B Srihari S/O Late B Ramaswamy Iyengar vs The State Of Karnataka By Cbi/Spe ... on 12 July, 2010

[Cites 8, Cited by 0]

Karnataka High Court

B Srihari S/O Late B Ramaswamy Iyengar vs The State Of Karnataka By Cbi/Spe ... on 12 July, 2010

Bench: N.Ananda

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNA'§'A.KA AT BANG{§LORE
DATED THIS THE ifgm {my 0:7 JULY 24::
BEFGRE W'»V].
THE HONBLE MR.JUs_j1f;(::_~: N._.A.Ngé;§:'jg§é;":: 

CRIMINAL APPEAL',No.:_'}"6.Q/2060 " "  
§E'rwEEN:    V =
B.Srihax'i,
S/o Late B.Ramaswa:ny
Iyengar, Major,

Junior Engineer (Civil). &
Food Corporation of-Iriidia,-_  V   _

Tumkur. ' V    _  " --. ...A.ppellant

(By   V"  

The State _:)f-:§{::;rna"£aE:;é:[;..v'LA «_  '
By <:.V12.%.z,/s::2__13:{§«1:;,.  ' V '

fBangVa10re'.*  ,  --
{By s:i.:é.a.,5aa::;;v;_;».'::.g.';'---- ' '

...Respondent

This appeal ids I"i1§:Ei»L.undcr under section 3'?'4§:£} {'ir'P.{"' praying agéiénéé .tv}éc3 j:';;._{1g§nicn{ (fated 22.{)}..2G(}{} passizgi hy the xx: Add}. cc: "2:z1_ﬁ{SJ., and spz. Judge for CB1 cases; Barigfalors iz;'"€}p1,__{.;C_No.12?/.9.8'convicting the appellant « accused far 'the effézncc L2,-'s;.<._-:."2' mad 13(2) of the PC Act, E988 and ._ ' _sentenci'ng..hi"r'm to underga R1. far ﬁne year and {:0 pay ii ﬁne ' of.Rs._1'V;£)QG4/>-aizd 1.1).. to pay ihe fine £0 undergrzs further 3.1. *fair._thifty."_'s:¥.ayTs'for the réffozrncm 22595;'? of {he PC Act and further $Ac;1ten(;.E:1g him to unéizrgc Ri for one year and to pay 8. fine of }23?.s.i..,GO{)'/-- and £13.. {:3 pay' that ﬁne to further tmﬁergo SE. for thirty days for the offmaite :z,:'s.1f3{.'2} of the PC Aci bath the V' .st:tnt¢a1'i'<:cs to run atoncurrenily' This apgeai cgmirxg on {:5}: fine} hearing this $332 égze ' %;.2ﬁu.2ft passed that: foi.Z0wi::;§: 7

4.;

______ M The appellant:/accused convicted for offences punishable under sectiens 7 & 13(2) 0f the Prevention of Corruption Act, 3988 {for short, 'the Act') in Spl.C.C.No.}.27/1998, on the file of XXI Add1.4V§§:i't:;%.Qivi1 8: Sessions Judge and Special Judge for Bangalore, has preferred this appea}. 'A H I 3 T b

2. I have heard Sri 8.6.Bhagévag, I'e#i2';j:t§.(iV"c'f)':2V§1:;§Vf§i;f«;}r appellant/accused and Sri' for respondent/CB1.

3. In Vbriéf_, ceéisé o'f2.;irc>se.ciiti{3n and ceriain admitted facts are as f'{:eiV§'<§ﬁ:.%s,"n.;§"-. V_ _V Du1L9ingVVthVe"V'--yé;1r '3:99'.?~98, the accuseci was working 1}-Igniégr Ex{gi:'1'eér {Civil} in M/sfeod Corpemtion of V ?Ex%idViTa"'{.f£Sr 'sIf6'r:, 'FCI'}, regional office situate at Mission Road, B'aA:1;;-'iiiare. The accuseé was in supervision {if constftgctian 0f F(3§ geséowms 3: various piaces. PW2~ Slizzwkath Ali Khan. was E-he prapriatsr af Mfs,ZSAK ,3 }/L7' -- {i~,[ﬁ'°\._/-Mn§'\» '2/K65 9 K) 1 J Merchants, situate at No.7/2A, 6" Main Road, K.H.M.BIOck, Opp.R.T.Nagar 13.0., Banga1ore--58() 032. PW2 was dealing with pesticides and anti termite chemicals, During the year 199?, FCI had eaiied for tenders for supply of £840 Itrs., of anti termiie.e:heTa:jing chemical name "Chloropyriphes 20% lone tenderer and he had quQ£,.e€i__ Rs._--i.29;'~»;'_':;)er ltVr.=-_df~_ aforestated anti termite. The af;)re:_§;ta;.te'ed1e»<;u'aﬁ€'i:ifV}§:V'eef V{&.1r_1:ti termite had to be delivereél "near ﬁ~';..eV'site eicg/'\$Vtr&ietionVL' ef FCI go-down at 'I'umk:1r a:ii't?fV:a€:_cuse'ci«.v§*:as iflcharge of the said c(instruetien.. fZ'if1e'&._sa;p;f§.iy.ofefprestated quantity sf arfizi .<4:e:i&r:}:}:+iei;.é:J:<V:§V' some where in the month of De.ee:1iber"i'-i9»€37., 'i'--31e'*--c0'z1eerneﬁ officers «of FCE viz, Deputy"=.IVIanager'"'.(}:2sr'igi:ieVeri:":g} and Assistant Manager {2'~'1(3:'("i{).'1_l'1tS).V 'beuizV1"g' safisfiezi wiih the sauppiy of afasiesieteci :g;--errr:ite, smxéez we ﬁnai biiie Hewevezz security V :.riepes§t 'e(§2a:i"11e$i.: Money Bepesgity 'fer eiaerfg, "'EEVE§}"} of ":v2s';*¢2,8o7ci';€';,.':imich 1ew:z me ﬁepegited' with Fe: when his tenéer was aecepteé on 96.10.1997 had met been refunded to him.

4. Though it is not clear from records V' given an application yet there was to refund of security deposit {EMI:)3)..V that on 09.07.1998, it was iiiai there is no objectiorete reieaaei-_ti1.e see'u:ii.ty_'§deposit (EMD) to FW2. The ord'e:;i fr:~1.*~ deposit {EMD} was macieiimjg Manager (Accounts). a cheque for a sum of name of 1'v£;'s.ZSAK Merchants-.0f pregrieter.

5 Fvianager ((3iviE}, Gffiee of ,§«'CI.;:L_j}§E3a;j1_;s§aierei, "e'o:::.t.aA::ed PW2 ave): phone and informeé refund cf security deposit {ER:§I)} was reaiiyifcif ﬁr: 2i*i.€}7.1§'£--?i8, PW2 pregzareé; an 'VV.'aut}iei:i§va;i:i.e'n ietter in favaur cf PW3~Hahib5Uiia Khan ..:':i»{I;;Vi§i"empieyee} in receive the cheque tewards refund of 5% 5. (wk -«w&%/R"

{S the Conduct of accused and not wiiiing to bribe the accused. On 29.{}?.1998 art about 2.30 p.m., ?VViZ met the investigation officer of CB! and lodged a written first information as per Ex.P.4, on the basis of which eese was registered in RC/9[A)/98/CB1/BLR against th_eV.VV;ie_:eu_$e(i for an offence punishabie under section '? first _informatien was forWarcie;;i 'te Special Judge. who in fact re:e4eixr:ei:ix p.rn. on the same daff, -4_ (V3,1eri"g§.V_"i£'iVth information. 'V V i V i

