State By Lokayuktha Police Mandya vs K M Gangadhar S/O Mallashetty on 11 March, 2008

[Cites 0, Cited by 14]

Karnataka High Court

State By Lokayuktha Police Mandya vs K M Gangadhar S/O Mallashetty on 11 March, 2008

Bench: V.Jagannathan

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE
Dated the 1 1" day of March 2008

_.._......_.-..n---

:I:il:'.':l"UKl'£:

THE H(}."€'BLE h!R.u"JSl'ICE : '.7.-..'.4...:.'.*._!=§_!'.'.-".*'.'.V.V!_"'.?..«..l_"5  

CRIMINAL APPEAL-1§I5g£.  " 1

BETWEEN :
State by Lokay uktha Politic,

Mnndva -._ 

V V A  ...Appellant
( By Sri P.M.;'N.'if3wa*£:,    Pﬁeaeculur. )

AND:

Sfo Ma-l'u:a'sshe.i:_t,y';; 33 3'_¢B!fﬁ,   V .
F% 12251.9.-r."*¢:_.or, S1-:;*s;r.1jg2-.w,t.r-;*at,%ve1I.:.'*!:'r.i-I';s1".IrI_
Divisi¢ti;vTé1ii1£_O1"-ice.   e  
 D'ﬁ.trbt,

Rfo HouseV'l~:ew-.6; e Housing Board
C°I°nY=»-  

Native  B_us-Stand,
K.R.Pcte Talus:-, Mcstntijra District.

~  Appeai    - o=ld':.} 35 {U} ; _- --

(.'.=.v.f.P;.C,'-. 1.-:3.-._-,:i:.:g I4; gumi. .|I.-J.-I.\.:.. Lu 5.1.: 1:111. 2.19% unaiuai l_.11_e

' AA  dated 21.5.2002 pasaed by the Set.-micms as Spwial
 nudge, Mandya, in S.C.No. 21/-1996, -aoquilling the

wapondenl-accused for the offences punislndﬂe under
Seclimls 7, 13(1)(a) and 13(2) uflhe P.C.Act, 1933.

This uppealoomiugonforlnaaring lhiaduy, the court
delivered the following:



:nnr11:t,'1\IT
 .ilH;_

The State Ilnuugh Lokayuklha ca1_l.:.I_'_

the acquittal of the 1es}xJ11de11L-mmggiezj'  V'

1-.----~_._

c9:.::'$. in 1=ee',.m-*-'I. 9!' L! H gn|Tmiis-'a 'nun i'-i:s»|_1i_z-.1_1l1I.'*;"'I_1._l"_-!.1_it_13;.'_ "

I!
I
<
I
5
I
I
1
»'1

Sections 7, i3('i}i¢i) lead _wiLnV13 (2) om.;ee% V"'F.i'it:v(.f.1ii:i-;3iiVw0i'

COI'I'|.lptiOll Act, 1988.

2. The case of  inief is to the et"1"eci.
Ulﬂl» 1116  as the Food
I11e1x:(:tO£j_«« 21, ' eleiuunded and accepted
  V'  ﬁmn eonnplainant

1 His ;"u.""u.." 9.

e1_1abiin~g 'me to secure the licence as a

Ekciiiisﬁlzlc  as the accused was required to forward

 " {J 

  on the complaint lodged by P.W.1

% * ._.'Ge§ri11da1aja with the Lokayuklha Police as per Ex.P-2,

 !,he m-_1'u_L1n_.1-L1.u:;l_a_ze1_'w1;e eeuductetl and Lhe:realle1',

the campiaiilam, aeeeiirpaiiied by the  "'i"n";'*:iE

and the Lu.-1p oﬁicials, went In the place of the accused

9y

/"



U}

and it is alleged that the accused demanded and

eoeepted the illegal grat.il'ieat:io11 in the form"

fwiii iii"  in "rder te  '.*£fj,s;.,..,l_..;.,..:

of the complainallt towards   

kerosene dealer.

