Karnataka High Court
D K Mathur vs State By Dy S P Rep By State Public ... on 26 August, 2011
Author: V.Jagannathan
Bench: V.Jagannathan
SRPHE Se a HOE Rl ER yg a
Sah
ae Ee
BANGALORE ~ B60 O01,
HOES ke TATE LEA FREMTE tA BG PAP PG RU WP RAR LARA Mie M COURT OF MARNMATAKA HIGH ¢
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATA AT BANGALORE
Dated the 265 day of sven Z011
HON GLE Me JUSTICE ¥ JAGANNATHAN.
CRIMINAL APPEAL woloss 2008»
DE MATHUR,
o) 3/0 AB LAL,
AGED ABOUT S55 YRARS.
R/AT NO.966, 187
aT! BLOCK, KORAM
BANGALORE - 560055.
(By Gri H P LEELADHAR, ADY) ~~
STATE BY pve 2 PL
REP BY STATE PUBLIC. PROSECUTOR,
GH COURT BUILDINGS,
(By Sri SG RAJENDRA REDDY, ADV)
THE CRLA FILED U PS e749) CEL AOATNST THE
MDGEMNT DATED 74.2005 PASSE PY THE SPL.FODGE,
BANGALORE UE DISTRICT, BANGALORE, IN SPL.C.c
THE OPFENCE BISiSs dani R/W SEC. 14/2) OF
NG #72 60] CONVICTING THE APPELLANT-ACCUSED FOR
DYE EMT ENR FE WE A Sah SE UA PREMIERE WE RAR DLALQIGG MiG CUUNE Qh KANNATACA HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA HIGH CO
t
Re
z
BENTENCING HIM TO UNDERGO RI FOR 2 YEARS AKD
TO PAY FINE OF RS,20,000/-, LD. TO PAY FINE, SHALL
UNDERGO RI. FOR 6 MONTHS FOR THE OFPENC: B Pps :
i8(I{d) OF B.C.ACT. THE SUBSTANTIVE SENTENCES OF
Ap ON FOR Ht FARING 105 DAY,
THIS APPEAL CO)
THE COURT DELIVERED THE POLL OWING: 0
JUDGMENT. .
'Tras criminal at
elie by the accused who has
been convicted by tae wel court iY respect of the
offences punishs?y ble "unde er Sections 7, LSQLNd) c/w
Sechon | a 4} ot the the . Preventi MOTE, of Corruption Act, 1O56
and wes sentenced i. to. one year EK. for the offence
guns heble und r Seoticn 7 of the Act with Re.20,000/-
«Ere eral in respect of the latter offence, to two years B.I.
ard to pay Rs. 20,000}- Sne with deleult sentences of
thre: months «rl six monthe respectively for non
payment of the fine amount.
2. The cage of the prosecution in short ia thet, a
FO arte,
FHAMEEK Met AGRE Gt TAREE ALES, PTT ALL WP AARMALARA FGM LUURE OF KAKNATAKA HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA HIGH ¢
carried cul certein works lor oroviding ¢ clectrification: for
the residential ley outs under HUDA, Hassan, . anid. had
.s
recenmd Ee.6 lakhs (six lakhs! from the Mives: re La Sap
+
Works Lirmoted,
Laghtingy Syeter 'Dividior ard there,
Were more bils of the complainant pending as suntit ing
to Re.lS lak (Fifteen lnk).
