Bangalore District Court
The State Of Karnataka vs Sri G.Munikrishna on 15 July, 2017
IN THE COURT OF LXXVI ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL
AND SESSIONS JUDGE AND SPECIAL JUDGE,
BENGALURU.
(CCH-77)
PRESENT: Smt.SHRIDEVI S. ANGADI,
B.A., LL.M.,
LXXVI ADDL. CITY CIVIL & SESSIONS JUDGE
& SPECIAL JUDGE, BENGALURU.
DATED: This the 15th day of July 2017
Spl. C.C.No.84/2011
COMPLAINANT The State of Karnataka,
by Police Inspector,
Karnataka Lokayuktha
Police Wing, City
Division, Bengaluru.
(Rep. by Spl.Public
Prosecutor)
--Vs-
ACCUSED Sri G.Munikrishna,
Village Accountant,
Ramagondanahalli Circle,
Varthur Hobli, Bengaluru
East Taluk, K.R.Puram,
Bengaluru-66.
(By Sri.H.M.Chandu-
Advocate )
2 Spl.C.C.No.84/2011
1. Nature of Offence Offence punishable under
Sec.7, 13(1) (d) r/w
sec.13 (2) of Prevention of
Corruption Act,1988 &
sec. 218 of IPC.
2. Date of 30.12.2010
Commission
of offence
3. Date of First 29.12.2010
Information Report
4. Date of arrest 30.12.2010
5. Date of 05.03.2014
commencement of
recording of
evidence
6. Date of 14.03.2017
closing of evidence
7. Date of 15.07.2017
pronouncement of
Judgment
8. Result of the case
The accused is found
guilty of offence
punishable under
Sections 7, 13(1)(d) r/w
13(2) of Prevention of
Corruption Act,1988 &
Sec.218 of IPC.
3 Spl.C.C.No.84/2011
JUDGMENT
The accused is charge sheeted for the alleged offence punishable under Sections 7, 13(1) (d) r/w Sec.13 (2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and Sec. 218 of IPC.
2. The prosecution case is that:
The accused was then working as Village Accountant, Ramanagondahalli Circle, Varthur Hobli, Bangalore East Taluk, Bangalore. The complainant's father- K.Krishnappa died in the month of June 2010. Complainant inherited some of the properties. The land bearing Sy.No.35/2, measuring 5 guntas situated at Tuberahalli Village, Varthur Hobli, Bangalore East Taluk, is one among them. On 28.9.2010, the complainant submitted an application to the K.R.Puram Taluk Office, for change of khata in respect of Sy.No.35/2, measuring 5 guntas of Tuberahalli Village. The complainant has enclosed all the relevant documents along with the application. On 2.11.2010, the complainant's file came to the office of the accused. During first week of December 2010, the accused has made a telephonic call to the complainant and demanded Rs.5000/- as bribe, for change of khata. On 23.12.2010 and 27.12.2010, the complainant met the accused in his 4 Spl.C.C.No.84/2011 office. At that time, the accused asked the complainant to meet his Assistant-CW10-Mahendra. When the complainant met CW10-Mahendra, he told him to pay Rs.5000/- as bribe. Since the complainant was not willing to pay the bribe amount, he approached CW23- K.Anjan Kumar, Police Inspector, Karnataka Lokayuktha on 28.12.201. CW-23 gave voice recorder to the complainant to record the conversation with the accused. On 29.12.2010, the complainant presented written information as per Ex.P13 before CW23, who arranged for Trap. Along with the complaint, he has produced voice recorder. CW2-
C.H.Mohan Kumar and CW3-H.R.Guruprasad- the employees of the Commissioner of Public Instructions were secured to act as witness for the Trap. The bait money of Rs.5000/- marked as MO26 was smeared with phenolphthalein powder. Before that, number of currency notes were recorded in a white sheet and obtained the signatures of the witnesses, as per Ex.P2. CW3- H.R.Guruprasad, after verifying and counting the tainted currency notes has placed it in the right side pant pocket of the complainant. Both hand fingers of CW3- Guruprasad were made to dip in the sodium carbonate solution. The said solution becomes pink colour. The complainant was instructed to approach the accused, speak with him about 5 Spl.C.C.No.84/2011 the work and pay the amount only on demand. He was further instructed to give signal by wiping his hairs, if the accused accepted the money. Button camera and voice recorder were given to the complainant with an instruction to switch it on while approaching the accused and to record the scene and conversation. CW2-C.H.Mohan Kumar (shadow witness) was instructed to follow the complainant and to overhear the conversation & to observe what transpires between the complainant and the accused. The Voice recorder produced along with the complaint was played in the presence of the witnesses. The contents of the Voice recorder were converted to CD and transcript into writing. Step by step all the events were video-graphed. Contents of the video-graph were converted to CD. Entrustment Mahazar was prepared as per Ex.P3.
3. On 29.12.2010, at about 6.30 p.m., the complainant, two witnesses, Lokayuktha Inspector and his staff left for Ramagondanahalli Village Panchayat office where the accused was working, in a Government vehicle. On the way to Ramagondanahalli Village Panchayat office, the complainant called the accused through his mobile in order to confirm his presence in the office. Since the accused was not available to phone call and his whereabouts were not known, all the Trap Team Members, 6 Spl.C.C.No.84/2011 including the complainant and the panch witnesses came back to the Lokayuktha Police station. The complainant returned the tainted currency notes, button camera and voice recorder to CW23, and the same was kept in safe custody. In this regard, a Mahazar was drawn as per Ex.P4. The complainant and panch witnesses were instructed to keep present in the Lokayuktha Police station at about 9.30 a.m. on 30.12.2010.
4. On 30.12.2010, at about 9.30 a.m., the complainant and two panch witnesses appeared before CW23. Once again Entrustment Mahazar was prepared as per Ex.P5 by following the same procedure as followed on the previous day and obtained the signatures of the witnesses. Step by step all the events were video-graphed and the contents of the video graph were converted to CD.