4. I The trap u1aluwa1' 'ivee»1l1awii._ee§3e1;.Ell;P- 10 
as the hands of  :.'§1f\tll'¢?.  ﬁosillve when

inunereed in   -l.T:_ayo__l.'uI.io11 and as the

e.l.-e1;cw:";1t_é§,.eas wi.»rL-_; '-'V mm recovered froln the

'J.

pocket of the    euiiip}eti"i1 61' tlr

CB

 sheet was submitted again' last the

1eepo_1id.t=IiI.-._  of the oﬂenoee first above

_;111e:utio1.V1e<l,V_V "  Ill" order to bring home the guilt of the

santﬁ Nun':

..M.c_..'_..., the pmx«.:a...1e.z ..--.=r.s.I.1:;.1';11_..l Plwegl to 6 mld 21
 ;icit:li;.x1ezi_tas" were marked in evidence apaﬁ ﬁﬁin

 p1oduel11g 9 material objects, including the currency

 * azletes (M.O.4). The aecused'e stand was one of denial

'lwllexl questioned under Section 313 of the C1'.P.C. and

he led 1:0 evzdmace in e-.:1:}.'e.|.'..l'1:ae t.!el'..11Le.
f'\
/



db

5. The learned trial judge, after appreciating the
evidence on record, found that the  not

rt the pro.se;.:u!.ie1: ease an! ...: £st;i"t--.;_*---._:-i:edow

witness PWZ5, and con led with i.i:a'*~

found defect in the    4-:

the trial court taking   

Lot brought home the the.  beyond all

passed in ,f;1vou1' or 1'esjM)1i1ie1..ti."»ve11d "1e1'e'oy driving

the to  V ' 

Slni  State and the learned oounsel

4;'.-331171.   the respondent and perused the

V' "feu:cused and the imnds of the tested positive when immersed in sodium ca1'bonal.e solution and, therefore, the prestunption arises by virtue of Section 20 of the P.C.Aet. Even the eomplainant as well (\ .

.% as the shadow witness have also spoken to the fact. of the currency notes being found in the the accused. No explauatiml was »the ...._..g. .......I nu I uucuanti} pocket. Thelefore, the acquitted the accused.

8. The fu1'the1':" his the trial court erred in saluztiuzu order when i.e., P.W.3 in her evidence about the decmnezsis by her befere be 'd to the puma' faeie in exiete1h;e_:Vagz§h1et accused. Theveﬁne, the said . Av court. cannot. be sustained in law

-T'-m""t..i....,'-'-'J!-V.'4'.-zfly hwizzg 1eg.e1't.i. .3 the law down by the l"d._...l... I.-. !'I...l..'...... Kn:-nnnanal-u'AnIsoI Apex in the Uzi' mum uy ruuue ulapauwt us. 'A zizrénkatesh Mmthy, reported in 2005(1) Km'.L.J. 41.

--:He1we, the appellant's counsel sought for meversixlg the older 01' acquittal passed by the trial euurt and to can-.-is. ..he 1e-=--=1--im:!.~s..z4.;t.:!,.-__i t 1' Lhe t_J1l'_e_- 'es with I?»

14... mama mu] 4 an I and "'1 i ' I .- _ -.._- .... -- 41... .. .. .

9. 011 "ﬂit: U'lL.I"1I.'.1' huliti, U15 nstuuuu Lauu.uoC.4' mu} us'-G respondent, while sup1xJ1'Ling the judglncntf ulrial court, contended that as the con1plai11a1'.i:l7:"¢s1:s.9w't'*,'I19 lI':g; shadow witness have failed suppLL)1'L_: .I1ie'._1.t1:u:§tx:'L-ztioijz the iiiegai gii1i.ii'1(:ai.iUii _"1_"e';=$ currency Inotcs l'1.~a§:1z.1_ the itself will not be proseculjon has proved doubt and there is

9. 19*. .5. d§..~:::v.:;i.;-,- '.i..;',.i.J\.J-.»*:.=t::,.I.*; "may 1... L1': ." s_a_1__l "mug; Ln: 0

i.1;L1e" amiiilc :§.sa1¢.i'(ii§sia11¢;éVVi1as not 'well iiaveiied by 'the p1bsgcuuu1;,1ﬁa.9j'uumismzxt case. FLlI'LiR'l11ﬂQ1'B, it is subuziilmi by the iearueti AV' " -. the Irsspondcxrt that the accused had no role " as the application sulnuitled by the uoiuplailiallt is colnucnncd becausc, it has come in the « . ..%.I.....