oonipleinant approached the accused as the accused at
ant tmme wee the. Deputy : Genera i Manager/ View
Preawient of the Mysore Lamps Works Limited, Lighting
yeterm Divieign. -
3. ie 8 the» 'complainant's allegeaton that, the
accused denoanded Re. 40:6 na 0) «as bribe for clearing the
Xie and for iomuiig the cheque for Be.6,00,000/- (ene
ialtis) as eric. the BOCU eG ago Tineateneéd the compleinmant
that': : iniess the "bribe ammount is paid, toe oille will not
Do Ie cleared: Thia is in ahort the gist of the complaint
Ex. PLO,
Pe St
ar (ne sloregaxt cen
"gf up of the
Me
a
=
SIP RWARUISUAT ABS, PGI GOO CPP BOAR SUG TARGA NIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA fl _-- inweasigating ofhcer, who was ee ee ee ee re ae ee ee eT ee trap was also laid at Hotel Airlines, Bangalore, as: per the trap mahe EB2z.Ps. On completion of the progectution led the evidence by examining 1:
and tmerking 55 documents and.1L MOGs were exiubited. Accused statement was ; fialicrwe di Bec submitting aes) written ¢ etp pi janation STE, Blac lee, defence evidence 2 bys = naining D DW: 1 amc DW-2 arul yeti 4% in denen nents <DI to DIO toe i-trial.judge afier appreciati eviderze on record, held that the prosecution had brought home the guilt of the sccused beyond all reaedna ble . doubt the evidence of FPW-1 wwe supported by PY-2 the complainant, ae well as the ae PY-~12. The oe fence theory Wee mot accepted by the trial court and "thus the conviction of the appellant followed. It is thie judgment of conviction ard sentence thet ls called in th
--
x question by the eocuged in this appee. cw eT a "ESEMINAR REANES FESGER WEG T WT RAR TAA PiGh COURT OF KARNATAKA HIGH COURT GF KARNATAKA HIGH ¢ ye glee acyeitte' thas ?. | beve heer the learned counsel. Sri HP Leeledhear for the appellant and SL 5.c. Rajendra Reddy, learned Coursel for the recep adent-Lokayukta ath perused the reoorda of this Case, arned course! Sr. Leclacihar fi for the appellant isok this court t through. the enti eet evides Aes on record and certercied that the trial. court tas tot appreciated the evidlenoe ing pre pet perepective. tt i ia his contention that, both the. shadow witness: PW-] @md the ' complnis: veret Pa 3 had ty ehec hoetile and the triel court cherefsre could net have "accepted their testirnony as rehable at arst trustworthy. 2 7 a. iis is shen argued that, a careful examination af thie « evidence o of ¢Pw-2 mmeell would go to show that, a : work wan, pending with the aowuged insemuch sa, the . cpulainant has admitted the receipt of the cheque for
- Bae 5 lakhs (sig lakhs) amd secondly, the complainant :
:
heh oe io 8 eS Srey a a oa wh ; hae 2 . de Bees aby Won endenoe on record, the py Abe complainant to DW-1 and this aspect of the SEES NONGA WEE SE SSIES E SER EEA ES EROS Bob? A OS 2 Ga IRR RR LMP Ob GLa N ATA A MUGM COUNT OF ARB ATAMA FG Ce or the ground of recovery of money from the posacss#en of the sccumer!.
1G, Lea@rtie counsel Ar Lec. ; ; that * the ; crcumetances under which the money Was received . ber the accused was not considered by the trial 'eouirt because, if is the specific case of the accuséd that, the coniplaineant owed certain amount te : ene Gulshan Nagpal (DW-1} and the said Gulshan Nagpal, who hae his business at Delia', chad asked the complamaent to pay part of Abe amour, "due by the complainant fo thes accused end in this regard, DOW-2, who is the brother of the complainant, his alaw given evidence stating that 'the accused was asked to receive from the complainant Rs .40,000/- atvl the sak] amount has to be given to the relatives of IOW-1 who hed core to Hangslore. Therefore, whet was the amount received by the gecusen from the complement was the oar amount due 3 oe se MEMES A MEE PMSINISAREPARES CUE GUE WT RARMAIARA Miah COURT OF KARNATAKA HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA HIGH ¢ mind of | the accused d counsel for the appellant also mane tat ?
mere recerpt of the amount by the accused: and nid the, 7 amount being recovered from the dashboard of. i car sufficient to hoki that, what was. received by the accused wae the bribes aracurt, 12, 'The seocused has given writers. aa orl aiating all these. facts and thereis ve the trial court's filing ia totally: pereerss sani when wdhe eviderce of the defence witness 28 5 hie not} neen discredited the accused therefore Thad offered o 'alee explanation to rebut oh © presumpti On inh Fan your of the prosecution. Aa such, e 'the court below ought to lave given the benelit of doubt to thee accus scl "instead of convicting the accused,
13. > His ie alas argued by him that the explanation offen eck, Tay the accused during the trap mahacer also will sett OE te be conmsicered in the beckground of the state of avd as the accused wes perplered . z ae aie a - es we eg, Ege atl 7 - Bee wn ate Eke sate ane Wes tol MAVEN pesos of mind, the explanetion NENER ESSN T MOISES SES SMAI EATEAESOA TIRGET Gott IKE UP RARNALARA BiGH COURT OF KARNATAKA HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA HIGH CC . during the trap m er Will heave te be read in the ight of the evilerice of DW-1 and DW-2.