5. On 30.12.2010, at about 10.45 a.m., the complainant, two panch witnesses, CW23 and his staff (totally 8 members) left for Ramagondanahalli Village Panchayat Office in a Government vehicle. On the way to Ramagondanahalli Village Panchayat Office, the complainant has called the accused through his mobile. While speaking, the complainant switched on the loud speaker and recorded the conversation. Thereafter, they 7 Spl.C.C.No.84/2011 proceeded towards Ramagondanahalli Panchayat office and parked the vehicle nearby R.K. Multi Specialty Centre. It was about 11.45 a.m. The complainant and CW2- C.H.Mohan Kumar went inside the office of the Village Accountant. The remaining Trap Team Members were standing secretly near by bus-stop and waiting for the signal. At about 12.00 noon, the complainant gave pre- instructed signal, whereupon the raided party rushed to the spot and apprehended the accused. Both the hand fingers of the accused were made to dip in the sodium carbonate solution. The said solution becomes pink colour and the same was seized. On being questioned, the accused has informed that he kept the money in his right side pant pocket. CW2- Mohan Kumar removed the tainted currency notes from the right side pant pocket of the accused. Those tainted currency notes were verified and tallied with the currency notes sheet. The pant of the accused was seized by making an alternate arrangement. The right side pant pocket portion was washed in the sodium carbonate solution. The said solution has turned to pink colour. The accused gave his explanation in writing about he being in possession of the tainted currency notes. The file relating to the complainant was seized from the office of the accused. The button camera and voice 8 Spl.C.C.No.84/2011 recorder which was given to the complainant at the time of the Trap was played in the presence of the witnesses and CW11-G.Manjunath, Revenue Inspector, Varthur Circle, Bangalore East Taluk. CW11 being the higher Officer of the accused has identified the accused and his voice. The Investigating Officer recorded the statements of the complainant and the shadow witness. Trap Mahazar was prepared as per Ex.P8.
6. When the investigation was pending, the accused with an intention to save himself from legal punishment, has created a false receipt for Rs.5000/- which he obtained from the complainant as bribe and sent copy of it to the IO Under Certificate of Posting, which was received by the IO on 2.2.2011. The IO has seized the original receipt book-MO25, in the presence of the witnesses and drawn the Mahazar as per Ex.P12. After obtaining the Chemical Examination Report and Sanction Order from the Competent Authority, CW23 has filed charge sheet against the accused for the offence punishable under sections 7, 13 (1) (d) r/w 13(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and Sec.218 of IPC.
7. My Predecessor-in-Office took cognizance of the offence. The accused is enlarged on bail. After hearing, the 9 Spl.C.C.No.84/2011 charge was framed for the offence punishable under Sections 7, 13(1) (d) r/w 13 (2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 & sec. 218 of IPC. The Charge was read over and explained to the accused. The accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.
8. During the trial, the prosecution has examined in all 7 witnesses as PWs 1 to 7 and got marked 36 documents as Ex.P1 to Ex.P36 and 26 Material Objects as MO1 to MO26. The accused was examined under section 313 of Cr.P.C. for the purpose of enabling him to explain the circumstances existing against him. The accused denied all the incriminating evidence available against him. The accused has not chosen to lead any defense evidence. I have heard the arguments and perused the records.
9. After hearing the arguments and on perusal of the records, the points that arise for my consideration are:
1. Whether the prosecution proves beyond all reasonable doubt that the accused being the public servant, working as Village Accountant, Ramagondanahalli circle, Varthur Hobli, Bangalore East Taluk, Bangalore-66, on 30.12.2010 at about 11.50 a.m., in his office, demanded and accepted illegal gratification of Rs.5,000/- from the complainant-10 Spl.C.C.No.84/2011
K.Anilkumar for showing an official favour in the matter of change of khata, in respect of 5 guntas of land in Sy.No.35/2 of Tuberahalli village, which he inherited from his father, and thereby committed an offence punishable under section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988?
2. Whether the prosecution proves beyond all reasonable doubt that the accused being the public servant, working as Village Accountant, Ramagondanahalli circle, Varthur Hobli, Bangalore East Taluk, Bangalore-66, on 30.12.2010 at about 11.50 a.m., by abusing his position as public servant and by corrupt or illegal means and without public interest obtained Rs.5,000/-, from the complainant- K.Anilkumar as pecuniary advantage and thereby committed Criminal misconduct punishable under section 13(1)(d) r/w.
section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act 1988?
3. Whether the prosecution proves beyond all reasonable doubt that the accused being the public servant, working as Village Accountant, Ramagondanahalli circle, Varthur Hobli, Bangalore East Taluk, Bangalore-66, with an intention to avoid legal punishment, has created a false receipt for Rs.5000/- which he obtained as bribe from the complainant, knowing fully well that it is incorrect document and thereby committed an offence punishable u/s 218 of IPC?
4. What order?
11 Spl.C.C.No.84/201110. My answer to the above points is as under:
POINT No.1: IN THE AFFIRMATIVE
POINT No.2: IN THE AFFIRMATIVE
POINT No.3: IN THE AFFIRMATIVE
POINT No.4: AS PER FINAL ORDER
for the following:
REASONS
11. POINT No.1 TO 3: For the sake of convenience and to avoid repetition of facts, I have taken point Nos.1 to 3 together for consideration.
12. The prosecution has examined CW22-Sri M.K.Ayyappa, the then Deputy Commissioner of Bangalore District, as PW1. PW1 has deposed that he received a letter dated 26.2.2011 from ADGP, Karnataka Lokayuktha, Bangalore Urban, seeking sanction to prosecute the accused- G.Munikrishna, Village Accountant. Along with the letter, he was made available the copy of the complaint, FIR, Entrustment Mahazar, Trap Mahazar, statement of the witnesses, Chemical Examination Report and other prosecution documents. He has perused the records. He being the Competent Authority to appoint and dismiss the employee of the cadre of Village Accountant, after verifying 12 Spl.C.C.No.84/2011 the case records and satisfying himself about the prima facie case, by exercising powers u/s 19(1) (c) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, has accorded sanction to prosecute the accused for the offence punishable under sections 7, 13(1) (d) r/w 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and Sec.218 of IPC. The sanction order dated 10.3.2011, is produced and marked as Ex.P1.
13. PW1 was cross-examined quite at length. He stood to the test of cross-examination. Nothing contrary is elicited during the cross-examination so as to disbelieve the testimony of PW1. The evidence of PW1 reveals that, he has independently perused the investigation papers and come to the conclusion that there are enough materials to accord sanction to prosecute the accused. PW1 being the Sanctioning Authority has appreciated the documents placed before him and applied his mind while according sanction.
