Bangalore District Court
The State Of Karnataka vs S.Mahesh on 3 June, 2017
IN THE COURT OF LXXVI ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL
AND
SESSIONS COURT AND SPECIAL COURT,
BENGALURU.
(CCH-77)
PRESENT: Smt.SHRIDEVI S. ANGADI,
B.A., LL.M.,
LXXVI ADDL. CITY CIVIL &
SESSIONS JUDGE &
SPECIAL JUDGE, BENGALURU.
DATED: This the 3rd day of June, 2017
Spl. C.C.No.69/2011
COMPLAINANT The state of Karnataka,
Rep.by Karnataka
Lokayuktha Police, City
Division, Bengaluru.
(Rep by Spl.Public
Prosecutor)
--Vs-
ACCUSED S.Mahesh,
S/o.Shivamarigowda,
Age: 24 years,
Police Constable,
No.11006, Vijayanagara
Police Station, Bengaluru
R/at: Baradanahalli
Village,Malagalu Post,
Kanakapura Taluk,
Ramanagar District.
(Rep. by Sri. Gangadhara
Swamy- Advocate )
2 Spl.C.C.No.69/2011
1. Nature of Offence Offence punishable under
Sec.7, 13(1) (d) R/w.Sec.13(2)
Prevention of Corruption Act,
1988.
2. Date of Commission 27.10.2010
of offence
3. Date of First 27.10.2010
Information Report
4. Date of arrest 27.10.2010
5.Date of 12.03.2014
Commencement of
recording of evidence
6. Date of 24.03.2017
Closing of evidence
7. Date of 03.06.2017
Pronouncement of
Judgment
8. Result of the case The accused is acquitted
under section 235(1) of
Cr.P.C. of the offence
punishable under section 7,
13(1) (d) r/w.13(2) of
Prevention of Corruption Act,
1988
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.
2. The prosecution case is that:
3 Spl.C.C.No.69/2011The accused was working as Police Constable in Vijayanagar Police Station. The accused demanded illegal gratification of Rs.5,000/- from the complainant - M.Nagaraju (CW1) for release of his son Dinesh @ Dinesh Kumar (CW11) who was illegally detained by Vijayanagar Police in connection with poison consumed by Kum.Kavya
- a friend of Dinesh, for having pledged the gold ornaments of Kum.Kavya in Manappuram Finance, Mudalapalya. The complainant was not willing to pay bribe amount. On 27.10.2010, the complainant approached CW22-Krishnappa, Police Inspector, Karnataka Lokayuktha and gave a written complaint as per Ex.P1. CW22 arranged for the trap. CW4- K.Nagaraj & CW5-J.S.Ksheerasagar - the employees of Office of the Director, Youth Services and Sports Department were secured to act as witness for the trap. The bait money of Rs.4,000/- marked at MO2 was smeared with Phenolphthalein powder. Before that number of currency notes were recorded in a white sheet and obtained the signature of witnesses. The tainted currency notes were verified and counted by CW5-Ksheerasagar and he placed it in the pant pocket of the complainant. Both hands of CW5-Ksheerasagar were made to dip in the Sodium Carbonate Solution. The said solution turned to pink colour. The complainant was instructed to approach the 4 Spl.C.C.No.69/2011 accused and speak with him about the work and to pay the amount only on demand. The complainant was further directed to give signal, by wiping his right eye or to make a phone call through his mobile, if the accused received the tainted currency notes. CW4-K.Nagaraj( Shadow witness) was instructed to follow the complainant and to observe the transaction. The Entrustment Mahazer was drawn as per Ex.P3.