8. At this stage;A.__ii"~.. is f'VAr1€:Ce'S$§ir:§"'«.t0 state that first informaﬁion Vrewoori,ei1;i"*--oi'iginal first infermatien were not senuteéio Vt11Ve_ji1r£ss:1ig;:tior1al Special Jucige in a sealed (3CP\_:'."eI',7'i»VhiCh' "i--5eXpé:eieé ef it": 2: trap case, which is the .A 'n.ormVe§A.. -eereeeeure feiioweé to avoid leakage ef R ._iii.fori'f1é[tioI1fegarcling prepesed trap, 9 ﬁﬁfter registratien of the ease. the Investigating .V{:}iff";_.cer namely PW5---Eiemakrishna secureé twe ehadow .1'\Jh -*xe,§x._,»«..,-~\c,[%,.,'V . witnesses namely ¥'W4--Bhaskar Ran 313% one Sathyamurthy from the office of Chief General Manager? Karnataka Circle, Bangalare. After their arrivahi;-,jPW5 made preparations to trap the accused by d£;.3:13_'€4):":':s;étf:4';&2»t'i'r;g phenolphthalein test net Gniy to PW3 hu'{~._::z1}s<§=.V' and one Sathyamurthy. The taiiitéé'c;1i'«r'e1:1v.:§2f:"1:;2:§_és 'wé}re entrusted to PW3 with a Vspe<:iﬁc 'iVnstrﬁ¢_ﬁ6§:

same shall be given fit} acC--:;:§;'ed 01'}'¥i.V{1€_l"1""l;%ElI;3:':T§.VVi'V1:;?..':l(ii(§ by him. PW3 was £1150 if:struc'iVéd'f_}é1 flash sighsﬁ cembing his hair, if the acCusé€1.T_'wé1'-€ :'t'0 _c_1'é-rfxaiicﬁ and accept the bribe. ?W4--Bi2€is--kar t0 follow PW3--

Habi'b--Ull§a"'fiihaxié shadaw Witnazsss, The Ekriice Inspe£:tor- hat?' aE.fsc:; 3. tape recorder and a Eglaniez cassgtte €i:>v_f"éJ3 ti; féaaré the canveraatiazi: ﬁgat may tﬁkie p-3,36:-3.bet§iréé'ﬁ"?§%'3 332$ accused anéi iﬂﬁifiiitiﬁé P1533 "'§{;'V's§vi.§.ChVM'xiii'. the tape recﬁrder 'befcwe entering T316 'c3.{éimb¢3i"'L:'3.V_:}:f accused' ?W5--Rarnakrishna [E.,€§,) haé ensureii effective fnmctimiing cf tape recarder. VT f1':';reaf£erg raiding party' éxmsisting {af PW3, E"~5£'»%., 0138 i gyﬁ 3. «Ax, «éf/\__/k,_ 3% L514:

Sathyamurthy, PW5 and others traveller} in a jeep and reacheé the regional office of FOL situate Road, Bangaiere. The chamber of accused {V floor cf the building. §7'Ws-:~ 3 & 4mI"f£'B1_Z chamber in IV ﬂoer of bui1c:i~i4ng::""eéefeere accused asked PW3 as ~5iV;'0'«._.v'r.-V1'i§yWfﬁtlfﬁi apprczaaching him and Sthe bribe amount. PW3 mm th;§_"'g«=.¢¢1'}§se§.vL£§i;;;..{A'§ie§»»hac1 brought the bribe amoung 'i'hereﬁ_t"§e:;"V._VA« harxdeﬁ over authorisatieij ?W3. whc after receiving went to accounts i'§£s%:'1Vs;'e1z1€§ cailected. the: cheque for gave authorisatimz Better m PW6v__¢and t i-1e §2aymez2E voucher, Tiaereaftesz "--v.Aac'e1..{sei§iV.axad ?*s1§?I§"é';:%.::":r3;e': ti; 'easement ﬂee? gasking axjéaaf-gvhé"b:§i:.c1ing. Pm: feiiaweﬁ them ta the gm;-king a.'1'~E:__é{.A '§fE1e"':;1eeused after reaicixing his senate: ﬁe aiiegeci to ha'v_eA':.demar;éed bribe fmm PW3, §'W3 ig aiiegeé ti} l1;1§?é"_.given tainted currency mates in a sum 0f E{s.,3,{"iiGG;'- aw.

'$3 to accused and accused had received a sum of Rs.3,-O00/~ from his right hand and counted the amount by using both hands and kept tainted currency notes in right side pocket cf his sweater, which he was wearing. 35.: that time, PW3 gave predetermined signal to raid_iv1aV:;_j'~..'f§:;;:ty. The raiding party reachiid that place and of accused and seized 3, sum :0}:

side pocket of sweater Gf :'£_gccs.:1s;:3:§;i phenolphthalein test and.§i_-;}§;€c§V;%'g;»xfS sodium carbonate solutiodé"V«.V'.x§r11§ehV"'t'Ldj§ved tvﬁpink and indicated presen{:§""':A._ 'aid The §nve:5tigating_ ()4ff'i.s:,é's.._ maiieeated and seized the iRCI'iIl15I13'tiI'lg",§ii'$.iC1€5S..'_£§E2.€5§" ﬁlms: aiccuased was arrezaaed and I'€3lA(V'..:-Zl_S€3{3 4f)'nV_V}32:i.§..'--03i. ssureiy '§:3e;':.d execuiad ivy BWE, ?4'..S:3r§£-paiagi Reddgffd fhe mvegtigatien sfficer seized the "a,rti:tiet>~3.dutic3,_eiﬁrecovery mghagar marked a5 Z*Z:I~:'?.§%., Aim? re¢ordiﬁg'3._-:-ﬁatement sf witnesses and Compieéien of forrrm§§:;?iies, charge sheet was ﬂied againsi aceggsed far of\"/5 H} offences under sections 2?' & l3[1)(d) of the Act, punishable under section 13(2) of the Act.

10. The learned Sessions Judge framed the charges.

reading as un<ier:-

"I. Veeranz:2:«G.'£'igadi, 8.13;... LL.B(SpT'EV"};".T xxx Adc1l., City Civil and Sessions 3u'dig=§=§';j--_ '~v. Bangaiore and Speeiai Judge for C.'B._jI-; 'V'. Bangalore. do hereby charge Son of Late.B.Rema:2;wax:£i§V Xyengar-;,' Engineer {Civil}. Feed €3<:i':*';)<;$¥:.AfAa§ti0ﬁ:"--<}§A'£"

Tumkur. as follows :5 Firstiy, that ycVt;.¢_V:Whi'ie f1iIiCtiQ_X1I:}}Eg as Junior §'311ginet::f.V:{(1i€ti1§ -- VF.i3€)_(i._ Corporatien sf the period Juiyg A1998, derive undue pecuniary _ aéeaﬁtéige'v.fe1~-. "§,%a:%'i§2*s:e§f. E3}? Cﬁffiipt csr iiiegai 'V "1ear1sv"":'}.r:'__by, oiizeewise §}}I abugizag 32:32:; & pogiticsn as 3 pubiic sewage;

T. : 'e.,e:rﬁan:ei'g;se bribe ef Rs.5,000/m an g8iG?|}gQ8 VS::i.Haheeb:z£1a§1 Khanﬁ empioyee ef Gﬁff v'Sfi;v§houkat Aii Khan, proprieior cf Mfg, Zea}:

z 'vB:'§'erc§1az1ts, R.'§'Nagar, Bangaimre -- 32 as iliegal gratifieaiien ether than Raga} R; * "X; .w remuneration as a mative or reward far releasing authorisatima ship to get Earnest Money Deposit 9f Rs.8,8O0/V3"_f3{€?VI:;{'~ 'xV4, Accounts Department, F.C.I., R.O., ' and that you reéuced the bfi¥f)€'~a'iT1i:(3.ﬁ'tEI:1f,":::I€3A Rs.3,0{}G/~ when 'Sz*i.:'v{."J{é>iV3»é'<i3i:~.g;}'1_ah.' --.:_"1«:r;;;V;:""' pieacied his incapabiléty §;1if1?G[;§1'Vi':,;f'.,.A and that you diret:Eigdv._Sri.HaEE:ebuiI:é§}L.'iihgirzé to pay the saici a:not;.'fi{ 'V0f_Rs;i3,(j§i}V}'w iatézﬁi by 29.0?.199F£~..§3<} t§iii't" f'h€;""€;_h€qt%lé'"(3B;};'i be reieased fmm 'i:;2i1'£;_'ziﬁgfiﬁiitg' :I?{%P31iiII"1BIit ané that y0u.repeat.e:£. tjh.e' V ":é9.0'?. 1998 and ;aCé**§_§'ted;=._ the said ;~:abe'e'%y--..;1i'a1é*_V__iixigxg-g iZ:1.Q.Q7,1998. at your '(V'§7'féj.V_i.V. Bangaism} fzsre sh_owihg.«.9£'i7§,::;:i'::_i"'fzwciur in the znzstter <3? AmEeasir1gV'é;f1'e_ a--~=;€'h;:rrisz:%i0n Letter to enahie I{h3;--.r; -Lg rA«%.¢{:be'is.?£: 'Liza ESMEE Cixequii: fer 'V i'~Ze;.8,8V'(}'{',3_Af&-- fmm ﬁn-*3 ;'§c{:oz:ni5 Qépafiiﬁﬁiii. A~€:ﬂ}1ere:b3"r' *,rz)r.z heme cﬁmmitted an ﬂffﬁﬁeiifi' 3 :V'1ﬁi1)4i£;}j1V:iE}1e under 8.'? 0f the ?reventi9r: :3-f Act? 1988 Ema within E113?