14. The prosecution has examined CW1-K.Anil Kumar as PW2. PW2 has deposed that his father died 25.6.2010. His father owned 5 guntas of land in Sy.No.35/2 of Tuberahalli village. On 29.8.2010, he gave an application to the Tahsildar, K.R.Puram, Bangalore for 13 Spl.C.C.No.84/2011 change of khata in his name. The death certificate of his father was enclosed to the said application. In the first week of December 2010, he received a telephone call intimating him to visit the office of Village Accountant of Ramagondanahalli. On 27.12.2010, he went to the office of the Village Accountant of Ramagondanahalli. The accused, who was then working as Village Accountant of Ramagondanahalli, was present. A person by name Mahendra was with the accused. Mahendra asked him to pay money to the accused for effecting change of khata. On 28.12.2010, he came to the Lokayuktha office and orally informed the Lokayuktha Inspector about the demand for money. Lokayuktha Inspector gave him a Voice recorder to record the conversation. He contacted accused over phone. Accused demanded Rs.5000/-. He recorded the conversation. On the same day, he returned the voice recorder to the Lokayuktha Inspector and lodged complaint. On 29.12.2010, he visited Lokayuktha Police, Bangalore. Two Government officials were secured. He produced three currency notes denomination of Rs.1000/- each and four currency notes denomination of Rs.500/- each before Lokayuktha Police. The number of said currency notes was recorded. The said currency notes were smeared with phenolphthalein powder. After verifying 14 Spl.C.C.No.84/2011 the said currency notes, one of the witnesses placed it in his right side pocket of the pant. Both the hand fingers of the witness were made to dip in the sodium carbonate solution. The said solution becomes pink colour and same was seized. PW2 further deposed that, Lokayuktha Inspector gave him a button camera. When he contacted Mahendra over phone, he was told to meet him on the next day. Hence, Trap Team Members, including the witnesses returned to the Lokayuktha Police station. He has handed over button camera and tainted currency notes to the Lokayuktha Inspector. He was instructed to come on next day.
15. PW2 has further deposed on 30.12.2010, he went to Lokayuktha office. Two official witnesses, who were present on 29.12.2010, had also come. The currency notes were placed in his right side pant pocket by the same witness who had placed on 29.12.2010. Button camera was fixed to the shirt. He was instructed to give signal by wiping his head if the accused received the money. He along with the Lokayuktha Police and two official witnesses, left for the office of the accused in a Government vehicle. On the way, he contacted Mahendra over phone. Mahendra told him that he is in the Office. They proceeded 15 Spl.C.C.No.84/2011 towards the office of the accused and parked the vehicle at some distance. He went to the office of the accused which is in the first floor. Two official witnesses who accompanied him entered the office of the accused. At that time, the accused was talking to some person. Mahendra was in the office of the accused. Mahendra asked him whether he brought Rs.5000/-. He was told by Mahendra to pay Rs.5000/- to the accused. He gave Rs.5000/- to the accused, who in turn received with his right hand and kept it in the right side pocket of the pant. Thereafter, accused told him that the change of khata will be done within a week. Afterwards, he came out of the office of the accused and gave pre-instructed signal.
16. PW2 further deposed that immediately thereafter, Lokayuktha Inspector entered the office and apprehended the accused. Tainted currency notes were recovered from the accused. His both hand fingers were made to dip in the sodium carbonate solution. The said solution turned to pink colour. The pant of the accused was also seized. Thereafter the accused was brought to the Lokayuktha Police station, wherein button camera and digital voice recorder were played in front of the witnesses. The contents of the button camera and digital voice recorder 16 Spl.C.C.No.84/2011 were converted to CD and transcript into writing. Trap Mahazar was prepared as per Ex.P8.
17. PW2 was cross-examined quite at length. During the course of cross-examination it was suggested to PW2 that accused has not demanded Rs.5000/- as bribe, but it was towards fee for change of khata and the accused has issued receipt for the said amount. PW2 has specifically denied the said suggestion.
18. The prosecution has examined CW2-C.H.Mohan Kumar as PW3. PW3 is the shadow witness. PW3 has deposed that, as per the directions of his higher Officer, he went to the Lokayuktha Police station along with CW3. They were asked to act as witness in the Trap. Complainant produced three currency notes denomination of Rs.1000/- each and four currency notes denomination of Rs.500/-each before the Lokayuktha Inspector. Numbers of those currency notes were recorded. Phenolphthalein powder was applied on the said currency notes. CW3 placed the tainted currency notes in the right side pant pocket of the complainant. Thereafter, both hand fingers of CW3 were washed in the sodium carbonate solution. The said solution becomes pink colour. The complainant was 17 Spl.C.C.No.84/2011 instructed to give the amount to the accused only on demand, and to give signal by wiping his face, if the accused received the amount. He was instructed to follow the complainant and to observe what transpires between the complainant and the accused. Entrustment Mahazar- Ex.P3 was prepared. PW3 further deposed that, he along with the Lokayuktha Inspector, his staff, complainant and CW3 left for the office of the accused. On the way, the complainant made efforts to contact the accused over phone, but his mobile phone was not reachable. Thereafter, they returned to the Lokayuktha Police station and Failure Mahazar was drawn as per Ex.P4.
19. PW3 further deposed that on 30.12.2010, he went to Lokayuktha Police station. CW3 and complainant were present. Once again Pre-Trap Mahazar was prepared as per Ex.P5. Thereafter, they left for Ramagondanahalli Village Panchayat in an office vehicle, where the accused was working. The vehicle was parked near the Ramagondanahalli bus-stop. Complainant and he got down from the vehicle. Complainant contacted the accused over phone and got confirmed himself about the presence of the accused in the office. The complainant went inside the office of the accused. He followed the complainant. The 18 Spl.C.C.No.84/2011 accused demanded bribe of Rs.5000/- from the complainant. Complainant gave the tainted currency notes to the accused. The accused received the said currency notes and kept inside of his right side pant pocket. The accused told the complainant that he will attend the work within two weeks. Complainant came out the office and gave pre-instructed signal. Immediately, the Lokayuktha Inspector and his staff along with CW3, rushed to the spot. Complainant pointed out the accused. Lokayuktha Inspector has disclosed his identity and informed the purpose of visit. Both hand fingers of the accused were made to dip in the sodium carbonate solution. The right hand wash becomes pink colour. Left hand wash has not turned to any colour. The tainted currency notes were recovered from the accused. Thereafter, the pant of the accused was seized by making an alternate arrangement. The right side pant pocket portion was washed in the sodium carbonate solution, which turned to pink colour. Thereafter, some of the records were seized from the office of the accused. Since, the office of the accused was not convenient to prepare the Trap Mahazar, the accused was brought to the Lokayuktha Police station. The button camera and the voice recorder given to the complainant at the time of the Trap were played. Contents of it were 19 Spl.C.C.No.84/2011 converted to CD and transcript into writing. Accused gave his explanation in writing as per Ex.P7. Trap Mahazar was prepared as per Ex.P8.
20. PW3 was cross-examined quite at length. During cross-examination, it was suggested that, he never went inside the office of the accused along with the complainant and that in his presence complainant has not paid the money to the accused nor it was received by the accused. PW3 has specifically denied the said suggestion. During the course of cross-examination, it was suggested that the accused has passed receipt for the money he received, for which PW3 answered that he has not observed.