3. On 27.10.2010 at about 4-10 p.m., the accused was trapped while demanding and accepting illegal gratification of Rs.4,000/- from the complainant- M.Nagaraju through CW2-S.Deepu. Eight currency notes denomination of Rs.500/-, which has been smeared with Phenolphthalein powder were recovered from CW2- S.Deepu. Before that, both hands of CW2-Deepu were made to dip in the Sodium Carbonate Solution. The said solution becomes pink colour. The 3/4th pant worn by Deepu was also seized. Thereafter, the accused and CW2- Deepu were brought to Lokayuktha Police Station. CW22- Lokayuktha Inspector has seized the documents relating to Crl.Misc.No.1678/2010, which was registered on the basis of the statement of Kum.Kavya and other related documents. The button camera which was given to the complainant at the time of trap was played in the 5 Spl.C.C.No.69/2011 presence of the witnesses and CW8-H.Ananthswamy, Police-Sub-Inspector, Vijayangar Police Station. The contents of Button camera was converted into CD and transcripted into writing. Cw8-H.Ananthaswamy has identified the accused and his voice. The Police Inspector has also recorded the statement of the complainant, shadow witness and other witnesses. The proceedings of the Trap was reduced into writing and Trap Mahazar was prepared as per Ex.P4. After obtaining Sanction Order from the Competent Authority, Charge Sheet is filed against the accused for the offence punishable under sections 7, 13(1)(d) r/w Sec.13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.
4. My Predecessor-in-Office took the cognizance of the offence. The accused is enlarged on bail. After hearing, the charge was framed for the offence punishable under Sections 7, 13(1) (d) r/w13 (2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. The Charge was read over and explained to the accused. The accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.
5. During the trial, the prosecution has examined in all 10 witnesses as P.Ws.1 to 10 and got marked 20 documents as Ex.P1 to Ex.P20 and 13 Material Objects.
6 Spl.C.C.No.69/2011The 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. However, during the course of cross-examination of prosecution witness, the finding recorded by the Deputy Commissioner of Police, Western Division, Bengaluru City dated 21.01.2012 in the Departmental Enquiry is marked at Ex.D1. I have heard the arguments and perused the records.
6. 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 Police Constable in Vijayanagar Police Station on 27.10.2010 at about 4-10 p.m., has demanded and accepted illegal gratification of Rs.4,000/- from the complainant- M.Nagaraju through CW2-
S.Deepu for showing an official favour in the matter of releasing the Dinesh @ Dinesh Kumar
- the son of the complainant who was illegally detained by Vijayanagar Police in the matter of poison consumed by Kum.Kavya and thereby 7 Spl.C.C.No.69/2011 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 Police Constable in Vijayanagar Police Station on 27.10.2010 at about 4-10 p.m., by abusing his position as public servant and by corrupt or illegal means and without public interest obtained Rs.4,000/- from the complainant -M.Nagaraju through CW2-S.Deepu as pecuniary advantage and thereby committed Criminal mis-conduct punishable under section 13(1)(d) r/w. S.13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act 1988?
3. What order?
7. My answer to the above points is as under:
POINT No.1: IN THE NEGATIVE POINT No.2: IN THE NEGATIVE POINT No.3: AS PER FINAL ORDER.
for the following:
REASONS
8. POINT No.1 AND 2: For the sake of convenience and to avoid repetition of facts, I have taken both the points together for consideration.
9. PW1 is the complainant. PW1 in his examination- in-chief has deposed regarding lodging of complaint, drawing the Entrustment Mahazar, demanding and accepting illegal 8 Spl.C.C.No.69/2011 gratification of Rs.4,000/- by the accused through CW2- S.Deepu, resultant hand wash of CW2 turned to pink colour, recovery of the tainted currency notes of Rs.4,000/- from CW2, drawing of Trap Mahazar, etc.