~..i:€3gv§i'iza21ce.

Secondly, that yea the aecused, whiie functioning 33 3 gsixbiic garvant in ihe TX? "R - 84,.

1.12 capacity of Junior Engineer (Civil), Food Corporation of India at Tumkur during zhe period July, 1998, by abusing your ofﬁoiaﬁ positfon as a public servant, obtained for yourseif pecuniary" advantage of Rs.3,{}0{}f"--._> on 29.073998 from Sri,{~1abeebu11ah enzpioyése of one Srriﬁhoukat mi proprietor of M/s.2';sa§n: fv§erohants,_R?%1';Nagar% Bangaiore, as atated ir1:""cVh'a<1-:ge"." N_f{}". }o :f_£=::%d--.:'.V committed criminal miscond£i_Ct'TVaxici committed the offeé:":.;;€;: ﬁ'::;:1'i'shaE1'é'V'A' S.13{2) of the Preven'£'io:ﬁof 1988 anﬁ withirgniy coo'g:ii_2:i1:ir;¢. And I herebyl tried by t}1isAT'c:'o'i,v{ri on £1f13&«,s§:1i.d r.:hargesJ'

11. 'I'E1_e aVc€:sivsao:}A';s§»¢.é:-<§"§éai no: guiiiy. VQEV. Vbehziﬁf.o_f__p':oso{:ution3 I-'W31 to 8 were examinefni ' ;é1n.d dVo'ourrién_t§ 'Ex,?,'§ Eo ?E:x,?.E'? were marked. fviateriai '*o.bjectEs$ were markeé as $321.03.} to 6. G11 isohaif of dou1'e;1Vo.¢§." one N.Sa.mpangi Redziy, than working as _ €34" ''a."'G£*~.' -3

18. The learned trial Judge has relied on the exfhgiﬁence of PW2 & PW3 to arrive at a conclusion that had demancied 3. sum of Rs.3,0€)0/» as release the cheque cf Rs.S,800[;,m deposit {EMD}. V & u . ' 17'. The learned trial relvied :orx'th:eA ofe' PWs.3 to 5 to arrive gt a Qvi?-.O'?.i998 a{ 5.30 §J.m. in FCI, Bangaiore, accused demanded ef RsK3,{}i}{3/~ as bribe from 11=3,i:.V>:.r3}i*

18. 1v:PW6_§VK1573I§_1{a.ia'r§i';3:ar%._ I'W"?»S.A.Srir:1::1 have been eXaII}iIi"(:V(xi"?,'() f;r_d\,{£:~.tii'e__'.i;i:'E3cedure regarding prﬂiiaféltiﬂﬁ of the cheq,ue"}é1nd' persons involved in issuance sf &che£j1.15e; P'i§I5-Raiiiéiétrisilna, the Inveetigating Ofﬁcer had View 0f the finﬁings recorded by the irizﬁ Cﬁuri *.;':::.1d tiie submissions maée by the Eearneé Ctrrunsei fer g\__'}' ' ' accused and learned counsel for CB1, the points that would arise for determination are:-

}] "Whether prosecutien has proved .3.

28.{}'?.1998, the accueed egiﬁgj {j:13~;é' % Junior Engineer (C;'vil}._0f! demanded {rem PW3-H1ab.i}.3»iil.1da'.

(employee of I'eW2-She'2s.f1eath 3 Proprietor of fVler.ei1.af;=teV)1.:eed' received illegal gITi§,.£V:l'.A-fi.(:Ei"sT_,i"{I}}(1 eé' 2..Ame}tive or rewarti««..._..V:{Xf<ﬂ€ 'f'rr3§i'eié;e_'~..ei(S:'~~eheﬁiue ef Rs.8,800/~ i1:'dres;'dSeeiv 0.--f..e.ee:'eri.iy ciepeefit Regionai and accused 2' said amount of Exrvibe to reiease the a3i;1K§1VG1'i.':$'3'{i€%§t"{'~}El"{téZi3° to enable PW3 its v'>g1fee.eix're ihe',eheque frem the aecotmisst seeiion of F€2i'?

'X%fi;e_ii:er pmeeeutien hag proved that en at about 5.30 p.m., in the .':dﬁadeking area ef Regional Office of FCI at V1':/Iission Roaﬁg Bangalore, accused had demanded and received bribe of Rsﬁiilﬁiﬁ,/« {rem PW3-ﬁabib-Ulie Khan 5"; ,e re» {:\'/4»' 3"x»-»ee«~~«<=@~=~ ~

4) ~ ' 'fer interference?

for showing official favour for releasing the authorisation letter to enable to receive cheque of respect of security deposit is the accounts department of F--'£3i',»_ accused had comrcgéittbeﬁ' '1'AOf.:fc:1cfi'V'V punishabie under scc»f'iori--._? cf t}.1e.Act? "

Whether prcsecii'ti: d'n has"

the accused beieng '$;'e:'*~mr:V:i; as Junior E:':§:i'n_ee_r FCI, has abused hisAVcVff;ic_ia.I __Vp §)si--'ti.cn obtained a_.ss:;ﬁzi:'.0f §Rs',:.3;i3+{}{}V,7%'V"g5:u from PWLE _ 4ai"ua:1 cQmmi_fH;'e2i..2m"o'f1'ence defined under V -.sVe'i::.tQT§:)n "L? 3{.}'T}'{€:i}{i:}VAAent:fg punishable under _ T?3'é{+._'ijio_ri.13(2)'-gf the Act'? L4--,Wizet'h{e:rA'._Vi%';€f;7 Rearmed triai Judge ﬁes properly agpreciatcd evidence an ,,.,,¢¢,¢¢\ExTT:1ié§%.E1er the impugned judgment caﬁs What crder'? "'

20. Before adverting E0 apprecizztiean of eviﬁence of aforestated witnesses {P353 2 £0 7). it is r1ec4eV:§£;~;.a;_:é§"'3{_ to reiterate certain admitted facts, which upon the conduct and veracity of PW3.

21. PW2~Sh¢::Wkath Ah" '"iT§iE;1I"iI1§f4V' the month of {)ctobeﬁ_ ﬁﬁd'§~ffe;.»;:d tender for supply of 1840 ItV.'z'S::{3fA though market price efanti t§%A:'*;r:j.§ﬁ::¢ itr" he haé quoted lewgsié pﬁ;'iiL€:<__~; of'Rs§. PW2 has eieposeei that "'d9g§S;- r1<:i'f:.;V:?em.c'rnbcr"wiiether he was the lone tenderer and' Eé13:'(;1':'"'3'.I"'»'g1K'»":£i:"':'-'~._ opened in his presence and it was a(:<:e1:§t43d in his Ap_r'e'3.,r;:mc£:. PW? has denieé guggggestimn thaﬁﬂ-imv h.-.~1& in'fEiw1}_{:__<3<§ ami manage-ti with the marzageriai 'S%L"fi'ffVGfvF.C'I_ fG_£1CC€3p"§. his tender. The saié anti iermita c*hém'icaI xieasﬁurchaseé fer cansiruction purpose. as per tenéier, was requiréaﬁ :0 suppiy anti termiis am the vL.V:cC.;'1L§;4truV:§ti<)n site at Tumimr. FWQ has 3150 admittztd that t§1e ;é£c<:used was inchargiz ﬁf canstructicxn Site £3? §<"{§3§ % building at Tumkur and he had to accept anti _:f,m'mite supplied by PW2. PW2 has denied suggesting?.i{héii;V he had intention to supply substandard, short supply of anti termitﬁ ﬁo_ffCI. _--'I5W'2--:'j:aié'V Vdgnigdiib suggestion he had approached i';he :=_;éi'cc:i1si€:»<.i_i accept deiivery of sub~si=ai_:1'd§rd,iii suppiy of anti termite. --s:V1vf:rni<§ci«--Vi§i;.:ggcﬁ;vE;,ti0I1 that as the accused did p.i~'éj'p95ai, PW2 was pui to pecuniary 1955 to and for the said reaso2j1?__.:I3"\iJi_}?".¢'i£:. cI:i¢%;:§g'.;L)V.*:=,:>vcvi:'i.iirézsigeance against the accused. iiés éstigggestion because 01"

insissgdiidéi .2s§;i:>p1ieei genuine and agreed quantify: of Vaxiii te4:."rn_i':'a«::. J

22.3%. from t1'*l€'£3Yi'd£iFiCﬁ of PW2 it is clear thai: 22:': had . Zqugte.-(vi rai«e:dGf_anti termite: at R3129/~ per itr. as against H 'pi4e.v'aii?:niif_"L~z<Ii2s=.fi§;etl rate of RS.2-40/v per ltz'. Hmvever, it is no; méigiehéiear as to haw PW? had quoted R912?/~ per £tr.__WI:"ién market price was Rs.24(}/'~ per itr. Therefore '7?:I*i1i'e"£w0 inferenees that cmiié be drawn against 95!? are:~ fk? . <..{5'\« "~r*--C'J{.'~.-

if) {1} PW2 had quoteé {owes price to run the risk of 3053; {2} PW2 had intended to suppiy substandard, aduleiefeﬁe-d or short supply of anti termite to make good between quoted price ané marketWprice.."'""