21. The prosecution has examined CW3- H.R.Guruprasad as PW4. PW4 is a co-panch witness. PW4 has deposed that, on 29.12.2010, he was secured to the Lokayuktha Police station to act as witness in the Trap. CW2-Mohan Kumar was also secured to act as witness. Complainant produced Rs.5000/-(three currency notes denomination of Rs.1000/- & four currency notes of Rs.500/-). The number of the currency notes was recorded as per Ex.P2. The said currency notes were smeared with 20 Spl.C.C.No.84/2011 phenolphthalein powder. He placed the said tainted currency notes in the right side front pant pocket of the complainant. Thereafter, both his hand fingers were washed in sodium carbonate solution. The said solution becomes pink colour. Entrustment Mahazar was drawn as per Ex.P3. On that day, attempt was made to trap the accused, but failed.
22. PW4 further deposed that on 30.12.2010, along with CW2, he went to the Lokayuktha Police station. Complainant was present. Once again Entrustment Mahazar was prepared as per Ex.P5 by following the same procedure as followed on the previous day. Afterwards, he along with the Lokayuktha Inspector, complainant and CW2 left for the office of the accused in a Government vehicle. After reaching the spot, complainant and CW2 went inside the office of the accused. After some time, complainant came out of the office of the accused and gave pre-instructed signal. Immediately, the Lokayuktha Inspector along with his staff rushed to the spot and apprehended the accused. He also followed the Lokayuktha Inspector. The tainted currency notes were recovered from the accused. Both the hand fingers of the accused were made to dip in the sodium carbonate 21 Spl.C.C.No.84/2011 solution. The right hand finger wash turned to pink colour. The left hand wash has not turned to any colour. Pant of the accused was seized and right side pocket portion was washed in sodium carbonate solution. The said solution becomes pink colour. The file relating to the complainant was seized from the office of the accused. Thereafter, the accused was brought to the Lokayuktha Police station. Trap Mahazar was prepared as per Ex.P8. The accused has given his explanation in writing about he being in possession of the tainted currency notes. All the seized articles were sealed with metal seal. The said seal was handed over to him and obtained acknowledgment. Button camera which was given to the complainant at the time of Trap was played. The contents of the button camera were converted to CD and transcript into writing.
23. PW4 was cross-examined at length on behalf of the accused. He stood to the test of cross-examination. During cross-examination, nothing contrary is elicited so as to disbelieve his oral testimony. During the course of cross-examination, it was suggested that the accused has passed receipt for the money he received, for which PW4 answered that he has not seen any receipt.
22 Spl.C.C.No.84/201124. The prosecution has examined CW10- K.Mahendra as PW5. According to the prosecution, CW10- Mahendra, is private assistant of the accused, through whom the accused demanded bribe of Rs.5000/- from the complainant and that he was present by the side of the accused while he demanding and accepting bait money of Rs.5000/- from the complainant on 30.12.2010.
25. PW5 has deposed that he use to open and clean the office of the accused. About three years back, at 11.00 a.m., Lokayuktha Police came to the office of the accused. He does not know the purpose of their visit. Nothing transpired between the complainant and the accused in his presence. Lokayuktha Police have not recorded his statement
26. PW5 who is a material witness has turned hostile. He has not supported the prosecution case. The Spl.P.P. for the State cross-examined PW5 at length. But nothing useful to the case of the prosecution is elicited during the course of cross-examination, except the thing that the accused use to pay him Rs.100/- per day. The statement said to have been given by PW5 under sec.161 of 23 Spl.C.C.No.84/2011 Cr.P.C. is marked as Ex.P9. But PW5 has categorically denied of giving such statement before the IO.
27. The prosecution has examined CW14- B.S.Dhananjaya- Revenue Inspector, Bangalore East Taluk, as PW6. PW6 deposed that, since the accused was placed under suspension, he took charge of his office on 18.1.2011. PW6 has deposed about the procedure to be followed by the Village Accountant whenever he received/collected any amount towards the revenue assessment and other heads. PW6 deposed that, whenever any amount is being collected/received by the Village Accountant towards land revenue assessment or any other head, he should pass receipt for the amount received/collected, make relevant entry in the book called "khirdi book" and remit the amount collected/received to the Treasury through State Bank of Mysore branch, at the end of the month.
28. PW6 has further deposed that, after assuming the charge of the office of the Ramagondanahalli Circle, he found that, the accused has not made an entry about receipt of Rs.5000/- from the complainant, under receipt No.3825989 dated 29.12.2010 in the Khirdi Book. The 24 Spl.C.C.No.84/2011 xerox copy of the receipt No.3825989 dated 29.12.2010, sent by the accused to the Investigating Officer along with letter dated nil-Ex.P-32, is marked as Ex.P10. PW6 has deposed that the writing found in Ex.P10- "Due paid on 30.12.2010" is that of the accused. He noticed that, entry was made in the Khirdi Book about the amount received till 28.12.2010. That was the last entry made by the accused in the Khirdi Book. He has not noticed any entry in the Khirdi Book pertaining to the receipt No.3825989. When he questioned the accused about the original receipt No. 3825989 for the purpose of remittance to the Treasury, he told him that the amount mentioned in the receipt is the subject matter of this case. In the charge list dated 18.1.2011, the accused has made an endorsement that the amount mentioned in the receipt No.3825989 is the subject matter of the court case. The attested copy of the relevant pages of the Khirdi Book dated 6.8.2010 & 28.12.2010 and charge list is marked as Ex.P11. The relevant entry made by the accused in the charge list in respect of the amount mentioned in receipt No.3825989-Ex.P10, is marked as Ex.P11 (a). A Seizure Mahazar was drawn as per Ex.P12 for having seized original Receipt Book-MO25 and relevant pages of the Khridi Book & charge list.
25 Spl.C.C.No.84/201129. PW6 was cross-examined quite at length. He stood to the test of cross-examination. During the course of cross-examination nothing contrary is elicited so as to disbelieve the oral testimony of PW6. PW6 has categorically denied the suggestion that, the amount mentioned in Ex.P10 was collected by the accused towards fine.