10. During cross-examination, PW1 has deposed that Dhananjay and K.Raju took his son Dinesh to Vijayangar Police Station and they demanded money from him. On the instructions of Dhananjay and K.Raju, he carried cash of Rs.4,000/- and placed it at the hands of CW2 to pay it to Dhananjay and K.Raju. He had not seen the accused before filing the complaint. He never met the accused in connection with the matter of his son. The accused was not handling the matter of his son. Accused never demanded money from him for release of his son. He has not paid money to the accused. PW1 further deposed that CW2-S.Deepu was with him right from the time of filing complaint till the completion of trap. He has further deposed that Dhananjay gave contact number of the accused. He has not ascertained the correctness of the said number. The person who spoke to him over phone asked him to pay money in the Police Station. Accused was not near Vijayanagar Police Station, when he went there. The accused arrived at near Vijayangar Police Station, after placing of money at the hands of CW2. He does not subscribe his signature to the Trap Mahazar-
9 Spl.C.C.No.69/2011Ex.P4. He does not know the place where Trap Mahazar was drawn.
11. Though PW1 in examination-in-chief supported the prosecution case, during the cross-examination has taken "U" turn and deposed contrary to it. The learned Special Public Prosecutor cross examined PW1 by treating him as hostile. The statement said to have been given by PW1 under section 161 of Cr.P.C. is marked as Ex.P6. But, PW1 has denied of giving such statement before the Investigating Officer. PW1 has half heartedly deposed before the Court. The evidence of PW1 will not be helpful for the prosecution to prove the theory of demand and acceptance of bribe by the accused for showing an official favour in the matter of release of complainant's son, who was allegedly detained by Vijayanagar Police Station.
12. PW2 is the Sanctioning Authority who accorded sanction to prosecute the accused. The Sanction Order dated 09.02.2011 is produced and marked at Ex.P5. During the cross-examination, PW2 pleaded his ignorance as to whether Departmental Enquiry is pending against Police Constables by name Dhananjay and K.Raju. It is relevant to note that Assistant Commissioner of Police, Kengeri Gate Sub-Division has conducted Departmental Enquiry against Sri.Dhananjay PC- 8730 and Sri.K.Raju PC-10357 of 10 Spl.C.C.No.69/2011 Vijayanagar Police Station in respect of the same case and submitted a report on 01.06.2011 to Deputy Commissioner of Police (West) Bengaluru City that charges leveled against them are not proved. PW2 at the relevant point of time being the Deputy Commissioner of Police (West) and Disciplinary Authority has accepted the report of Assistant Commissioner of Police, Kengeri Gate Sub-Division and passed an Order on 21.01.2012 exonerating Sri.Dhananjay PC-8730 and Sri.K.Raju PC-10357 of Vijayanagar Police Station of the charges leveled against them. The copy of the Order dated 21.01.2012 of Deputy Commissioner of Police (West) Bengaluru City is produced and marked at Ex.D1. PW2 being the Disciplinary Authority supposed to know of this fact. It is well settled that Sanctioning Authority has to apply his mind to the facts of the case and if case warrants to accord sanction, then the Sanction has to be accorded. It is very important that Sanctioning Authority must independently perused the investigation papers and come to the conclusion that there is enough materials to accord Sanction. But PW2 without application of mind has mechanically accorded sanction.
13. PW3 is the Police Constable attached to Karnataka Lokayuktha Police Station, who assisted CW22 during Pre- Trap-Mahazar. The evidence of PW3 will not be much helpful 11 Spl.C.C.No.69/2011 for the prosecution to prove demand and acceptance of bribe by the accused.
14. The prosecution has examined CW2-S.Deepu as PW4. According to the prosecution, he is the person who received the bribe amount from the complainant at the instance of the accused and from him the tainted currency notes were recovered. PW4 has deposed that so far he has not seen the accused. One Dhananjay and K.Raju Police Constables of Vijayanagar Police Station took complainant's son to the Police Station in connection with consumption of poison by Kum.Kavya. He further deposed that Dhananjay and K.Raju asked him to get Rs.20,000/- from the complainant and give it to them. On the next day, he went to Vijaynagar Police Station, whereupon he was apprehended by the Lokayuktha Police and recovered cash of Rs.5,000/- from him.