m PW-2 hes admitted that he waz due ts Gulshan Nagpal Re.90,000/- and it was also admitted thet e ature on Ex.PL6 net thet of the complaiisant, the trial court could not have accepted the 'evidence of PW-2 as rehable, | oO 1S. Another contention prt forward by learned Counsel for the appellant is. that the sanction order Ex.P20 is not valid in law and it reveals non application of mind by the sanctioning authority, because it has comme in the evidence of PW-19 that the Board resolution itself. was obtained later in point of time and as such, there waa ne proper authorisation to the sanctioning authority te accord sanction. As such, PW-5's evidence ' gugist to have been considered by the trial court in the veforesaid clroumsatances and as auch, the sanction order @ novell. The evidence of PW-S and the crouse- 3 bee Sw , Sed gems eBn ae Beme heen egies toe enc eeomectel rors ---- examination in particular by the accused would go ahow a SERENE ER EMINER EEESIRE St HIRE GP ARUSGEAICE Mh COURT OF KARNATAKA HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA HIGH :
Su bmiss iors the appellant sough 'a Ef that Gere wae mon application of mind on the part or the sarictioning authority.
16. Learned Counsel for the eppellartt put forward > ariother contertion that there was mo evidence = indicating the demand by the ateused. Pointing to the evidence of PW-2, it is submitted that the said witness has not statek that the socuscd deinanded the pribe ammount and pursuant thereto, the coripiainant gave the amount te the wecieed. When che complamant haa besn apecifleally inatructed diving the entrustment ar to give the bribe amount is mot open deme being made by the acotised and when there was ne 'demami by the accused, the question of prosecution proving. the demand of bribe amount by the secused also .doeg..net are. In the light of the shove aise referring to the evidence of the meterial witnesses in thie regard, learne] Courmel fer eee ior aequittal of the accused by giving him the benedit of doubt. He also relied on the af 5 tte. aie, os e an cakegote ot is ae a ae OF rh, PO % oe ee ry PS eee go5y CeCuonSs reported in 2001 (2) KCCR 1233, 2008 (2) EPR FS Pe a a ir. a, ae i a a ASSP 38 Poe eee = ot Peet 3 eee ROCE G&S, 200603) SCC 779, AIR 1979S SC 1408, 2nne a ce BREESE SEIS ESS NANETTE BARNA AIA HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA HIGH COURT OF KARMATAICA HIGH a es well have to be exarni (6) SOC 444, JT 2002 (2} SC 173, 1993 CrLL.J. 4, 2007 oo Cri LJ.2919, 1979 SCC (Cri) 528, 2007(1) Crimes tat.
SOD, SC), 1977 CrLL.J. 284, 2001 (3) Crimes 309, AER 1979 © SC 677, (2006) 6 SCC 39, (2007) 5 SCC 264, (2008) 1. B SCC 258, to contend that when there. is no corroboration between the complatent and the shadow withsas and when there 4 no evidence indicating the amar by the accused,.the mere acceptance of the amount by the ecoused itself will presumption in fevou: of the prosecution beirar arc wher the socused. hes placed rebuttel evidence through OWe | and 2,.the cial court could net Beows refised to accept the same es the burden caste on the appellant is notone of hie firat defence as it caats on the prosécution; bution the other hand, it is on the basis of
4. Int the puwtent case, ns such euertisé waa taken by the trial court and ory of ties that the eccused had accented the areourt from the complainant and ecoused hea also admitted the Wwe FIEEE GE WE RRA LAIA HIGH COLRT OF KARNATAKA HIGH COURT OF RARNATAICA HIGH ty Ene O68 npininant to Gulshan Nag ne, the trial court could not have convicted. the appellant, LY. On the other han; learned. : Counsel Sr.6.C.Refendra Reddy for the respondent: okey: aktha eupported the padgrment of the. trial court i mn n all aspects af argued thet the learned triad | Sade hes considered all the aforesaxi contentions: ow _iatped. ore this Court and hes come to the conclusion that the defence theory is not probate feed. More. over, in the trap maa haemar itielt tt he beet mentioned taet the secused hes te este the deferice i ret what Wee recerved by hie from the cotplainant wis the loan amount, whereas the withessen for the defence apeak of the emeunt due deferce theory + was Tt very couvinicing ard thet i why oo Une tried court did not accept the defence version.
