off as against the sentence of imprisonment.
Free copy of the judgment be furnished to the offender forthwith.
(Dictated to the judgment-writer directly on computer, typed by him, corrected, signed and then pronounced by me in the open Court on this the 15 th day of March, 2023.) sd/- 15.3.23 (LAKSHMINARAYANA BHAT K) XXIII Addl.City Civil & Sessions Judge & Special Judge (PCA), Bengaluru.
ANNEXURE List of witnesses examined on behalf of the prosecution:
PW 1 : Asif Khan
PW 2 : K.A. Dayananda
68 Spl.C.C.496/2018
PW 3 : Rajanna
PW 4 : K.N.Rajanna
PW 5 : M. Mohan Kumar
PW 6 : Shruthi K.N.
PW 7 : Smt. C. Srividya
PW 8 : B. Shivashankara Reddy
PW 9 : Ravikumar V.
PW 10 : Balakrishna C.
PW 11 : Manjunatha K.R.
PW 12 : Stanley Agnelo
List of documents marked on behalf of prosecution:
Ex P1 : Authorization letter dtd.1.3.2016 Ex P2 : Complaint dt.1.9.2016 Ex P2(a) : Signature of PW 1 Ex P3 : Pre-trap mahazar Ex P3(a) : Signature of PW 1 Ex P3(b) : Signature of PW 3 Ex P3(c) : Signature of PW 4 Ex P3(d) : Signature of PW 8 Ex P4 : Trap mahazar Ex P4(a) : Signature of PW 1 Ex P4(b) : Signature of PW 3 Ex P4(c) : Signature of PW 4 Ex P4(d) : Signature of PW 8 Ex P5 : Sanction order Ex P5(a) : Signature of PW 2 Ex P6 : Currency details sheet Ex P6(a) : Signature of PW 3 Ex P6(b) : Signature of PW 4 69 Spl.C.C.496/2018 Ex P7 : Sample voice of accused Ex P7(a) : Signature of PW 4 Ex P8 : Sample voice mahazar Ex P8(a) : Signature of PW 3 Ex P8(b) : Signature of PW 4 Ex P9 : Voice transcription of complainant Ex P10 : Complainant voice sample mahazar Ex P10(a) : Signature of PW 3 Ex P11 : Seal acknowledgment Ex P12 : Copy of application form of Airtel Sim Ex P13 : Copy of Voter ID Ex P14 : Portion of the 161 Cr.P.C. Statement Ex P15 : FSL report Ex P15(a) : Signature of PW 6 Ex P16 : Sample seal impression Ex P17 : The Audio file Ex P18 : Cepstral plots Ex P19 : CD Ex P20 : FSL report dtd.19.5.2017 Ex P20(a) : Signature of PW 7 Ex P21 : Sample seal impression Ex P22 : Memory card Ex P22(a) : Opened sealed cover Ex P23 : CD containing specimen voice of the accused (Article-8) 70 Spl.C.C.496/2018 Ex P23(a) : Opened sealed cover Ex P24 : original FIR Ex P25 : Letter dtd.2.9.2016 of Pw.8 to the Chief Scientific Officer Ex P26 : Letter dtd.2.9.2016 of Chief Scientific Officer Ex P27 : Transcription of audio conversation in memory card Ex P28 : Rough sketch Ex P29 : Explanation dtd.2.9.2016 given by the accused Ex P30 : M.R. extract seized on 2.9.2016 Ex P31 : Pahani seized on 2.9.2015 Ex P32 : Acknowledgment dt.2.9.2016 on receipt of Metal seal Ex P33 : Seal containing sample seal impression Ex P34 : True copy of M.R. extract Ex P35 : Copy of M.R. Ex P36 : Certificate u/S.65-B of Indian Evidence Act given by complainant Ex P37 : Certificate dtd.4.8.2016 Ex P38 : Form No.21 dt.24.5.2016 Ex P39 : Office search mahazar dtd.3.9.2016 Ex P39(a) : Signature of Pw.8 Ex P40 : House search mahazar dtd.2.9.2016 Ex P40(a) : Signature of Pw.8 71 Spl.C.C.496/2018 Ex P41 : Certificate u/S.65-B of Indian Evidence Act given by Nodal Officer, Airtel Ex P41(a) : Signature of Pw.12 Ex P42 : Customer Application Form of Asif Khan Ex P43 : CDR of Mobile No.9008809569 Ex P44 : Engineer sketch Ex P45 : CDR of Mobile No.9611885543 Ex P46 : Certificate u/S.65-B of Indian Evidence Act given by Nodal Officer, Airtel Ex P46(a) : Signature of Pw.12 Ex P47 : M.R. extract with endorsement Ex P48 : M.R. register (check list) for the year 2014-15 Ex P48(a) : Relevant page No.62 Ex P49 : M.R. register in respect of Soolikere village, Kengeri Hobly, for the year 2015-16 Ex P49(a) : Relevant page Ex P50 : Letter dtd.3.9.2016 of Spl.Tahsildar, Bengaluru South, Bengaluru.
List of material objects marked on behalf of the prosecution:
MO 1 : "R" Metal Seal MO 2: Bottle containing sodium carbonate solution (Article-2) MO 3: Bottle containing sodium carbonate solution which is in light pink colour (Article-3) 72 Spl.C.C.496/2018 MO 4: Bottle containing sodium carbonate solution (after trap) (Article-4) MO 5: Bottle containing sodium carbonate solution (after trap) which is in light pink colour (Article-5) MO 6: Cash of Rs.2,00,000/- (Article-7) MO.6(a) : Cover List of witnesses examined on behalf of defence side:
- Nil -
List of document marked on behalf of defence side
- Nil -
sd/- 15.3.23 XXIII Addl.City Civil & Sessions Judge & Special Judge (PCA), Bengaluru.
73 Spl.C.C.496/2018
Judgment pronounced in the open
Court vide separate Judgment. The
operative portion of the Judgment reads as under:
ORDER Acting under Section 248(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1973, the accused is convicted of the offences punishable under Sections 7 and 13(1) (d) read with Section 13(2) of The Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.
The bail bond and surety bond executed by the offender and his surety are hereby stand discharged. Office is directed to return M.O. No.1. metal seal to the Karnataka Lokayukta Police Bengaluru Urban District.
M.O. No. 2 to 5 sodium carbonate solution bottles are worthless and hence office is directed to destroy those properties after completion of the appeal period.
M.O. No.6 cash of Rs.2,00,000/- (Rupees two lakh) is ordered to be
confiscated to the State after expiry of the appeal period.
(LAKSHMINARAYANA BHAT K.), XXIII Addl.City Civil & Sessions Judge & Special Judge (PCA), Bengaluru. 74 Spl.C.C.496/2018 Orders on sentence pronounced in the open Court.
ORDER The offender Mr. Suresh G.C. is sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment of five years and to pay fine of Rs.4,00,000/- (Rupees four lakhs) for the offence under Section 7 of the PC Act.
In default of payment of fine, he shall undergo simple imprisonment for further period of four months.
Acting under section 428 of the Cr.P.C the period of detention undergone by the offender during investigation from 03-9-2016 to 16-9-2016 shall be set off as against the sentence of imprisonment.
Free copy of the judgment be furnished to the offender forthwith.
XXIII Addl.City Civil & Sessions Judge & Special Judge (PCA), Bengaluru.