15. PW4 who is a material witness has turned hostile. He has not supported the prosecution case. The Special Public Prosecutor cross examined PW4 at length. But nothing useful to the case of the prosecution is elicited during the course cross-examination. The statement said to have been given by PW4 under section 164 of Cr.P.C. is marked at Ex.P8. But PW4 has categorically denied of 12 Spl.C.C.No.69/2011 referring the name of Mahesh (accused) in section 164 statement.
16. During the cross-examination made on behalf of the accused, PW4 categorically stated that Police Constables by name Dhananjay and K.Raju were handling the matter of CW11-Dinesh. The accused was not at all involved in the said case.
17. The prosecution has examined CW13-D.Krishna Urs, the then Assistant Commissioner of Police, Vijayanagar-Sub-Division as PW5. PW5 has deposed that at the request of the Investigating Officer, he conducted a preliminary enquiry and submitted a report on 30.10.2010 as per Ex.P10.
18. The prosecution has examined CW10-M.Narasimha Murthy, the then Head constable of Vijayangar Police Station as PW6. PW6 has deposed that on 25.10.2010, he was on Station Reserve of Vijaynagar Police on day duty. He recorded the statement of Kum.Kavya in the presence of duty doctor and submitted the report to SHO, Vijayanagar Police Station. On the basis of statement of Kum.Kavya, SHO has registered the case in Crl.Misc.1678/2010. On 27.10.2010, he was deputed to Masque Point Duty, after returning to Police Station, he came to know that the accused was trapped by the Lokayuktha Police. His evidence 13 Spl.C.C.No.69/2011 is hear say. He is not direct witness to the trap. Therefore, his evidence will not be helpful for the prosecution case to prove the theory of demand and acceptance of bribe by the accused.
19. PW7-A.Nagaraj is the shadow witness. PW7 deposed that on 27.10.2010, he was secured to Lokayuktha Police Station to act as witness in the trap. The contents of the complaint were made known to him. The complainant has produced Rs.4,000/-. The said currency notes were smeared with Phenolphthalein powder. CW5- J.S.Ksheerassagar has counted the said tainted currency notes and placed it in the pant pocket of the complainant. Thereafter, both hand fingers of CW5 were washed in the Sodium Carbonate Solution, which turned to pink colour. Thereafter, Entrustment Mahazar was drawn as per Ex.P3. PW7 further deposed that thereafter all the Trap Team Members including the complainant and himself went to Vijaynagar Police Station. He accompanied the complainant. Complainant met the accused and spoke with him about the work. He was observing the transaction between the complainant and accused. The accused told the complainant to pay the amount to CW2-S.Deepu. Accordingly, the complainant paid the amount to S.Deepu, who in turn counted it and kept it in his left side pant pocket.
14 Spl.C.C.No.69/2011Thereafter, he gave signal about the receipt of money by the accused. Immediately, the Police Inspector rushed to the spot and apprehended the CW2-S.Deepu. Both hand fingers of CW2-S.Deepu were made to dip in the Sodium Carbonate Solution, the said solution become light pink colour. As per the instructions of Police Inspector, he removed the tainted currency notes from the pant pocket of S.Deepu. The said currency notes were seized. On being questioned, CW2- S.Deepu told the Police Inspector that as per the instructions of the accused, he received the amount from the complainant. Trap panchanama was drawn as per Ex.P4 and he subscribed his signature to the said Trap panchanama.
20. During the cross-examination, PW7 has stated that complainant gave the amount to CW2-S.Deepu inside the Vijayanagar Police Station. PW7 further states that he do not know the reason for the complainant to pay the amount of Rs.4,000/- to S.Deepu.
21. PW8- Dinesh is the son of the complainant. According to the prosecution case, the Vijayangar Police took Dinesh to the Police Station for enquiry in connection with consumption of poison by Kum.Kavya and illegally detained him in the police custody. On 28.10.2010, he came to know from his father that the accused demanded 15 Spl.C.C.No.69/2011 illegal gratification from his father for releasing him. But PW8 turned hostile. He has not supported the prosecution case. The learned Special Public Prosecutor cross examined this witness at length. But nothing useful to the case of the prosecution is elicited during course of cross-examination. The statement said to have been given by PW8 under section 164 of Cr.P.C. before the Magistrate is marked as Ex.P11. But PW8 has categorically stated that he gave such a statement before the Magistrate because of force used by the Lokayuktha Police.