30. The prosecution has examined CW23-K.Anjan Kumar as PW7. PW7 is the Investigating Officer. He has deposed about registering of FIR, drawing of Entrustment Mahazar, lay of Trap against the accused, resultant hand wash of the accused turned to pink colour, recovery of the tainted currency notes from the accused, preparing of Trap Mahazar, seizure of relevant documents, preparing of rough spot sketch, playing of Voice recorder containing the conversation between the complainant and the accused, converting it into CD and transcript into writing, recording of the statement of the witnesses and incorporation of the material substance of the statements in the Trap Mahazar, collecting the service particulars of the accused, obtaining Call details of the mobile phone of the accused, receipt of Chemical Examination report, etc. PW7 further deposed about further investigation made by him in respect of Ex.P10-Receipt bearing No.3825989, seizure of original 26 Spl.C.C.No.84/2011 Receipt Book, relevant pages of Khirdi Book, Charge list, drawing of Seizure Mahazar, recording of Statement of CW14-Dhananjaya-Revenue Inspector, etc. After obtaining Sanction Order from the Competent Authority, he submitted the charge sheet before the Court.
31. PW7 was cross-examined quite at length. During the cross-examination, it was suggested to PW7, that complainant has paid Rs.5000/- to the accused towards the arrears of tax and not as illegal gratification and the accused has issued a receipt for Rs.5000/-. PW7 has categorically denied the said suggestion. PW7 has also denied the suggestion that immediately after he entered the office of the accused, he recovered the tainted currency notes and thereafter left for Lokayuktha office and no Trap proceedings were conducted in the office of the accused. He also denied the suggestion that though his investigation reveals that the amount of Rs.5000/- received by the accused was towards arrears of tax and receipt was issued by the accused for the said amount, he falsely implicated the accused and filed false charge sheet.
32. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of State of Punjab -v- Madan Mohan Lal Verma; (2014) 4 Supreme Court Cases (Cri) 136 while dealing with 27 Spl.C.C.No.84/2011 provisions of Ss.20 & 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act,1988 has given broad guidelines how the evidence of complainant to be scrutinized. It was held that:
"The law on the issue is well settled that demand of illegal gratification is sine-qua-non for constituting an offence under the 1988 Act. Mere recovery of tainted money is not sufficient to convict the accused when substantive evidence in the case is not reliable, unless there is evidence to prove payment of bribe or to show that the money was taken voluntarily as a bribe. Mere receipt of the amount by the accused is not sufficient to fasten guilt, in the absence of any evidence with regard to demand and acceptance of amount as illegal gratification. Hence, the burden rests on the accused to displace the statutory presumption raised under Section 20 of the 1988 Act, by bringing on record evidence, either direct or circumstantial, to establish with reasonable probability, that the money was accepted by him, other than as a motive or reward as referred to in Section 7 of the 1988 Act. While invoking the provisions of Section 20 of the Act, the court is required to consider the explanation offered by the accused, if any, only on the touchstone of preponderance of 28 Spl.C.C.No.84/2011 probability and not on the touchstone of proof beyond all reasonable doubt. However, before the accused is called upon to explain how the amount in question was found in his possession, the foundational facts must be established by the prosecution. The complainant is an interested and partisan witness concerned with the success of the trap and his evidence must be tested in the same way as that of any other interested witness. In a proper case, the court may look for independent corroboration before convicting the accused person."
33. The case is required to be examined in the light of the aforesaid settled legal propositions.
34. PW2 is the complainant. His evidence fully corroborates the prosecution case on all material points with regard to demand and acceptance of illegal gratification by the accused to do an official favour to the complainant in the matter of change of khata and in furtherance of demand the money was accepted by him. While submitting application for change of khata through e-bhoomi, the complainant has enclosed computerized RTC extract, death certificate of his father, survival certificate & khata extract. The file of the complainant reached the office of the accused 29 Spl.C.C.No.84/2011 on 2.11.2010. The accused was the Competent Authority for change of khata. As on the date of the complaint, the work of the complainant was pending with the accused.
35. PW3 is a shadow witness. Admittedly, he had been associated with the complainant during the Trap. He witnessed the incident. He overheard the conversation between the complainant and the accused. He saw the complainant giving the money to the accused, whereupon he accepted and kept it in his right pocket of the pant. He has also witnessed the recovery of money from the accused.
36. PW4 is co-panch witness to the Trap. In his presence, the tainted currency notes were recovered from the accused, both hand fingers of the accused washed in the sodium carbonate solution and the file pertaining to the complainant was seized from the office of the accused.
37. The evidence of PW3 fully corroborates the complainant's case on all material points with regard to demand and acceptance of bribe amount of Rs.5000/- by the accused from the complainant to do an official favour. Even the evidence of PW4 fully corroborates the prosecution case. PWs 3 & 4 were testified about the 30 Spl.C.C.No.84/2011 incident in detail. They had taken through each and every detail of the incident that took place on 29th and 30th of December 2010 and proceedings of the Trap conducted thereafter. They stood the rigor of cross-examination. PWs3 & 4 are independent witnesses and reliable. Absolutely, there is no evidence to show that PWs 3 & 4 are prejudiced or inimical towards the accused or interested in the Lokayuktha Police so as to make a false statement on oath. It is not elicited that if they turn hostile or deposed contrary to the contents of Trap Mahazar, they have to face the consequences by way of disciplinary proceedings. There is no reason to disbelieve the evidence of PWs 3 & 4 who are truthful witnesses.
38. It is not in dispute that the tainted currency notes of Rs.5000/-(MO26) were recovered from the accused. The resultant hand wash of the accused turned to pink colour. Chemical Examination Report (Ex.P24) shows that the presence of phenolphthalein is detected in both the right hand and left hand finger washes of the accused.
39. The learned counsel appearing for the accused has placed reliance on the decision of the Hon'ble High 31 Spl.C.C.No.84/2011 Court of Karnataka in the case of Sri N.A.Suryanarayana @ Suri -v- State by Inspector of Police, CBI/SPE/Bangalore; 2015 (1) KCCR 898 , wherein it was held that:
"B. PREVENTION OF CORRUPTION ACT, 1988- Section 7- Capacity to do official favour- Initial burden in a trap case lies on prosecution- It should also prove that bribe amount was received only after demand.
D. PREVENTION OF CORRUPTION ACT, 1988- Section 20- Presumption under- Mere possession of money would be inadequate to raise- Trap laying officer should give an opportunity to accused about receipt of bait money- If not, proceedings vitiates.
40. The next decision relied on by the learned counsel for the accused is decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Krishan Chander -v- State of Delhi; AIR 2016 Supreme Court 298 wherein it was held that:
"Demand and acceptance of- Is sine- qua-non for constituting offence under Ss.7 and 13 (1)(d_) of Prevention of Corruption Act,1988."
41. The next decision relied on by the learned counsel for the accused is decision of Hon'ble Supreme 32 Spl.C.C.No.84/2011 Court in the case of M.R.Purushotham -v- State of Karnataka; 2014 AIR SCW 5740 wherein it was held that:
"Mere possession and recovery of the currency notes from accused without proof of demand would not attract offence under S.13 (1)(d) of Prevention of Corruption Act,1988."