18. Ae far as the discrepancy in the evidence of oe 4 wep £8 = . S fe 2 & eh Ve l ami 2 we COTMSrTIOd, tt is argued that when the Z Pope ie 3 ® - fr % Be accused had gsccepted the amount of Ra 40 000/- from ine OMnplainent ard amount ales having beer Te "eee EES SEMEN TAGE MAR AATARA HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA HIGH CC ~ of tne "prosec collon, the Court meed mot go into every recovered from the dash boar] of the oor, itis 8 there fore clear that the accused did demand and accept - che ; bribe, 7 & though the materiel witnesses declared as hostile, the widence " e "Be, seid Ges during the crogs- | supports the proeecution case will baw} be accepted ami as auch, £ z mo niirmity can. be seer cain. the 'prosecution case. recl Counsel "also argued % at 'the acceptance of bribe amount bby the accused; hard wash of the accamed having | tested, "pos seitive whee | immersed in chemical echshor and recovery of emount from the accused thevelgre had cata blistyed the case of the prosecution beyond d a all reage enable doubt. ¥ be "19. fs [ar as corroboration i concermed, it & argued thet # tthe evidence ever all eetwhliahes the case oF ° maatirial eapect. As fer ea the sanction is concerned, i ip atgued that the said contention pul orward by the appellant's Counsel dees net carry enough foree behind jourt from the complainant. It is also argued. 'that tS fe 1} and 2 were.
proved fas. co me RENEE IEE SERS SEE RAR SURE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA HIGH ¢
- Government officialk and as euch of the P.C.Act. Aa such, the findings of the trial court carmint be quewtics lon the ground of ary irre OP EPMer OF :
sl the combentions mut forward with re saved: to validity of the sanction order and reference made to the evidence of PWS and to the Board resolution caningt heave ery hearing so far as the vakdity cf the sanction order is concerned.
a, Lenin a le of ume! Si xe Gh + Rajendra Heddy alse argued that when faet 'défence 'taken oy the accused during ep ar js found te be a ialee one, that ficient to 'hold thet the prosecution has svond all ressorable doubt. Ken exatnination of the indepernient witriesses ia alsa not very material 2use, the mrlepervient witnesses Oo grireengy Tey as fot support the oresecution cese, That's ( gemeer alls 1 o why the Lokayuktha police takes the assistance of the A ae . 2, %, erty vn shy bon ah th ite ansenoe of the enmity being there between the accused uilerity .
absence of sanction order. Thereiore, 7 RT OF KARMATAKA HIGH Cx t inh co a Oh ENE EESNGS REESE Sod ESE GEE IRR EARA HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA HIGH am the compleinert, the question of doubting the prosecution case does not arise,
22. Al the aforesaid eu brnisciore ans sought to te be supported by the learned Counsel Sri. a. Reajeridta Reddy by relying on the decisions: reported in ILR 2 J636, AIR 1999S ¥ 21256 and 1989 Orb Led.
Counsel sought for dismiss
2. Having thus beard oth s firyi dings 0 of the eourt § bebow: ie suatainable in the Bent of the evidence on record. te convic ct the appellant ie the eo. Bt point for consider ration.