22. PW9 -J.S.Ksheerasagar is Co-Panch-Witness. PW9 has deposed regarding drawing of Entrustment Mahazar, resultant hand wash of CW2-S.Deepu turned to pink colour, Recovery of the tainted currency notes from S.Deepu, drawing of Trap Mahazar.
23. PW10 is the Investigating Officer. PW10 has deposed regarding registering of complaint, drawing of Entrustment Mahazar, laying of trap against the accused, recovery of tainted currency notes from CW2-S.Deepu, resultant hand wash of CW2-S.Deepu turned to pink colour, seizure of concerned documents from Vijayanagar Police Station, arrest of accused, obtaining Sanction Order from the Competent Authority and submitting Charge Sheet before the Court.
16 Spl.C.C.No.69/201124. It is well settled that the demand of illegal gratification by the accused and acceptance of the same is sine-qua-non for constituting the offence under section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act,1988. The prosecution is required to prove that there was demand and acceptance to bring home the guilt of the accused. The prosecution is also required to prove that the work of the complainant was pending with the accused as on the date of the trap and the accused was the Competent Authority to do an official favour to the complainant. The burden to prove the accusation for the offence punishable under Ss.7, 13(1)(d) r/w.13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 with regard to demand and acceptance of illegal gratification by the accused from the complainant to do an official favour lies on the prosecution.
25. In the present case, PW1 who is the best person to say regarding demand of illegal gratification and acceptance of the same by the accused for showing an official favour has turned hostile. He has not supported the prosecution case. The testimony of PW7 & PW8 who are said to be independent witnesses is not corroborated by the evidence of complainant with regard to demand and acceptance of bribe by the accused. Absolutely, there is no evidence with regard to demand of money by the accused. The tainted currency 17 Spl.C.C.No.69/2011 notes were recovered from CW2-S.Deepu and not from the accused. As per the version of CW2, the Lokayuktha Police recovered Rs.5,000/- from him, which is contrary to the contents of Trap Mahazar.
26. From the evidence of PW1-complainant, it is clear that Dhananjay and K.Raju took his son -Dinesh to Vijayanagar Police Station, it was Dhananjay and K.Raju demanded money from him for release of his son, he gave Rs.4,000/- to CW2-S.Deepu to pay it to Dhananjay and K.Raju. The accused was not present at the time of giving money to S.Deepu. The accused has not demanded money from him. He never met the accused in connection with release of his son. He has not paid money to the accused. CW2-S.Deepu was with him right from the time of filing the complaint till the completion of the trap. Even from the evidence of PW10, it is clear that Dhananjay PC 8730 and K.Raju PC.10537 of Vijayanagar Police Station were assisting the Enquiry Officer in the non-cognizable offence registered against Dinesh in Vijayanagar Police Station. The said Dhananjay and K.Raju were departmentally enquired in respect of the said case. It is relevant to note that the very same documents produced in this case viz; complaint, FIR, Final report, Pre-Trap-Mahazar, Trap-Mahazar, Statement of the witnesses were produced in the said Departmental 18 Spl.C.C.No.69/2011 enquiry. After an enquiry the Deputy Commissioner of Police (West) Bengaluru City by an order dated 21.01.2012 has given finding that charges leveled against them are not proved. PW10 during his investigation did not make an enquiry about the involvement of the accused in non- cognizable case registered against Dinesh. He also did not make an enquiry about demand of illegal gratification by the accused from the complainant to do an official favour in the matter of releasing complainant's son Dinesh, except recording his statement. Under the circumstances, the accused demanded illegal gratification from the complainant for release of his son is doubtful. Further, the accused being a Police Constable is not the Competent Authority and empowered to release Dinesh. Hence, question of demand of illegal gratification by the accused and acceptance of the same on 27.10.2010 through CW2-S.Deepu for release of Dinesh, the son of the complainant is legally and factually does not arise.