42. In Krishan Chander's case, complainant not supported the prosecution case in so far as demand and acceptance of bribe by the accused, the Panch witness did not over hear the conversation between the accused and complainant at the time when complainant approached him to give bribe money. Under the circumstances, the Hon'ble Supreme Court set aside the conviction Judgment.
43. In Purushotham's case, the complainant disowned the contents of the complaint. He has not supported the prosecution case in so far as demand and acceptance of bribe by the accused. Under the circumstances, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has set aside the conviction Judgment.
33 Spl.C.C.No.84/201144. In Suryanarayana's case, there were material contradictions in the evidence of the complainant and panch witness with respect to demand and acceptance of bribe, there was inordinate delay in recording the statement of the witnesses and inordinate delay in lodging Ex.P3- recovery mahazar. Under the circumstances, the Hon'ble High Court was pleased to set aside the conviction Judgment and consequently acquitted the accused.
45. In the present case, the evidence of PW2- complainant inspires confidence of the Court with regard to demand and acceptance of money by the accused. Further the evidence of PW3 (shadow witness) also corroborates the testimony of the complainant with regard to demand and acceptance of bribe by the accused. The prosecution has proved that the accused demanded illegal gratification of Rs.5000/- from the complainant to do an official favour and bribe amount was accepted by him only after demand.
46. There is sufficient evidence to show that the money was taken by the accused voluntarily as a bribe. The prosecution has discharged the initial burden of proving the demand and acceptance of bribe amount of Rs.5000/- by the accused. Hence, the burden rests on the accused to 34 Spl.C.C.No.84/2011 displace the statutory presumption raised under section 20 of the 1988 Act, by bringing on record evidence, either direct or circumstantial, to establish with reasonable probability, that the money was accepted by him, other than as a motive or reward as referred to in Section 7 of the Act.
47. In the present case, the defence of the accused is that he accepted the amount of Rs.5000/- from the complainant towards arrears of tax and he issued a receipt for the said amount. The onus shifts on the accused to prove that the amount he received from the complainant was towards arrears of tax and he passed receipt for the said amount.
48. The xerox copy of the receipt dated 29.12.2010 sent to the IO along with the covering letter-Ex.P32 Under Certificate of Posting is marked as Ex.P10. CW23/PW7 received the said document on 2.2.2011.
49. The accused was trapped on 30.12.2010. The bait money was accepted by the accused on 30.12.2010. But the receipt-Ex.P10 bears the date 29.12.2010. There is no evidence on record to show the reason for the accused 35 Spl.C.C.No.84/2011 to issue receipt on previous day i.e., on 29.12.2010. When the bait money was accepted on 30.12.2010, there was no occasion for the accused to pass receipt on previous date. Immediately after the Trap, the accused was called upon to explain how the amount in question was found in his possession. The accused has submitted his Written Explanation-ExP7. In Written Explanation-Ex.P7, the accused has not mentioned that he accepted the amount in question towards arrears of tax and he issued a receipt for the said amount. If really, the accused had accepted the amount towards arrears of tax and issued a receipt, it could have found place in Written Explanation-ExP7. Further the Receipt Book-MO25 was in custody of the accused. If really, the accused had issued a receipt for the amount he received from the complainant, he could have shown it to the IO during the Trap proceedings. All these circumstances goes to show that Ex.P10 is created document and after thought. Defence of the accused cannot be accepted. There is sufficient evidence to show that with an intention to avoid legal punishment, the accused created a false Receipt-ExP10 for Rs.5000/- which he obtained as bribe from the complainant knowing fully well that it is incorrect document. The accused failed to displace the statutory presumption raised under Sec.20 of 36 Spl.C.C.No.84/2011 the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, by bringing on record evidence, either direct or circumstantial, to establish with reasonable probability that the money was accepted by him, other than as a motive or reward as referred to in Sec.7 of the Act.
50. The learned counsel appearing for the accused has argued that there is material contradictions in the evidence of PWs3 & 4 with regard to the person who removed the tainted currency notes from the pant pocket of the accused. It is relevant to note that the accused was trapped on 30.12.2010. The evidence of PW3 was recorded on 14.11.2014 and evidence of PW4 was recorded on 21.3.2015, i.e. after lapse of a period of nearly 4-4 ½ years from the date of the incident. After lapse of such a long period, it is very difficult for any person to remember such minute details about the incident. Further, it has no bearing on the merits of the case, particularly when the accused admitted the acceptance of bait money from the complainant. The manner in which the accused was trapped, demand and acceptance of bribe by the accused, recovery of bait money from the accused, is thus proved beyond reasonable doubt.
37 Spl.C.C.No.84/201151. The learned Advocate for the accused has argued that, PW5-Mahendra turned hostile, he has not supported the prosecution case, as such it seriously affects the prosecution case. It has come in the evidence that, PW5- Mahendra, is the private agent of the accused through whom he demanded money from the complainant. The accused used to pay him Rs.100/-per day for taking his service. It is natural for PW5 to depose in favour the accused.
52. The learned counsel appearing for the accused has further argued that Trap Mahazar was not drawn in the office of the accused where Trap was laid as such, it seriously affects the prosecution case. It is relevant to note that the office of the accused where Trap was laid is a room taken on rent, that too, it is a residential building. Since the said place was not convenient to conduct further Trap proceedings, they came back to the Lokayuktha office and prepared the Trap Mahazar. Under the circumstances, I find nothing unnatural in preparing the Trap Mahazar in the Lokayuktha office.
53. The learned Advocate for the accused has further argued that, out of 23 witnesses cited in the charge sheet, 38 Spl.C.C.No.84/2011 the prosecution has examined only 7 witnesses, there was no impediment for the prosecution to examine all the material witnesses.
54. The Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Mahesh & another- v- State of Madhya Pradesh; (2011) 3 Supreme Court Cases (Cri) 783; (2011) 9 Supreme Court cases 626, has held that:
"There was no necessity for the prosecution to multiply witnesses to prove and establish the prosecution case. There is no requirement in the law of evidence that any particular number of witnesses is to be examined to prove something. The evidence has to be weighed and not to be counted."
In view of the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, I am of the considered view that the witnesses who are examined on behalf of the prosecution, are reliable witnesses and there is no ground and reason why they should not be believed.