23. It looks improbable had.'V_--q;iotec§':."i'ox.§reru price to run the risk of Ioss;--v.S"o,far asV.seeori'_d i':1fefence isV eoncerrzeci, we havevme evi&{i'eize e- oi:o._§*ecofd"'ihAa;t; accused had manipulated iermite. Yet the fact re{1"1;;i:n.<s__ between the accused " V date ef aiieged de{11a;1§3...<)f'VXb.;*:{:be¥-;:;::It_ 5 svetuagtien Where PW? came to ignowﬁhe acci£géeAAL:£c.:"ﬁngers: time on 28.0'?.1§§8¢

24. V._PW2 i::eS'e,§3rr1i'ti:e}§ aftee compietion of supply of £3irI;§T.ij.':'t(':',E?'~§I1i'*'E5§3, his f"1heE biii was settieci during the month ef: PW2 bee personally gone to the aeceun:s"e"eeetion ef FCE and received 3 sum of Re,2.i?'}';';'{}€C)¢Z}/~ tewarés {£321 szettiememi of fine} Teiiii PW? Ir;eé'~«_made ax: emrguiry aeeegt refunﬁ of security deposit 20 {Eh/ID) with the officials of accounts section of anti he was told that it woulﬁ be released in d1;e.«jetm}_i-riés'eV' or else, he had to make an application in presei=ibe:&'?f0rrii*;*.ii

25. PW2 has admitted on 09.G<%';1998§_' a wasu ' f it issued by the authorities as Ex.P.2 we find an that he has no ebjeetionfta I'§'5tVA't£JI?iT:V1V::"'.:4.t'3('i1;i'i'i;'_§.f.'fieﬁfﬁsiii REMD} to PW2. On 17.07.19es~,...V:'g._;:i'0_i§.'A?;iv';i'sVi'a';I$iii:~.. gp fer return of security dep0A5--i.t {E§#II)'j.-,"fFiie.'."'e9xi<ier.V...&Viﬁs"as made by the Assistant (ﬁtceeiinte-) amid ilijiesputy Manager {Civﬁ Engimer5.nfg; ' 2.?f;a97.19'as"° and 20.07.1993. 0::

23.07'-,_19E}8; the cheque as per E:1x:.Pf.7.

Tiie eiiieiqiiev. vi.%a_5 in the name at 1's«'§,:'s.;;§i83%§{ Ma»:-i:eI*;antS, 0if"w.1§;__i__c_;_hv Vite-",2 was the preprietcut The sgﬁeqee » prep'a,tezi_ fer Ra.8,8QG,»"w and autheriseé Signatory cheque cm the same day. ?§7*J2 has acifnit'tfed" that he baa received teieyhonie V "cra;11niiznieatien from PW'? that cheque for refund ef EMB '".ié'°ready, he ceuié came and collect the game:

N Cgtee Q'\,*\,.w-(&:"\* Thereafter, PW2 prepared an authorisation letter as per Ex.P.3 and had authorised PW3 to coliect PW2 had instructed PW3 ta hand over letter to PW7«S.A.Sr:iram, whe at the reieifaiiiﬁi working as Assistant Manager (CE), it

26. When PW2 was fiirsitb information, he has; accep_.teAti__t'h,e sf first information that authorisation letter to PW7..'.PW/2 that he had deliberateiy§--gnefiiio1ie'd ii; the :15: ijifsormation that PW3 had i1atr1ic!.e_cVl'f- m?ej;f:'-ai::imrisé:'i'i'<;»i:1 letter t0 aecuseﬂ to falsely. an pIi'c.a§t'e

27. frail": eigidence of WW2 it is clear ftixat he had Vﬁfzaefvquotedviiitiie price of anti termite when he haﬁ to FCX, The accused was irxcharge of ci3x';strLz<:.t:ii;§.:r1Aisite «of FCI at Yumkur. PW2 was deiivering anti ij'erf:i}ite in terms of eantract to the corisltruciieii site at"'Iﬂfumkur. It Iaaks probabie that price (if anti termite ; Q?' g.'\'.} ' /g 3 213 quoted by PW2 was grossly inadequate and V.:E._;;e {£3 insistence of accused to supply standard quality'-§§é:'f.e.:é1vz1ti termite, there were differences between th«é::é1cVe.uFSe"di PW2. -

28. We find from the C€??"1t_jE?I1t§'~w;_'".§~1r5'£ per Ex.P.4, PW2 had prep2ife.<Ti'~fii'st his letterhead. Though.'FW2 tiietHﬂFW3 had accompanied him, not éisclose that Police ..§'\_?iif3iabout demand of bribe by the truth of eeniezits of first iI1':';f(§i{"x"1"i,{.:iVf;i0I1'V':iE£3'd_g'i§'€i'V'§j2' Pi'§$?:Z';'iV

29., At fi"ii.$iju1r1£:t__z1:i"«;§,s iiiiis neceseary to etate f§"1£:i§ as per §}1e'*;'3,"fi.§§Cif'1VC(i' 0Af"'?.\)_V_2w& FW3, PW3 had met the eeeugeé From the contents ef first infarmaiion, gag":3;1ci'Veé§.";2s::.e*?.1998, I:-we had sent PW3 (empieyee ef

- Pwij .ti3V.atfie Regionai Gffice {if FCE at Miseion Reaai "'V«.EB'a11ge.i0Vi;e. P'i%»'3 heﬁ handed; aver eaid ieﬁter ie the _ ééxteiueieé, who wee Junie? Engineer {Civil} of FCL wig-:3 had §\_" . gf?\,<wJ..'7§4'~ ;

"a._"~.3§Vciri{ing as the Assistant fvianager {Aceounts}ﬁ F63, 3 :_'__..1 fetter on 25.0'?.}998 authorising PW3 to ceilect hitheque relating to refund of security deposit (Eh/£13}. P1¥J2_:1:.a{:}..;;et instructed PW3 to give authorisation accused. PW2 was aware that the aut'ho1'it§atiVeax1'letvtef. had to be handed ever try aceounts..3se'<::timi" df:Z?__(3'I:1;_te col§ect the cheque after' -s3uignihgV_'Va v<:=ti'e1f{e.1f_,_H In thett' circumstances, neither PW3t'anyvVr}*easens in beﬁeve that the acc':.r'..:;ef;e;i to ehew te FWZE. much less the accusetf efﬁeiai duty in the matt*e'§'~:§.£' which was kept ready v'.'E~"§3t"2';.V'*£;E1eref0re, evidence ef PW2 withheld the fetter ef authoti:sat'i0n' PW?» to pay brihe ef Rs-3:660/-ua'£§3V i'1«a'né.'V-otter Ietter ef authorisatien ieeks hig.h:ly5...'im;"3:;pba§}§e"§m§t £5 me: made eiear as to how ietter preparecé en 25.0?.;E.998, had i'€E!Ch€§§ theéthandtst "tﬁaeeused.

3{i';_ I5W6--V.Verzkataraman§ who at the reievant time {\5 . cf».

1.... gm x é i f'~Z£ 1}?