a 23. The « case of the complainant is that accused demanded Re. 40 000/- ae bribe arount in order to De. Clee the pending bills of the complainant. The material witnesses of the prosecution are PWe 1 and 2. Both of 7 thera | have been declared es hostile by the prosecution, Py PEE me cea 2, Boe 7 dy ea ee ae 2+, POb@ whe ia the complainant has deposed in goth oe Shee? be, epee d eae eee iat GS PON ee | Eee ESS ened arourid 3.39 or 4 p.m, accused came there. EERE ERNEST GAME MIT RARMATARA HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA HIGH ( accused for the relesee of the ammunt of Ba. #0 ) ekkhs am wee told by the accused that Rs.G lakhs | tue B ae a réleased ard the comple the remaining amount, for which, the, accused. demanied Re 40,000/-. He has alec. stated that on the day when he went and met the accused, the complainant had receiver Ree 'lak im 'from the cash section. He hae farther deposed that about 2 : or 3 dave, he received the cheque ees 1 8 6 for dis tiie demand made by the accused is, Ss on L0.08.2000 at about 4 pan at AG ines 'Hotel, St. Marke road, 2 bes. steied im his evidence at pera-9 | that pew wert t along with: MW-i in the car to hotel Airlines 12 st 0 50r some forme arcl at nat. with the: accused are t about 5 2 p m1. 'the accused wanted te go from the hotel _ and then PW-2 tried to pay Dorey tf the eccused are! 8 » there Wes Sotfe rush, accused asked PY-2 to come reer the car and PW-2 went near the car of the accused Se oe Saget eh % fy " SUF OTS been ened = Bin 82 per ine previous urmerstanding, PU-2 handed a as want asked for the tel lease eof - BEE ENEELDLE EEL EELES IVEY NOR IERE Sd KEARNATABA HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA HIGH CC a aes ceived tie eame from the left hand and kept it in the daan | ard of the car. Thue, it is clear Grom thin sforeseil evidence of PW-2 that when he owpet the - accused @t Hotel Airlines, he gave the curreniy notes te. the accused, but the accused at that, point of ihme, did net teke any demand. | in other: we ord, 'the money was given by the complainant wh 'ho out" che accused £ any dernand from the complainae. Pee
25. Pag waa' treated 4 etile by the prosecution in the course: of he efose-xamination by the prosemntion hae; gene on "tp depose that the accused f going near Une car, pened the dear and demaruied ?
ior the payment of nioney. At the sare time, PW-2 has ated 'that in the course oe te ee . ee ee ee ee on beheld ef the accused that he Teceives: uyier Ex.S ES Ra ene irom the ogsh section and he hee also . &, , a | ae eee e ieposed io the efeot that there were no hills pending cae bmn 4 6 gm. ah Ben Cee oy thugs yey Fes sie aSeeves bEeae dk 2 wl BEVIS Uber ee Sf, BUSES "GPEC CG SOS Lee. 17 * ' * * "
Se as "dace agate Dog Soaps: 7 Bey oe ee eye & ae 8 Pb Ge oe eee epee eee FRO ES 713 BALES EE ES S, TESS RINIS NEN OLS IS EEE SISA GE RBS EUS HIGH COURT GF KARNATAICA HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA HIGH ( admtied in the cress-examination that the aocused never contacted him personally or over phore: "erber thes complainant had receiver the cheque of Re.6 lakhs tif the date of the "7 he trap incident. The witriess alse admit that accused used to visit Hotel Airlines" _veryday between 4 & 5 p.am., arvl PW: zi ad other contiac chore used fo go and meet the accused io have a cup of tea accused talked for about 45 minutes befbre going near the cer,
26. Thue, ee iar as. thie dermami and acomptance of the bribe amount ig ce oncdened, PW-2 has not given any 'commiatent statement and he wavere by eaying one thing in the exes nistion-in-chief and another in the cross- examination, "The erefore, the witness being not a reliable
- witoees, ie the inference that has te be drawn on a