55. The learned counsel for the accused has argued that MO 7, 9, 21 & 23 are the CD said to have contained conversation which is sought to be given as secondary evidence not accompanied by a certificate as specified in 39 Spl.C.C.No.84/2011 Sec.65-B (4) of Indian Evidence Act. In the absence of such certificate, these material objects cannot be admitted in evidence. In the present case, PW2 & PW3 are the direct witnesses for the Trap who have seen the incident and overheard the conversation, unequivocally deposed before the Court with regard to demand and acceptance of bribe by the accused. PWs2 & 3 are reliable and truthful witnesses. There is no reason to disbelieve the evidence of PWs2 & 3. Under the circumstances, non-production of certificate under Sec.65-B (4) of Indian Evidence Act, in respect of MO 7, 9, 21 & 23, is of no consequence.
56. The prosecution has led evidence regarding demand and acceptance of illegal gratification by the accused for doing an official favour to the complainant, in the matter of change of khata. The prosecution has also led evidence that, the accused by abusing his position as public servant, and by corrupt or illegal means without any public interest, obtained Rs.5000/- from the complainant. The evidence placed on record reveals that the accused being a public servant with an intention to avoid legal punishment, has created a false receipt for Rs.5000/- which he obtained as bribe from the complainant, knowing fully well that it is an incorrect document. The prosecution 40 Spl.C.C.No.84/2011 has proved the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubt. Hence, I answer Point Nos.1 to 3 in the affirmative.
57. Point No.4:- In the result, I proceed to pass the following:
ORDER The accused is found guilty of offence punishable under Sections 7, 13(1)(d) r/w 13(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act,1988 & Sec.218 of IPC.
Order regarding sentence will be passed after hearing both sides.
(Dictated to the Judgment writer directly on the computer, after transcription, corrected by me and then pronounced by me in the open court on this the 15th day of July 2017) (SHRIDEVI S. ANGADI) LXXVI Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge & Special Judge, Bengaluru (CCH-77) 41 Spl.C.C.No.84/2011 ORDER REGARDING SENTENCE Accused is present before the Court and he is taken into custody. Heard the learned Spl.P.P. and Advocate for convict/accused regarding sentence.
Advocate for convict/accused submits that the accused is married and having family. He is retired Government servant. He pleaded mercy and requested to take leniency in sentence. He also pleaded hardship.
The Spl.P.P. submits that since the accused is involved in economic offence, it is not a fit case to take leniency, hence requested to impose maximum sentence.
Settled legal position is that award of sentence should be always proportionate to the nature of the offence, its impact on the society, the mitigating and aggravating circumstances if any, brought out by the parties.
The Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 was intended to make effective provision for the prevention of bribery and corruption rampant amongst the public servants. It is a social legislation defined to curb illegal activities of the public servants and is designed to be liberally construed so as to advance its object.
The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of State of Madhya Pradesh -v- Shambhu Dayal Nagar; (2006) 8 SCC 693 has held that:42 Spl.C.C.No.84/2011
"The corruption by public servants has become gigantic problem. Large scale corruption retards the nation building activities and everyone has to suffer on that count. The efficiency in public service would improve only when the public servant does his duty truthfully and honestly."
(The Hon'ble Supreme Court has rejected the prayer for leniency in sentence.) Keeping in view the scope and object of enactment of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and principles laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, in the aforesaid decision, it is difficult to accept the prayer for leniency in sentence.
Having regard to the gravity and seriousness of the offence, amount of bribe involved in the case, its impact on the society, age and other background of the accused, quantum of sentence and fine is imposed.
Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, the accused is convicted under section 235(2) of Cr.P.C. In the result, I proceed to pass the following:
ORDER Acting under section 235(2) of Cr.P.C., the accused is convicted for the offence punishable under Sections 7, 13(1)(d) r/w 13(2) 43 Spl.C.C.No.84/2011 of the Prevention of Corruption Act,1988 and Sec.218 of IPC.
The accused is convicted and sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for a period of two years for an offence punishable u/s 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act,1988 and also ordered to pay fine of Rs.5000/-(Rupees five thousand only). In default to pay the fine, the convict/accused shall undergo simple imprisonment for a period of two months.
The accused is convicted and sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for a period of three years for an offence punishable u/s 13(1)(d) r/w 13(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act,1988 and also ordered to pay fine of Rs.5000/-(Rupees five thousand only). In default to pay the fine, the convict/accused shall undergo simple imprisonment for a period of two months.
The accused is convicted and sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year for an offence punishable u/s 218 of IPC and also ordered to pay fine of Rs.1000/- (Rupees one thousand only). In default to pay fine, the convict/accused shall undergo simple imprisonment for a period of one month.
All the sentences of imprisonment shall run concurrently.
In the event, fine amount is paid or realized, the said amount shall be remitted to the State Exchequer.44 Spl.C.C.No.84/2011
The accused is entitled for set off u/s 428 of Cr.P.C.
Issue conviction warrant.
Office is directed to supply free copy of this Judgment & Order, to the accused forthwith.
MO.1 being metal seal is ordered to be handed over to Lokayuktha Police, MO25 being Receipt Book is ordered to be returned to the Ramagondanahalli Circle, Varthur Hobli, Bangalore East Taluk, MO26 being the currency notes is ordered to be confiscated to the State, MO2 to 24 being worthless are ordered to be destroyed after appeal period is over.
(Dictated to the Judgment-writer in the open court, transcribed by her and after corrections, signed and pronounced by me in the open court on this the 15th day of July 2017) (SHRIDEVI S. ANGADI) LXXVI Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge & Special Judge, Bengaluru (CCH-77) ANNEXURE List of witnesses examined on behalf of the prosecution:
PW1 M.K.Ayyappa
PW2 Anil Kumar K.