Regional Office, Bangaiorm has deposed; tifxat on 29.07.1998, PW3 had brcsught the authorisation.§e:'te_r as per Ex.P.3 and handed ave}: the same to '7E2_.aE dV put his initiziis with éaie on §:jr:»P.3 aﬂd---.:§t'}3eV"'Vs3a:1'1e.e. iusﬁ marked as Ex.P.3(d). After receipt per Ex.P.6 from PW3, ciieqgte «Vﬁtefked handed over is ?W3-¥iabib~£J Ele hes deposed that he had passedéfie 12 ofHE;(.Py'.2« After the oréer wasAVpasse&§VV_§_3ﬁ_?g»f placeﬁ befere the Deputy" ::I:4ﬁeV§§'in--eVering). and Deputy Manager approval. Fmm the eizideiiee the order fer gaymerzt wag theVegeV{;_{ie--~V.§%f§%'z2«§V~'§3repared an 23.011998 and it was_kept reVé:i§£ﬂhj--f'G%'v.téééézzg éelivereé {G P352, ?1ii?é3 Raﬁ irﬁffiegi-i.Aaie1y iri;f£')fx11e& Ewii'?-S,?&.Srir3m ta inform PW2 to £-e11eAc'i--v,_«th4e'._:ei3"eque and EEW? haaé informer? ?'%%!':2 that £:hequeHWéL.sAe:;re&&y am he eanid came and ceiiect 'the

31. At this juncture, it is reievant t0 state that PW6 has not deposed that the accused had vV.{'2'yt:.)'.~at».:1 ir2ed authorisation ietter from PW3 or the eny thing to do with the delivery of was in the accounts section: V A' I During eross--examination,:4PW6._§1as c.1'ep{)v;'se"d;tv L' relevant time, accused waS"'vet%brkin"g'a$_ 'JL=":1ivt$ij§'v'éi1ginee1;V at Tumkur and he wasgin cchérgejé tejfetcpnstfiitctiven section of FCI. PVV6 knew P\«t;"2: came ta office of FCI about.Vtﬁ::(:Q':-to the supplier of chemicals; of buiitiing by ac:

and F_{3..f.;vVcfﬁ€e for entering irite agreetit1eu1f'z'tsVa1*:e'§.'.:;:'I§.<§b'ir§A:_:{:ei':n§3ctien with payment for the sup;:>;i_ie3 has admitted that 'W272 had :5; a.p.p1ieet'it:'ﬁvfc§ finai yaymeﬁt cf EMB ameunt {if payment towards final biI§ wag made in £2~«.§'me;;ti;'1._a§mcembey §.§§7, PW6 has admitted that on G§,£}'?.v?iAE;398, 'N6 Due Certificate' {far short? "P€i}(3'} was ofijtiaineé by the accused in reiaiiarz ﬁe refund cf security deposit IEMD} to PW2. PW6 has admitted that NBC was issued by the accuseci as he was in chargc",:.:§:$'f..V the construction section. PW6 has admitted come to him with authcrisatcion letter b» about 4.30 or 5.06 pan. cu 27.07.1998, 9W3 had z»:,0_me 2 authorisation ietter from zisiilcéic thci authorisation letterfrtziifn dcijicscvci tiiat the cheque was issued tc p.111. 01' 5.00 ;).m. on transaction of that day; he had obtained signa;Vtiii;i§ cheque was issued ta him. that the accused had any handvin ii§Sil;§v,vi}"i~{T;é" Giciicggise :3 P133. As per {kc officiai I'€3"*éi.:'$':i'§§§~-.,A(}iN'v'.FCI, i,13ié""'<':'§1e:quc 'W333? ready by 23.¢3"?.19E.%8. there V fwég wt1Gv.i1:n;fk:i{£i§r:.e:1t for PR'? $0 fcceive the saici Chequér, PV§iV.?c}'Si,.§£i.Srirarn has deposed that the cheque for j refi"2r,i,.éV"'A.V security égpcgii: {EMU} was ready on iI»:3'.~f.)7.1i§98. On the same ﬁayg PW?' ccxitacicd PW? and N Ogm .,~__M(_€'__.*'\,/\ﬂ;,¢\", 28 informed that cheque was ready and he could came and collect the same. PW6 has deposed on 28.013998 and 29.07.1998, the accugeﬂ had come to Bangagfore ﬁn ccnnection with scsma Work at preparation of estimates, Therefore, of the event that had }'i£ipp€§:I;1£'A:M(i "Gtf'1 'i"i'1e» evidence of PW? wouici he had informed PW2 thag '{*:.f%7evsi1bueA.f::)zc waéi ready and he Couldx'CjZ}I'§'E€ .':{§§'é.;;%vh':'€¥£iIi.£§.{§'§Z In the circumstances. the by FW2 was in coma E0 thé .ofﬁ€Ié sf' '§f{'2_E 'é.{ov}--.§a1'ie;cf:V tiie cimqaze or £9 send hi§§ "a11:jt.h0::i§f3qe:i_'é§g£:z2t. T:€§Wé:)1Eect cheque fmm PW€'S. ';E'her€:.fm5:e, eviV(i1{é'11{ie.V5§?._§3€%5;% £233': ﬁe had me: {He gzétcusacii on 29.t3_7.}A.998 zir1 ::Z,.éi'£'i§.E5;,:és€::i Ezari €i€fI{1a§1df;':& 22 $2111} 2:31' I{s.3_,0{}Q/4' a's.§E:f.ib€v_ £3129? Eféﬁiiﬁ sf auiherisaiitm éaitztzr' {(3 €¥1§é§b1€2 ?Vw73't'€%_¢Oﬁ.€:{Yi 552%: shequaz af sea-T1z:"i"Z£§i aziegesit A§Agfi»?D3"' §ir>vée«_._noz insgzm: étgrifidsnaew an 89.G'?..§£5.%§& 211$ 'kixﬁﬁiiiiﬁ N{}{Z fair refuné Gf aecuzétijg ﬁ&§0sif, t'§' .E?§¥.?'2 and thgreaftéir aaczisieé was :39: caizaerneaﬁi H' .1" N Qrx/2,/'\&//'\ "

2 ii.) with preparation of cheque or delivery of cheque to I-'W2. The accused did not have any official act E0 pe'%:f6:m in favour of PW2 or PW3. Etlquaiiy S0 PW2 ax1d.~«~§?V,§ﬁE'%.__'__f1'.éi:;'1:VA'£13 reasons to heiieve thaé: accused had Ht__{3"'~-geztifbrxrx "any official act to favour them.

33. We aiso find from I'?f:f:(.2'Ef:-.'£'_j{Z1S t'h.:«1i'L :he as Ex.P.'7 was prepared ﬂgghezgue was drawn in the for 3 sum of Rs.8,80(T)/«~. The the fassistant Manager {EZe€i':"i€:a1} sf E3-'€31. Regiiounzil'V;{)fﬁVbs,«. §;%::g3§'£3'réV'-g2?'. The cheque was put is Bank of Mysaraa Kavai Eyrasa'11¥{ ra~ §§"§¥,§r€: PW2 heiﬁ his z?f£C€'ﬁ(3§i£1?; and was tiigéfeﬁ ﬁn :i§;'{§?.§'£}98. PW3 has :13?" r:§.&"3}}0S€€§ «:>:_f£er ':'t"f1e (':heque was; itaéieataﬁ by him, he had hanégé .§%{«::~r to this Emzazsiégatﬁng ﬁfficer, 'E.'hé::*e is :10 {:$*§..&ergi:3e~.c:E1 rfsectaré ':53 yravéé iha sheqme was saézézé seen .AaVfter'€;}1e aceused was mapped, Hawever, {mm the . €'€.'*i.a:§ani:.€ Gf §nvestiga§:?'.:[:g iﬁffisar, we firié aft of one month of trap, he Emﬁ seizeé the cheque from the State Bank ef India. StAMark's Road Branch, Bangalore, on which the cheque was; drawn. The prosecuti4.0:§"'c,ase is specific that accused had ciemandeﬁ cheque in favour {If ?$i?3i In the accused shouid have Eeé: in evid'e}iiie' 19 b T possession of cheque seen trapped. Therefore, it is e§'e:.:;:z;i"V.t;I*1at."PW.3rﬁ:i§ufeeeiteed the cheque from PW6, f£*a'i§§1<3u&te'%'i;'V?e_:I'*2'xbefng "é{r1'y ixiéerference by the accuseﬁ. In fire: part of the case Qf_ 'th;e accused had éem;;ivnde¥:f'~€>§' VI€eé¢:"§.{}{}€§f-- fram PW3 1:0 perform ofﬁciéi act tcgf'aA§r*:§é§'i*~._ '1«7:3 viz. hanﬁ over autimrisation lettej to gei ihe cheque izasueﬁ fm' refund €s--f_.:;§'et:A1:ri$.y de_§€$s:'i'i"{eE§£§§}} <:2m:';e'i ﬁe zasccegteé, ' W._Th.e presecuiieﬁ hag reiied on the eviéence 0f '*fPe\E/Ts prove {hat an 29.{§Z«".}9§8 at aﬁgmt 5.38 accused aemanﬁeﬁ and received mega:

,9 . «nu asked PW3 whether he haé brought bribe money and as to why he had Come 13:3' PW3 has pleaded SOIi¥i€' '€§X (21lS€ for coming late to the chamber of accused. Investigating Officer had seized tape neither produced before the iris}.-i"C(>ux'tj_, of the cassette, which had conversation between A.zi~<:vc;.11s.eA5:-.'j'V1:nade:V' known to the triai §'..:.1ux*i:. V-I3{;f§réVV'*-»the'ffiai. {3;>urt, the excuse pieaded by §§:k:}"s§:3::'i'.a_:Vi§§;§§: Lf§'i"_v<'1%;i;Y}~prou:£z3€:§ion 0f tape recorder j,5fa§:~ 'time 0%" allegeé trap and t_hc r~e§ :1'0:i:s__§"i31 €:.h<§. p1ace, therefore nothing was 31.idib£éT'fii€§m {he _§:;l:iae,:§:?:i€§:." The 4-excuséz_ ';c';iéa§s:«r:i=" by j3§'9S€:{.'.11{i(}Ii aamzot b9 accelﬂed in V{xi::.:xL1= (if. £31'; fact that PW3 82 Pm: have that %?:e§r""E':'a<§; met: {ﬁg accused in his atharxzber, whTic'h "wja7s..ﬁ..§e< :Et2cied piaca and it was not accsasibie ta ailyahd gﬂiaéityw En {ha ciraumsiancés, n€m--pr0d:;cti()n of tape i'~~£3'Ci"'.f_'I'(i&f and the s::a:»§39i5.ﬁi:€: to prave the canwsrsatien taiieﬁ piage Egtwaen the accuseﬁ agad PW3 $7 3 .._ Qx '~"CE{m-

.- _ '\-JV would create a serious deubi GT1 the veracity af miidence of PW3 & PW4.

35. PW3 has deposed that accused .

to accounts section and as per affixed his signature to a to him. PW4 has 2101 eEepeseéiV_'fc'i"z§t tiie. iiccvusizéﬂcvi' ?W3 to accounts seciien. It €"\.'.:f3'.x'~.VV:'i':;v~v1.:1g§.5,JVv%';7iSiZ€:d to PW4 about the pres:ei*:..i-c§:*_A€iVf the Eiime of delivery of cheque to sf FCI- in the PW4 that they had visited "the ivigiccused at abeut 5.30 p.m., en eiecused ziemandeti Ewibe of Rs.3,G{)0{r'cr:1 VVI"&if:§.'.§<:;e:*:}"ii;e£4 i iiighiy improbabiey ¥'W?1"Wh'eve éepcsedz after FW3 received __ciiVe.('§i.1e:,_"»]?'W3~__a':;é accused came to the basemezit floor {pa.::u1§ing. as the lift was not operational}; after the V'-.,accuse{;1ii-came near his sccater, he demanﬁeé PW3 it:

over bribe amcurzé: at that time, PW3 handed over §r\} ' m~--...tzQ¢~\ * , was demanéirig hribe frem PW3.

a sum of Rs.3.000/-- to the accused. The accused received and counted bribe amount by his hands and kept the bribe amount in the right side pocket sweater; thereafter PW3 gave pre-determined_$_§igrie1r:i*Vtc'<H the Investigating Officer. who came and appre7ir_er1::ic:cii' accused and seized tainteé cu1jreric'y.note_e _if:7::_mV "tile accused and ccnducteci phen01;3htAhale.iii teét fingers of accused in sodiurcyxcerboxiate' --s0'1titi'iori."' The inner lining of sweater 017 theecc1"1'seéi-.was aisc. riigped in the sedium carbonate sei11'ticn_;;3i1é Snlutien turned pink.

36. £&ccex9udii:.g:'t evidence of Investigating Officer, phenolpiithliiaieiatiﬂirtest was cenducted in the baseirgieriti.ﬂoori"{pieri{ixig area) and several officiaie of FCI i3W4, who was alt aieng in the nae net éeposed regartiing demand of _ britie"-by .--jt:1ie.iAiiccused. ?iV4 has depcssed; by ebseriring the iicd}:_lang'i1age of eccueeég he couid make eat that the J (L. C}?

3'3'. From the evidence of ?W5--Rama2:rishna, Investigating Officer, we ﬁné the Investigating Officer, leader of raiding party was following the accuseii"-and PW3. It is obvious that the Investigating followed PW3 and the accused and he posi§io'iieci in close proximity to 3CC11S(ii:iimViéiiir}' circumstances, the Investigatingi"~:7I}i;ifi.cer hear as to what was t¥aﬁSi)i1'vi:ii'g. be.t"w'eeVnv.the accused. The other :ne§::;berso"of.ijéiiiciirig peiirtyc }'i'12i<i taken positions in the ﬁhey could see and hear as to vzhst was ti*3:iss;;4ii'ii3';g_ between accused and §'W3. and the evidence of investigatilzg the investigating Qfficer ayprehvendeiti Vt}1e_é£--{:i:€ise?:§ after receiving prewdemrmined .. ., _sig:$..é'; by PW3 1ooi{'s"'2i:9tifici3i. vi iI9'.i'io:1j1" i§re:'.:evidence of FWZ & PW3 it is estahiished thé1:__ grossly under-quoted the price of anti V"'»termi'fe,__t' The grice quoteﬁ ﬁy PW2 was far lesser than '- £9/sh -L,.=-m<T4ﬁ«£'\:° x"vi§11e_i§§zarket price. ii i{Tr0iiS probabie {hat the ed diﬁ

531...?» .

"~,./as zﬁssistant 'i£?Ié.nager 0f FCE at Bangaiare) an V":-§11vr§'{i'dI1(if:d by five $1' six persona rm not oblige PW2 by accepting sub-stanﬁard and adulterated anti termite. Therefore, PW2 had developed grudge against the accuseda It has been sugg£ast.e1:§»t0 PW3 & ewzz that an 29.07.2998, the accused };ga;_;:iff V. the Regional Office of FCI at Missian Road, ' about 5.30 p.m., when the &ccusye'dWw'a:s V house by taking his scogter {basement floor} of the buiI€ii1*}:;€.'j';*~._}?\¥fi3iV' 1*1.1s'E1-;eA:ti"v_:t:;9§*-;}£'i'ri*; yand 'V thrust tainted currency notes*'*i1.:1 ts§"right éziﬁve. pgéeket of sweater of the accusecf 'a;1:i"wV!§ie§'n V:t1'i €:.VVVa'ecu5ed tried to ward off PW3, some '€ai:rA:V.V§t:e3c£v'éf;L=_1f'z'eV:if:;c;y spilieé on the floor azﬁd Vj.5San1€:V'm'e,%k2..'_'coiiee£ed by PW3 and handed ever to ﬁhe 'InvesVﬁig;z;t_£b::g«:T{}f€Ecer.

38. _'--£'.7f1e at;;i::;Se'ciV."ha.§§- eiamiaed DWI {DW1 waa working :1 29,Qi?.a€;99:s~, he had visited Regional Office 9% FCI at Misséiyén R.b'ae§,'TV.Banga3.ere, 31331 has depcvseég at about "p_3.n., on 2§g{¥'?s19§8, the aacuseﬁ was Whey: BW);

f\.: (hex K M» wot"

enquired, they told DWI that they are from C8}: the accused hat} accepted bribe amount; they.. "haave surrounded him. DWI enquired those pCI'SOI"lS'.'3'S>;iL-ﬁg:

the matter was and DW} was told that t_he,y;_:"a:e'v-goingvie.V arrest the accused. DVV1 enquirled thein;--._i4f~.he V{xgexéa offer himself as surety whether the-3f=are geihrxghhvic r£{~ieaseﬂ the accused. Then they tolcihhviﬁiiihic thaf"th§§y:.¥gvo.i2}ﬁ;eIease the accused on his ihai if the accused were to abscehch Rs.18,{)G{},-'~. DWI agreed:..f€*1AIé.:V t_'31e himself as surety' for the relgeaée.Vcf"aVccvu5:§:r:§.""E§_1i§%_iV"has deposed; the accused was t§ihv}{€IH}!"f&.:v:f_'§,,:? ﬂae:=.;:§.§"«a.§§ra;e_":miIding by the raiding party; the Iz'1Avestiga'tiﬁg€_L:V'a§'f'fii'cer'"' was holciing the accuseﬁ:

InvesiigatffigvvGfficei: ﬁhtacic the accused ta wash his Eia-535:5 a. Abowi ccﬁéairzizag vzaiezg which was bwughi by €3i'E§.I"pe't§:1§)ieV:..e:W'§;en accused ﬁippeé his fingers inte the ﬂasher haw}, CE} people had caught hold ef his fingershaud dipped fingers af {he accuseci; then they toici t:h[a't';~,water turned ta some ceieur, They hszzﬁ ceiiecteé we coloured water into a separate bottle. The ieft fingers of accused were dipped in another bowl of water in the same manner. The resuitant cokoured waterj was collected in a sepzimte battle. T31G§T€:£'i'i"~'f.f<:3'I';":. Investigating Officer got remeved the sweater and washed the inner ﬁning <3£"i€iie"pQCi1;et<i1:if%:' that solution and the resix1t.iéin__t:i'i--iysie5 separate bottle. DWI sawis'c:%ﬁ"eb kepisi an the table; he doesfmt }§~§;'jf'£':<;¥V".'¥':"'t*.7'.'i'£"(':_l'.'{3 friéﬁmvit-'eame. The police officer asked another official that_ another official gavezvviaamiei"2é51f3:2€)1iVi1'{:; {Ea-<=:s; {mi §<;r:0w* the perssan wim paid the '-monef,7*.A:_:'v,@:i§i'i*a.{ESE peepie counted the notes and_saidiiuthe:v.i}1e.'m1i§"}unt is. coyrect. They kept the :.i'1'iriE)u:;;t with :é1'e'm*;" "fhe investigating Offieez" requesteﬁ (33;Z'b€.i§'i anti pagers and they prepareﬁ seine dcjcitnients and same ciecumeﬁts were type Written by a typewriter prmrided by DWI.

AA 7 i & '''*~Cé/'+« §'\,§ 35-} During cress-examineti<:m. DWI has deposeé; on that day, proceedings were not Conducted in the parking area (basement ﬂoor cf the building) and proceedings were conducted in the EV finer of the building. iﬂle has identiﬁed surety bone executed by him. DWI suggestion that he has given false accused.

39. From the evidence of .§{ﬁ'vesi:i-gati::.i Officer (PW5) and DWI, weffi.:_1d eirir_1ei:ce of apjipevarsi.

to be probable than the evidenee of '£0 5; DWI has categorically dep0se'ci._4_€i;at fihe .Agf§'ar}iiVii;.g'.Aarea was crewdeé. it Ioi;3,_1<:$--_ }}F§;.}ViiE:L'-jaév':§'i'a,%'.'i"th@" efﬁciais of FCL who had parked' gliieéiri v_eI2.iAcie§;«.__:iiasci reacheﬁ the earkizig aiea around Viiafter effiee hours}. in the cij;iiiiirgétancee;"'the__evidem;e of investigating Gffieer that , 's~:3ydiu:i1veea?;i9'i3.enate seiutien was prepared in the parking :1iea&ie.ri<;¥,Vfi.ii'i~g§ers of aceuseé were ﬂipped in the bewi Cm2itai:1in'g---V_'seéium carbemite eolutieng 30 £30 inner aw =f':..»L x.,..f}'1-"v'"{£f>k~» lﬁning of pocket of swzrater 9f the accused was dipped in the soiution iooks improbabie.

40. Thus. we finﬁ. demarzcl and acceptaniigé the accused from PW3 near pazf-k'i"ng.are'_a (§>:ijAser;:<§nt:'.Vf1<H)s:;:' b of the building) does not inspiré'":;oi;.ﬁl:ie:1§e, .

41. Now the next point fe%'Vj'd.¢ €ermiﬁ'3ti§$h ':is:¥g Whether';:_th.e \f"Vérsi:G'n.__nvf'-gccused that PW3 had not t}i£*:.;ét'i;:1irite_dL["«:§i;ri'£;_ncy notes into the_ApQcke;i'VV1(ii' a«;r£f'used stands the teisjvt ::{;fL~;i_re}:;€§n€c§_:§}"a:2'_?V:<e. upi*{$'babi1ities?

42. ~Eiiéx1[_iffi.it ii-Vii 'fxeiiiﬁixat $5i":*ie tainted currency notes were Vi'§:c'o_vérecVi*f1*oﬁ:,'ii=:eV..-gmcket af the accused, that would only, prove ;:5'<)s£a~~éss;ir3ﬁ of tainted currency notes ~ V. t (b;'*ii-.e :E§I:'IiQl.IIii} 'b3,~...§;.;;%:c Eiﬁﬁtiﬁeﬁg 'Fhé.,iVeVaf:f:ed cezmsei for accused as aiso learned Suprerfiég Court in suppart 9:" their " Qéﬁtentiens, 3x3. ,5» é('3'i'f 1"lSelH'fx£:§'1f"::(:BI have: Cited several judgments of the respective 51} E

44. The learned counsei for the aacused has relied on the judgment of the Supreme (Lauri, reported iz1~={20O2] 5 Supreme Court {Eases 88 {in the case".

Parbat Sonvane Vs. State of Gujarat) to'-« g_§onts§z9i<';¥' the word "()btains" 0ccurriIj;gAA'Vi't1.&_s"ect§3_iji" _}.3{'1Vj(ci)'{i) connotes pecuniary a&vantage. «whi_ch cd'nte'mpla~¥:e'sAénV element of effort or iniEi3ti'":rﬁ"'~an thévpa&:"1 'c&_;f i'§i1éVVi'eceiverV cf advantage. In the;.-gf9res:'zz:-£§§i-1fii-«:i_gmeAfit';'-Aat"isaragraph 6 it is hﬂldh 6.4.:V}1n_S§:ﬁ;VE':V§.:€"ifi{$3 VI.'3{:i}(a) and {b} V'?h"{{ Zi'ég§'$E'3%Vui:e has sgecificaﬁy : :_l.:ISE3(1 er "obtains". As a'g..ain.Mst' is departure in the ._1an%guage.ﬁus§éad "°in sub-section {}}(ei} af ;ﬁ£9':;i:'3c..tion"'3;'3~-------a':1,d it hag omitted the ward anﬁ has aamphasizeé. the vmré Further, the ingredient of sub-

¢;:iaﬁS'éT ii) is that by carrupt or iiie,-gal 'ﬂgfriissransg 3 _gu§;zEic Eewant obtaing any valuablg thing GI' pecuniary advanmge;

gxj. m~,':v"~'""*Qg1"~ under sub-ciause: (ii), he obtains such thing by abusing his position as a public servant; and szibciause {iii} contemplatgs that while Imiding office as a servant, he obtains for any pers9'n*-.'a;;i.y'VV1' valuable thing 01' pecuniary ad"urttnt'_agé--'i without any public inf;e"i'e5t¢.

for convicting the per:s:Qn1'_'_midé1i 13{1)[d), there must 11¢ eyid:_ei:Qe i that the accused "(3ii}'VfEi_iI}.€5'(1" or for any othe:'¥;y;)crsi€s'ti," '$ii:y"*qa1uﬁbie "fixing or pecuniary ué1<itr'aIi'taf:g§; i$TyvV:i_e.it'i7.er corrupt er illegai :neaz§'s"i3&i%"'bvy iiiiis position 21}-;tib};:i§::V'Iséziyatzt '(3"r~h'5e obtained fer any V7._Ap<:r':;z)IV1[u=a¢i:c1:yi thing 0:' pecuniary ﬁéyantiagé"".i=vi._t'h--z§iﬁt any pubiic i1':.terest." _iFi1<§; 1eé£i*11v-s3_d..r€mmsei fear CB1 has reiieé; on a ' ;V&'e.cisvi;iiniamijjorted in 52097} 1 SCC (C11) 520 {in the case yépresented by Inspector of Paiice Vs. Xi,i'tjtf;":',7'f1i.fV)"(CI¥'I}, to content} that affences under" sections '? it it 13(1.}{d} cauid be sizfgmitaneﬁusiy pregsed iﬁiﬁ service 1'\9- <":&\4*v:'«>'*"'*"""Q£»-~ and the accused could be convicted under both the sections.