- carefial exearnination of the evidence of Pw. S he was else Sees ABS sae = , Be Tet Lee GURT OF KARNATAKA HIGH C¢ he oe COURT GF KARNATAKA HIGH ¢ wall PAF AEEAOMANOE EERREET GeO LEO? UP ICOM MLA LAI A MEE gratification, FRY-4 | therefore dees not corroborate } .. $uch is the evidence of f secused at Hotel the sccused askec i the complainant whether the complainant had brought the money with him ard on bere anawered:. in. the . oe Eas ane 'affirmative', the complainant aval the near ine car of the accused and the @, Die oor iplainant haruled ever the tainted currency: ms _ accused. Aa FAV-1 did net aup apart" "hee 'promecuti , in reapect of the statement made by - his before 'the 'Lokayuktha Polloe, the witness: was. treated 'hostile and in cress. Witness has stated that from reading decnermied Rs. 40,000/ - @¢ teward by way of legal e regard to the - accuRed having been der 4 bribe' ainount, at fret and thereafter, the eVINg Cle Seun to tee aowvuged near the cer. pee ye a tags oe wom i 7 « eo 2» PWe i aml 3 so fer ae che accused wert weweenacey CEES toh WEE WP RNR AATAKA MIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA HIGH - Re. S0,000/- to the firm of DW-1 and in thie x sccused near the car. The fact of PW-1 wee alan treated eye. oo BAB RE ES, nostile by the progecution ia also iidicative Wittese being not a relable witness, 28, Now locking to the case frora 'the an le of the goclsed, it is the specific cane af the aoc used that é the amount received by him. from. th ass 1° > coin plaina 24 ae the ammeninit that wae cue by the COTE oraplainant to DoW. i Guishan Nagpal... To establish 'this, the defence has exarnined tyro ----s Bw | Sfulshan shev Negpal has deposed pias 'hia evidence hat there was business trer maction "between ; him ad the complainant ane further pw Q whe w ag. rors Ng & partnership conoern Yee hye My #: Vijaya 'Cables in Delhi, was supplying ast ten yeere and cables Were aleo epproved by the Mysore Lamps. DW-1 has De dis eposed 'Yo the effect that the complainant PW-2 owed ie Ea "g EE Pe i Boi, Baek Bow Sag be d & Pate ze Contacting PWed over phone, the letter is at Ex and oe Pe ee 3 . < . 2 res & Re ae ne 4 ae ae ee ee Pye er Bt twee, Bae tee io ca cong At 82 1 eres thee Ee OOTP porivierivs: peter Ser RARNATAIA HiGahH Cc yn RAR MAGA Pier UUM? OF RAKRMATAKA Might COLIRT Of PERT Sa RE Ae ee Padi £28 doh Eg PN Be swe ee ST eee ee. a ee Urtiealergme: in the crogs-exsrrorpation a . Bh é yp Gh Be a 2 : pe, BN ate Sb.ge, a Lee, 4 prosecution. Even in the cross-cramination. by progecution, DW-l haa stated that oThe arhourl was, pending due by PW-2.
ae ot oe 2o, GAve2 BRernermurthy is. core otmer-cnan the brother of the compleinart. This. ¢ has steted in hia evidence that his brother was ring a concern iowrl Ganegha Electricals and the cables rom Vijaya that #8 per the letter dated 30.01.1908, « sum of jaya Cables ars a payee gt L oes ee s 4 we sm ot bn E See xb oe te Wel iad telephoned to PWed and tokl PW-2 that seme a a a ee veenen gmp ~ Reewrmte are of the relatives of DW-i have come to Bangalore arxi oo they aré short of money and therefore, PW-2 wae asked 5, ie wndte beg de Bey ae gee be 9%, % 2°24 by Vileva Electricals through courier. Thus, . ae a 128 or cas coe SPE Ss % wpe FS tpeck gees sag wee SOTMEE WME WE AAR NALAKA HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA HIGH COURT OF KARMATAKA HIGH indication that the comple to Vueaya Cables, Delhi os phone fo pay the armount of Rs.45,000/- tothe: accused. - This witresses placed by the defence cS also supported by the explanation given by the . aecused ink fis 313 G0, If the whole evidence Or, record: i carehulhy vaed, it is e therefore possible 't to. take OWO VieEWs, one is that the accused demanded 1 Fe.40,000/- from the complainari for clearing 5 the bi tis. of the complainant ar even this view ia conoarned, the evidence is not very convincing, because as already stated by me, PW-2 has apt stated its ie evitlerios at the first inetence that there wae ae: sinaind by, ihe accused and pursuant thereto, the eorroborate each other ary material particulars and aiclerd to that, ws the fact thet both of ther were terested Lom a a es ne ay «ee Longe, want dh "stp seit SEE - hostile by the prosecution as the witnesses did not 2 wes infor -- ".