PW3 C.H.Mohan Kumar
45 Spl.C.C.No.84/2011
PW4 H.R.Guruprasad
PW5 K.Mahendra
PW6 B.S.Dhananjaya
PW7 K.Anjan Kumar
List of documents marked on behalf of prosecution:
Ex.P.1 Sanction Order Ex.P.1(a) Signature of PW1 Ex.P.2 Currency details sheet Ex.P.2 (a) & (b) Signatures of PW3 Ex.P.2 (c) & (d) Signatures of PW4 Ex.P.2(e) & (f) Signatures of PW7 Ex.P.3 Pre-Trap Mahazar dated: 29.12.2010 Ex.P.3(a) to (d) Signatures of PW3 Ex.P.3(e) to (h) Signatures of PW4 Ex.P.3(i) Signature of PW7 Ex.P.4 Mahazar Ex.P.4(a) & (b) Signatures of PW3 Ex.P.4(c) Signature of PW7 Ex.P.5 Pre-Trap Mahazar dated 30.12.2010 Ex.P.5(a) & (b) Signatures of PW3 Ex.P.5(c) & (d) Signatures of PW4 Ex.P.5(e) Signature of PW7 Ex.P.6 Transcription of CD Ex.P.6(a) & (b) Signatures of PW3 Ex.P.6(c) & (d) Signatures of PW4 Ex.P.6(e) & (f) Signatures of PW7 Ex.P.7 Written explanation of accused Ex.P.7(a) & (b) Signatures of PW3 Ex.P.8 Trap Mahazar Ex.P.8(a) to (k) Signatures of PW3 Ex.P.8(l) Signature of PW2 Ex.P.8(m) to Signatures of PW4 (w) Ex.P.8(x) Signature of PW7 46 Spl.C.C.No.84/2011 Ex.P.9 Relevant portion of statement of PW5 Ex.P.10 Xerox copy of receipt No.3825989 dated 29.12.2010 Ex.P.11 Khirdi book Ex.P.11(a) Relevant entry Ex.P.12 Seizure Mahazar Ex.P.12(a) Signature of PW6 Ex.P.12(b) Signature of PW7 Ex.P.13 Complaint Ex.P.14 Acknowledgment Ex.P.15 FIR in Cr.No.68/2010 Ex.P.15(a) & (b) Signatures of PW7 Ex.P.16 CD- transcription Ex.P.16(a) & (b) Signatures of PW7 Ex.P.17 Certified copies of sheets of the file pertaining to PW2 Ex.P.18 Rough sketch Ex.P.19 Seizure Mahazar Ex.P.19(a) Signature of PW7 Ex.P.20 Transcript of voice recorder of accused Ex.P.20(a) Signature of PW7 Ex.P.21 Certified copy of the check list register Ex.P.22 Mahazar Ex.P.22(a) Signature of PW7 Ex.P.23 Service particulars of accused Ex.P.24 Chemical Examiner's report Ex.P.25 to 28 Khata extracts Ex.P.29 Telephone call details Ex.P.30 Telephone call particulars of accused Ex.P.31 Sketch Ex.P.32 Letter of accused Ex.P.33 Envelope 47 Spl.C.C.No.84/2011 Ex.P.34 Explanation of the accused Ex.P.35 Khata certificate Ex.P.36 Requisition dated 3.2.2011
List of material objects marked on behalf of the prosecution:
MO.1 Metal seal
MO.2 sample solution- Article-1
MO.3 Hand wash of Guru Prasad-CW3
Article-2
MO.4 sample solution- Article-4
MO.5 Hand wash of Guruprasad- Article-5
MO.6 cover containing CD- Article 3
MO.7 CD containing pre-Trap proceedings
dated 29.12.2010
MO.8 cover containing CD- Article 6
MO.9 CD containing pre-Trap proceedings
dated 30.12.2010
MO.10 sample solution- Article 7
MO.11 & 12 right hand finger wash solution of the
accused -Article 8,8A
MO.13 & 14 left hand finger wash solution of the
accused - Article -9, 9-A
MO15 Sample solution- Article 11
MOs 16 & 17 pant pocket washing solution-Article 12,12A MO.18 cover containing pant of the accused-
Article 13
MO.19 Pant of the accused
MO.20 cover containing CD-Article 15
MO.21 CD containing conversation recorded in
the voice recorder produced along with the complaint.48 Spl.C.C.No.84/2011
MO.22 cover containing CD- Article 14 MO.23 CD containing conversation recorded in the button camera and voice recorder at the time of Trap.
MO.24 & 25 Receipt Book with cover.
MO.26 Tainted currency notes of Rs.5000/-
(Rs.1000 x 3 = Rs.3000 & Rs.500 x 4 =
Rs.2000)
List of witnesses examined on behalf of the accused:
-Nil-
List of documents marked on behalf of the accused:
-Nil-
(SHRIDEVI S. ANGADI) LXXVI Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge & Special Judge, Bengaluru (CCH-77) 49 Spl.C.C.No.84/2011 Judgment pronounced in open court (vide separate orders) Accused present.
ORDER The accused is found guilty of offence punishable under Sections 7, 13(1)(d) r/w 13(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act,1988 & Sec.218 of IPC.
Order regarding sentence will be passed after hearing both sides.
(SHRIDEVI S. ANGADI) LXXVI Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge & Special Judge, Bengaluru (CCH-77) Order regarding sentence pronounced in open Court (vide separate orders) ORDER Acting under section 235(2) of Cr.P.C., the accused is convicted for the offence punishable under Sections 7, 13(1)(d) r/w 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act,1988 and Sec.218 of IPC.50 Spl.C.C.No.84/2011
The accused is convicted and sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for a period of two years for an offence punishable u/s 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act,1988 and also ordered to pay fine of Rs.5000/-(Rupees five thousand only). In default to pay the fine, the convict/accused shall undergo simple imprisonment for a period of two months.
The accused is convicted and sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for a period of three years for an offence punishable u/s 13(1)(d) r/w 13(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act,1988 and also ordered to pay fine of Rs.5000/-(Rupees five thousand only). In default to pay the fine, the convict/accused shall undergo simple imprisonment for a period of two months.
The accused is convicted and sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year for an offence punishable u/s 218 of IPC and also ordered to pay fine of Rs.1000/- (Rupees one thousand only). In default to pay fine, the convict/accused shall undergo simple imprisonment for a period of one month.
All the sentences of imprisonment shall run concurrently.
In the event, fine amount is paid or realized, the said amount shall be remitted to the State Exchequer.
The accused is entitled for set off u/s 428 of Cr.P.C.51 Spl.C.C.No.84/2011
Issue conviction warrant.
Office is directed to supply free copy of this Judgment and Order to the accused forthwith.
MO.1 being metal seal is ordered to be handed over to Lokayuktha Police, MO25 being Receipt Book is ordered to be returned to the Ramagondanahalli Circle, Varthur Hobli, Bangalore East Taluk, MO26 being the currency notes is ordered to be confiscated to the State, MO2 to 24 being worthless are ordered to be destroyed after appeal period is over.
(SHRIDEVI S. ANGADI) LXXVI Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge & Special Judge, Bengaluru (CCH-77) The accused filed an application u/s 389(3) of Cr.P.C for suspension of sentence, till the appeal period is over. It is stated in the application that the accused is innocent. He is a senior citizen, having family members depending on him, he is suffering from B.P & sugar. He intended to prefer an appeal. Hence requested to suspend the sentence and to enlarge him on bail.
The learned Spl.P.P. has seriously opposed the application. Heard.
After the trial, the accused is found to be guilty. No medical grounds are .produced to show that the accused is suffering from age old 52 Spl.C.C.No.84/2011 ailments. There are no sufficient grounds to suspend the sentence. Hence, application filed u/s 389(3) of Cr.P.C. is dismissed.
(SHRIDEVI S. ANGADI) LXXVI Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge & Special Judge, Bengaluru (CCH-77)