27. It is well settled that electronic record like CD, VCD, Pen-drive, etc., which contains the statement which is sought to be given as secondary evidence has to be accompanied by a certificate as specified in section 65-B(4)of the Indian Evidence Act. In the absence of such certificate, secondary evidence of electronic record can not 19 Spl.C.C.No.69/2011 be admitted in evidence. This view of mine is supported by the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Anvar P.V. -Vs- PK.Basheer ; (2014)10 Supreme Court Cases 473.
28. In the present case, MO5, MO10, MO11, MO12 & MO13 are the CD, said to have contained conversation which is sought to be given as secondary evidence are not accompanied by a certificate as specified in section 65-B(4) of the Indian Evidence Act. In the absence of such certificate, these Material Objects can not be admitted in evidence. Further, the Investigating Officer has not collected the sample voice of the accused and sent it to Forensic Science Laboratory for scientific investigation. On this ground also, MO5, MO10, MO11, MO12 & MO13 can not be admitted in evidence.
29. Further, it is relevant to note that during his investigation PW10 has not collected Customer Application Copy and other documents from the service provider to show that Mobile No.9986780292 is registered in the name of the accused. On this ground also the prosecution case is seriously affected.
30. It is well settled that mere recovery of tainted money and positive result of Phenolphthalein test is not sufficient to establish the guilt of the accused, unless there 20 Spl.C.C.No.69/2011 is corroboration of testimony of complainant regarding demand and acceptance of bribe by the accused. In the present case, the complainant who is the material witness to say regarding demand and acceptance of illegal gratification by the accused has turned hostile and not supported the prosecution case. CW2-S.Deepu who alleged to have received the money on behalf of the accused has also turned hostile and not supported the prosecution case. Demand of illegal gratification by the accused and acceptance of the same for doing an official favour has not been established. Where the prosecution's allegation of demand of bribe is false, the allegation of payment of bribe to CW2-S.Deepu at the instance of the accused and recovery of the same must be viewed with suspicion. The prosecution has miserably failed to prove essential ingredients of Ss.7, 13(1)(d) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.
31. In view of the above discussion, I answer point Nos.1 & 2 in the Negative.
32. POINT NO.3: In the result, I proceed to pass the following:
ORDER The accused is acquitted under section 235(1) of Cr.P.C. of the offence 21 Spl.C.C.No.69/2011 punishable under Ss. 7, 13(1)(d) r/w.13(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and set at liberty.
Bail bond executed by the accused stands cancelled.
MO2 - Currency notes are ordered to be confiscated to the State after expiry of appeal period.
MO1 Metal seal shall be handed over to the Karnataka Lokayuktha police after the appeal period is over.
MO 3 to 13 being worthless are ordered to be destroyed after the appeal period is over.