eS EERE AS EERE TAKS MEG COURT OF KARNATAKA HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA HIGH Cc
31. The other version emerging from the evidence . on record is that of the evidence of DWa 1 nd 2 2, whieh . art that was. (paid: by the oomplain tte the secueed.~ Whee the en evidence ofl record therefore gt erent version, one supporting the "Prosecution a Ss other to the defence, the: desis snc Yoingh | ie not required to establish ite version be yO: ae reasonable doubt, out on the baeis ef the preponderarice at * probabilities, i the imetent case, over all evidences on révord dota give scope to take the 'view that-whet was Hecelved by the accused was the amount that wea due by the complainant to DWe1. figider the Sak toe on bee gore cad
- eviderce form its erttrety, but seems to have focuese Mmidly on the explanation given curing the trap . mahezar t by the accused, even though, it is stated by « & Be gadedt. a Bositnatiy nephs cst, Eies ai sevsarste, goes tie é oasy - the socused during the RD Mawar (net what wee " S Boo» teu, SE sop on 4 _ eects aoe egute S _-- 4, Ee ges aie neceivec: by hom form the CAPLET Ae tee gery it of Re 45, 000/~. te the SSE ee mmeeenes EINES NOME GET MGS A LARG, MIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA HIGH 4 simount. in view of the evidence of DWa 1 and 2 that the complainant wae a:
accused on behalf of D eould mot have disregarded the defence vergion wher. the said defence version. aled. "has. ' Pemained unchallenged during croes-examination by the 33, This Ce art in the caae of D.Rajereiran vs. State by Police Inspector =) Ody eparied in 2001/1) KCCR IAS, mee "held thee P when there ® no corroboration @ between he oom nplainant atid the shadow witness, it woud pet Be aie to _counmet the accused person. In
- 'anothe mer decision Stave by Lokayuktha Pollo, Manelyes aad a bs. 5. ML Gangrictive, reported in 20082) KOCR 985 x hes been beid that mere recovery of money from the a . Gogsesaion 'of the accused would act be sufficient te when thee i no evidence _ indicating the demand by the ecoused, The Apex Court it the case of CIM Girish Babu us CBE Cochin, High Court of Kerala reported in (2000) 3 SCC 770 has alec Ze es .
SEBSTIESY CINGEER Lis arritil. te thee, 7 Weil, the trial court. 'the: refers rere 7 Lokaytletina are comcernmed, the application of TENN EN PEE EMER MEE RABIN ALAR. HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA MGH CG accused when substantive evidence is not reliable, wil not be enough ground for conviction under Section-7 ok, the Act, The Apex Court has also in the ver; ae ee -
ination of prosecution © ficeaon b oe by adducing reliable evidence ail the brinden of oroet on the accused under Section 20 § ig 'not the same ae the burden placed on. the prs seention, The, other dacigiors referred to by Teatned. 6 une él for © the appellant elec reliable 0 onl the veryg gerne preposition of lew. a4. As far as the decisiors referred to by learned Counsel Sri 8G Pajendea' Reddy for the respondent tecisio: ris, we ould depend upon the facts of each case. In the CARE oF M i Sunderam 8S. Slate af Terni Nera te shrough 'Inspector of Police reported in AIR 1990 sc 1369 iv wee held | by the Apes Court that the conduct of
- the appellant wes imooralietent with the transaction of oy man ot return of money by the informant and jt could mot be sgakl thet the appellant head even by SIRES A EIS ES A oe v4 el ae a iy i be hy ag ie jp Sagat tbe ao ¢ a. a if ea 'a a a # = ad & ae 2 ee § & @ & @ % " rf e 4 tat " a o : - * aa a3 yet ua cr 7 phat . 0 Ss Rel OY re ee a 8 ee i te = G oe Katoot on pa / "aust a Sod ' as aot ce psi ue 'S a a ee BO z " nn ee ee 'edi as oa a ms aaad 3 rr . in ee "
© ; a ae a ee a ee % "a i ae By . a he cH 2 Pa Bnet ' a Md "ha a ae : : oy 's S a ee apd - a & * es a = am = ee = 2 Po BR fo! o "
af a a 5 2 ae a 8 woe & Ge . : 3 a = f 2 5 = & ne a ok Head ; a a aS om e we a rd ee a ; , F :
Hedy Re = ms) sa we + ao a a i a galt 4 F Sone, ad apstieg . « * 2. sal s a ole ect = weal Bek 7 f * oe me eo eas * i "wispy ey wl a ne P ty ra wl og a = 7. ~ ey * be a oe i. 5 an a os a if ' a "ge i Ewa we z . "ee Man, net a at he F) on x a 7 o 8 8 Sg eg 8 ge , 3% and rel Fy - a, 8 4 a" ae hay 4 a OS oe @& © 4 ge 8 8 & a § & * * ae gia = s se: oh wat ° ; re mn . g ' 4 @ @ & og BP aA os E afi, 253 ier.