The learned counsei for CB1 has re1ie}:i~. {>.;1 a decision reporteé in (2007) 1. SCC {Cri) of B.Noha Vs. State of Kerala and ano--tf'--ief}}~..i6~.:¢o;1tegi1d. that when it is prcved that conscious acceptance cf rxiogey b5r t';1e no further buréen cast 0n"v'Vif1?».;'{ Rfnséc-556;; Brove by Ciirect evidence, the It cimiy to be deduced from the obtained in the 1 (33% has relieeri on a decisioc I SCC {Cri) 380 {in the case <::fAV..F$echc'1 t1rf)Vh'=:1i.'~ S.;f'§;&_.jag}aii VS. State of Gagjaratj €36 'C"#).Ii'teAI1d that a€ic'é§}':§i;a1'i{:e cf bribe F537 3 pubiic scrvant is té 4 p.1':::§§;:f.

Th'.é£j.--1Acarned counsci far CB1 has contended that oncé.V§f2e prosecutitm has proved that the amount has been received by the accused, the presumption under section 4 of the 1947 Act would get attracted.

47. The iearned counsel for C13} has center:{i'e.ci"'««tfx»at once tainted currency notes were recovered fr{3'rif;"*-- accused, even if the number efmrecove'ry"--b_'f, htaeinted currency notes did not match with:_t'hc'se'»n1eri'ties'11:é:-<113;' the pretrap panchnama, 3t:ch4..._evid"e-nee A..3%m,t_Vs1rffer from any inﬁrmity

48. In the discussioVn'--.ﬁ3;adeLs':;prei';.VLI have helé :hat the prosecution has.Vfai1eé.-in ;i;~a€;'e_ v_eri' :V'%§($?R 1 998. the accusefi had' "d5e.n1a:§<:éie.d'£r'om PWS. illegal gratiﬁcation of Rs.3,0O'O/Q ._aS. .3' reward for shoxrzingg efficiai favour viiiL.reieae§ing'A._2£::§_§ii€;risati0n ietter £0 ceﬁect the cheq;ie' of sect:rivthy9€1e';}cs-sit {REED} from accotmis eection '-..,£:}¥. :,T~.heref9re,'Vtiievzaffence ciefined uzrder eeciimr 7' sf ' Ltth eethﬁxc ft n4d't.e_é1'i:"t;racted' '{\?~ <::é"" "" 5"/V' O{'ﬁ°

49. In the circumstances, the next gmint for determination is whether item the evidence of PW4, regarding seizure of tainted currency possession of accused it is provedtH1V1at the "

committed an offence undere punishable under section 13(2)-of theftet?

50. In the discussion;-*:§iade«V.s'u;;';.if;1.iiiutianiet i1e.iAdVA.fEhat the prosecution has fai1e(i'2V9.G7.i§98, at about 5.30 p.tn..-'tithe from PW3 a sum of '-ott§i'cieiiiiiievour to him to enable PW3 2:; Collect the (:11iequ'e:"0f security degesit {EMS}. The aceus"e«di'aa;as' x1eit_he1i'~i3": possessien of authorisation §_ette3:; net: P\R?;y_ha¢i era}? Geessien ta give euttserieatien Eet"t:er §o'«.th.e"'--::§:eused. The evidence an record éeee not diet:-¥,7esVe'that'j;;.?W'3 head harmed ever authorisatien letter to t'he""ecoitse&. The eonients of first information and ffiie-.._evieienee cf PW2, we finé that PW3 had handeé over Aisgzuitiierisation ietter te k Therefore, the eviéenee of Beg {_>€»\.~.o,.¢/x. W-°'(...6«.n.

4- ("*5 PW3 & PW4 does not inspire conﬁdence. ﬂzeugh PW3 had carried tape reeeréer is record the eenvereéiien between PW3 and the accused. it was before the trial Court. The reason for nen--pf0}:iuee€iVe11M V' tape recorder before the trial Ccé'u"i5t""t11§t'..&it.; and noisy; recorded version audible and did not eonee§é'L:."'~any .usef'u1V cannot be accepted. Tétfz invve5ti§%_etiV:1g. Offieegx (.z*J;.V5) and PW-:1 had followeci the The evidence of PW3 that the eee'u_eed reaching his scooter in 'the4p2ifVk;i.n'g:_e_:ee. deeevnet find eerreboration from tiﬁe iooks probabie that the Investigeating offgﬁs.:;a;~:}~»er;'c:1ea the place immediateiy. Though seve'm_I peifseﬁs; immeéiately gathereé Ehere, ~.,._;:1one :'eé,fe.Athe pef§e"ré {gnziélic} was examined by the 7p1%_;5ee.z££'§.er;v,' 'A.;§.§'.. aireaéy Siéiiéﬁg the accused had no offi; i zil apt' 'eerform in fezreur ef PW3. FWV2 $1 @1353 were "aware that the cheque wee reeciiiy available anzi PW? was ":.'feqV1{i1*_ed to collect the eheqae by Ezimeeif er send his $3 3, #2.. LA» "v"' &-A 3 47 representative is eeiiect the cheque on pmciuetisin of authorisation letter. The authorisation iette4r..VV_V""area~sV prepared on 25.07.1998. The evidence on not disclose that accuseé had a accompany him to parking area {b:a4se:he;i:t circumstances, the evidence aft€:§".A€E:,V:}vect'§§ng the cheque, he felloweﬁ the end had demanded bribe from' :«.i_;1.;p':o'baI:}iVeA, the ether hand, the f(e1'sie§:H_ he was about to stargf 4'1i;;i.§;'.'Vse;i<3ef£ei"§; thrust tainted currency Vgeveekhet of hie sweater.

when zv_a1.-yﬁhhhcff PW3, some minted currencyvhhnctese; ground and thereafter he was s;:rr0unc'4l"m:_};v bynihle Ehveeiigaténg Officer anﬁ ether V.?FP.¢Hib<;2'§f"Df""3i$zidin§"'§éi§~ty Eeeke prebabie. The eviéienee 4h}:.aifs.:1ly suffieient to preve that there wag voluxgiary..en§§i'TV.consci0:,1§ acceptance ef bribe by the V2:.ecu5eé,_ Even the §I'~*:'3S'11}'I'1?pi§€)i'1 under section 2%") of the V'z'§_<:t. _ce11not be raiseé in favour of the proseeutien. in the any; _ ¢:,.»v--"°~""£££«.

circumstances, it is hardiy pessibie to hﬂiti that the accused had demanéed and accepted bribe and had misused his official position to obtain pecuniary advantage. Therefore, what has been aforestated judgments; is not applicable to tlie' the instant case. The p1'03ecutio;:i'AA'h'a::. &fa4§;le_§d _Ait"<$_pVr0{z'e that the accused has misused hie; official .'p.0$i.tia1rn1-;_.t*o "

obtain pecuniary ;.;:3va;'ztage. 'I7f.1'i:.:fef0f.e;._1'.a;;'5\£}'ei:u'p'0'int No.1 to 3 in negative.

The learned triai t§{1e_:ige'.:.t€rithc'ut"»ite'Eer'ri,:z1g to the basic ingrediexit.-sq ef they xiaackgreund of occurrence at1ki',thei3pos.iVt'i<}n of accused viswawvis FWZ at the reievaxxit" timetés}itti'e.tit«"%ierifying that the accused had any offieizﬁgv 3't'3iL"'i€1%.'V-A§]$€Z'i.t'f{}};T'§I} in favour ef E3932 ﬁt' PW3 ianﬁ Vthﬁatg»-.'?W2..«an& hat} any reaeons {:0 appreaeh the u'a.{:éi1_1$erI_t'e:_&<::C$V1i.ee.: the eheque, which in fact Wee readiiy available Vf:;rI'r :;:'i_:set,1e an 23.07.1998, by placing eeﬁanee on ~<.__7t-he eviéieiiee of PWS 3 tie § has helé the accused guilty ei"

it "é:f<:resa7t'ate(:¥t effenees' In View 9? the éiseuesien made ft; _ 'MM gy» vx CLA» supra, I holﬁ the impugned judgment ::a;"mei: be sustained.

31. Therefore, I pass the f01I0wing:~ ORILIER ._ The appeal is accepted. The set aside. The accused is ac€:;Q3;§i~{j§e{1"i3vfV:a1*1 section 7 of the Act ant; aiso f(;_{V§A1r:1_'u=fxfVen<;:.e "'L:¥_1':1 :€.'$€31"E§S€3CtiOI1 1.3mm; of the Rat, pm§i'§.%;a'b1'5L_ mm of the Act. Thfi bail I305-ds ex§;A(:u%éfd: and surety stand cance_1l..-2:3. firia £x.zj;;101;f;tj-- eifi§?V'depositec§ by the accused 'shrali he 1r}:i:§f.2,znﬁ--::d--._tk:s hi-m, SNARE V

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Karnataka High Court