(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 3rd day of June, 2017) (SHRIDEVI S. ANGADI) LXXVI Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge & Special Judge, Bengaluru- (CCH-77) 22 Spl.C.C.No.69/2011 ANNEXURE List of witnesses examined on behalf of the prosecution:
PW1 M.Nagaraju PW2 Siddaramappa S.N. PW3 M.H.Banna PW4 S.Deepu PW5 D.Krishna Arus PW6 Narasimhamurhty PW7 K.Nagaraj PW8 Dinesh PW9 J.S.Ksheerasagara PW10 Krishnappa
List of documents marked on behalf of prosecution:
Ex.P.1 Complaint Ex.P.1(a) Signature of PW1 Ex.P.1(b) Signature of PW10 Ex.P.2 Currency details sheet Ex.P.2 (a) Signature of PW7 Ex.P.2(b) Signature of PW9 Ex.P.2(c) Signature of PW10 Ex.P.2(d) Signature of PW10 Ex.P.3 Pre-Trap-Mahazar Ex.P.3 (a) Signature of the PW1 Ex.P.3 (b) Signature of PW9 Ex.P.3(c) Signature of PW7 Ex.P.3(d) Signature of PW10 23 Spl.C.C.No.69/2011 Ex.P.4 Trap-Mahazar Ex.P.4(a) Signature of the PW1 Ex.P.4(b) Signature of the PW9 Ex.P.4 (c) Signature of the PW7 Ex.P.4(d) Signature of the PW10 Ex.P.5 Sanction Order Ex.P.5(a) Signature of the PW2 Ex.P.6 Portion of the statement of PW1 Ex.P7 Statement of PW1 u/s. 164 CrPC Ex.P7(a) to 7(e) Signature of the PW1 Ex.P.8 Statement of PW4 U/s.164 CrPC Ex.P.8(a)& 8(b) Signature of the PW4 Ex.P.9 Portion of statement of PW4 Ex.P10 Report dated 30.10.2010 Ex.P10(a) Signature of PW5 Ex.P11 statement of PW8 U/Sec.164 CrPC Ex.P811(a) Signature of PW8 Ex.P12 Transcription of CD (produced along with complaint) Ex.P13 File relating to Cri.Misc.1678/2010 (page No. 39 to 63) Ex.P14 Transcription of CD conversation (at the time of trap) Ex.P15 Written statement of accused Ex.P16 Acknowledgement of Metal seal (Article No.1 to 12 were sealed with a Metal seal with an English letter 'I') Ex.P17 Call details & Customer details of Mobile No.99867 80292 from 25.10.2010 to 27.10.2010 Ex.P18 Chemical Examination Report Ex.P19 Service particulars Ex.P20 Spot sketch 24 Spl.C.C.No.69/2011
List of material objects marked on behalf of the prosecution:
MO.1 Metal Seal
MO.2 Currency notes - Article No.7
MO.3 Sample solution - Article No.1
MO.4 Hand wash of CW5 - Article No.2
MO.5 CD of Pre-Trap Proceedings - Article No.3
MO.6 Sample Solution - Article No.4
MO.7 Right hand wash of CW2- Article No.5 &
S.Deepu 5(A)
MO.8 Left Hand wash of CW2- Article No.6 &
S.Deepu 6(A)
MO.9 3/4th Pant worn by CW2 - Article No.8
MO.10 CD- conversation recorded Article No.9
in the button camera -
MO.11 CD of the Mobile and STD Article No.10
Booth conversation -
MO12 CD- conversation recorded Article No.11
in voice Recorder produced
along with the complaint -
MO13 CD-recording of Video Article No.12
during trap proceedings -
List of witnesses examined on behalf of the accused :
-Nil-25 Spl.C.C.No.69/2011
List of documents marked on behalf of the accused:
Ex.D.1 Copy of Order dated 21.01.2012 of Deputy commissioner of Police, Western Division, Bengaluru City (SHRIDEVI S. ANGADI) LXXVI Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge & Special Judge, Bengaluru- (CCH-77) 26 Spl.C.C.No.69/2011 (Judgment pronounced in the open Court vide separate judgment) ORDER Accused present.
The accused is acquitted under section 235(1) of Cr.P.C. of the offence punishable under Ss. 7, 13(1)(d) r/w.13(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and set at liberty.
Bail bond executed by the accused stands cancelled.
MO2 - Currency notes are ordered to be confiscated to the State after expiry of appeal period.
MO1 Metal seal shall be handed over to the Karnataka Lokayuktha police after the appeal period is over.27 Spl.C.C.No.69/2011
MO 3 to 13 being worthless are ordered to be destroyed after the appeal period is over.
(SHRIDEVI S. ANGADI) LXXVI Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge & Special Judge, Bengaluru- (CCH-77) The learned counsel appearing for the accused has placed reliance on the following decisions:
1. Anvar P.V. -Vs- P.K.Basheer & Others; (2014) 10 SCC 473