far 5 ae 8 riot © itn Ft He nes, aT a C20 re « & ck ¥ es
a) all' , . an eg carie . ae z AM. : , a © ta ci *, a a a 2 s _ ' + SS i "et a 9 o S 6 3 Boy Bb 8 * E = . as os : . : pe DED gs ar oe s a ra ; & ; a we hg & 2 ae i ; : os 'fo & 4 % 3 <q a co "s = . oD -- if ny , F ' a es / 8 od " te oo es ae 4 my a } 4 a oo as rete (LEAT WARY PWR MOT EP DES: LEENLE MAD TE LE OWE TREN SO TA WRK eR APRA Goth Eee TEES Eee da eee FOR OF GER PO Be EE ORE Ga A eh ARI PG La § Gib RURAL UO Peideht Load G2 LAK MATAMA MiaH Oc Wags Mast fe DRS tg es hed shown that accused demanded arul accepted the Gg A LO EM, GO gd EO Gage gael Reh OB Meaglt 3 Bs senctien order cannot be a ground t reverse (he
36. In the imstent case, the cormentions "put iorward by learne: Counsel for tne appellant with - regard to sanction order therefor: canriot be accepted in view of the law contained under Section 19/S\lal-of the F.C Act. Therefore, the serctiny order will heve to be held to be a valid one. However, this cotelusion on the waldity of 'the. sanchom order cannot help the reasons already given carlier. Bel prosecuitien ter one ay op SY. Vous, on oarfetal enelyers of the entire sel eurncs . pew orl te, veer whee. ehe 4 Sep :
evidence ori recdsd, in my veew, thie is @ At case ta gre aed : oe Bye Me . . " ae 3 ts bak = . ite atl sc ane a . a oe the berneit of doubt to the accused wher the evidence On recorc: givee raise fo two possible wewse, ewer cedagneeteiie ws. HAGE thease T8. 2 aad 72 them eeemanrytimes eesuting that Grough FPWs | amd) 2 the prosecution = wal bay _---- & tlesesgei, TEE Aes etat acour den fede aeeleben
-EXDIRPS BEYOLTIL Lag 2 Wie2 Goes mot 6GY i foe GyMie rics a de TB ---- © serispeag Bin ses, mapa pret, at A sors eutyrtont, wien sn ees : . ye a a @t tie Oret imtermce tuet taere @was cermerc: oy the mn, Met ay SO MEIN S MER MAGE NERTORINES TUITE WAP E UP RARMARGRA Miah CUURT OF KARNATAKA HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA HIGH ( ug
38. For the above reasons, conviction 'ahd aenience paesed by the trial court cannot be « Si astecred am ii law as the leerned trial Judge did not consider the -
evilence in oroper could. x it ave placed reliance on the testimony of Pils i end 2 wher the sex witre ee cid mot support the p osecution case wher their testimony was: incorsis stout and giving rae to hold thet thei testimony ; does not a pire contdence te accent the ¢ same. The srial court 'bo did rot take nate of ths deferice zits A evidence 5 placed through DWe Land hem, | me Z a their evidence: wes 'mot tested during the croas- examination by thie. prosec etuation, As such, the evidence recorded by the prosecution are perverte im mature acd carlont be sustained in law, li allowed arvl cersviction "88. in the result, appe ane the appellant | by the trial court is set aside. Appellant is "mooted af the offence with which he was charged.
- Hie bail bord ehall stand cancelled. Fine amount if ary ard e fea in Se Be "
lara gin ¢ FORALL ERTL PEEMEPE We Pd AP PUAN EAA MGA LOK) Ur KARNATAKA HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA MIGM ee a ee ee ET Mae Meni cat EB Mal By ae oe 40, At this stage, learred Counsel Sri.5.G Rayerdra Reddy for the reeporule t-Lokay raletive 7 aubmutted that PW-2 hes giver: inconsis tent "evider nee amd hee not supported the prosenution case and therefore, the trial court be directed to tale. necessary achorn against "1. in wee of the above SL DEUIeS ny me direct the trial oourt to take necessary aclion ae per law compliance.