" ﬁl-

u 1"ﬁ "I the 1.0. examined aa P.'.'.'.é that Ll:-.: application had been folwanitzd by [he accused on 25.8.1992 and a report was submittizd by the Food I11specl.or on 8.10. 1992 and an order was also passed on 'x\ 27.11.1992 and, 1-l1e1t:l'orc, the question of the accused having to do anything with 12116 appﬁcaljpill"'9f the I _.t_1'a gay 91' two not the pmsacuiioxx has 'Lo p1.'_Ov:: Vi' demand by the asuiruscdt _«"éiil(i,:lLl1Vé1*1:'f01't:,ll.i1c"p1'csumpl;io11 LlIldCI' Sc-ct;iu;u 20 pl' llal. available for the p1vsccutiui'i"l:'?.l\f'w ",p1-cssll 'i11lO."* 2 :_s1;;1iric.'e. Once the "'iir'l&aj1s.a1i!., zslaadu-.-. '.1-.I...:1% !.u.mh119=.s|.i._~ I_|.u_e1I: is no In --supporI'. ihc prost:cui;ion case. No izldepciixjéi-it--oo1ji0!301'aIju11 was also placed on record giiupugli t.ll.1el;vila1c::sa:cs. As such, the acquittal of 'V',lljnjgiﬁl:':1§L:;3911de11t requires no i11l.erl'e1'cnce by this court can

5." we wu'€}'i)'u.." {if the a'--'H.-its cum'; in i11§;t%1'fc2i'i11g with an order of' auquitlal. in support of Lin-3 A. , subluissions, the lcarlned counsel placed Iulimloc "bl: the decisions Iepolicd in 2007 AIR SCW 5824, 1996 _..-1} -97 zooqay KCCR 1445, (200713 soc (Cri) G0

12. One other sublnissiuu made by the learned counsel for the respondent is that Lhe had 'us-AH l=!\Jl\Iit'I1Ia'd-Ill ﬂln dl-'I'lH.'ﬂ HR! 11' on the very same charges a11d,bji1tnef(:1e,~-he. mum convicted even on this stxJ1e'-311:1' isi eu.ppd1'*t = submission, the lea11:edTw_ee;.1Jzseiv. La t_leeieien of this eoult * dated ......1 .

11.8.2605 an 11 mm; T-- nu ~r Com't in 1 life. State" ' of umar""' , 1-e1.\u1'teti '.'in__ V {C123} iihhﬂsie eonneeliou. sides, the only point for eolisideﬁatiuh ':--j,iAs» the judgment of aoquiual "_ " court calls for imerfereuee at the examined the evidence placed on record V' "as P.w. , ha mueu Le 111.1- I..1;a_I_. nmnn g;_;L (_3_ov_i1;d.a_1._uja, examined

-.-------..--._:._ rvrv 1 ._.__ I"__£'I -I I ..

_ ....¢...-u.-an nl 'Jun a gunman

1. {E16 pxuucuuuuu pun-u 3.3"

deposing to the eﬁ"ecL that the accused not demand any money nor balk anything about l.he money and also says that even when 'the eompluixmm. tendered the 9,/ / H' currency notes, the accused refused to fake tzhem and they were then kept: on the table drawer of

-----s bus 1_:h_ evidence of P.W.'l fails to esligisiii n I n u n.

in I .. .

Ii I L D up n.

I I q . ' AI 1-, ,, 4 ,A_ '_. _:_";___ _ 0 V. ' "

also LOWS the nut: cf the cum iauiazit usamig man. u e accused did not deiiislidhliyi 'ﬁ'cIn""v(43ovi11da1'aju, though this witness tag,-s .c_u_a'1e11ey notes were removed The evidence i ,1'e-5-'t hf % -.=. 11 \.I_ \.r. so an'. -. ' --__ J- g ;__.c.__ 16 fact-Vcf__i;i1e currency notes being

--. of the accused and his hands being tested '' they themselves are not suﬂ'ic1e.n' I. to hold accused did demand illegal grat.i[iest.im1 of I\3ouUU, " .I..I\Il.I..I. uxu uusuyuzumuau 1.-gs I-rs-rsluvsr znn I. 1=.....m nu. mmmluinm arid 3 -ni J Hy-__ mnm3_ Since the culupiainant. and the shadow witness do not speak about the demand made by the accused, I am of 'the view that the evidence of the other witnesses placed 35» t c RW45 N 11:; 1 )s_ is it on record cannot in any way help the prosecution in

-rder to establish the demand made by the

17. The trial court has, tlnerefore, the'

1.M....itit__; in _.w "y 1 ,L'.ring Ctodroriotls -:det.'i»siolis" AV ".' In _:n-:.unnn 'bu-1 I '' ﬁrﬁwv I-

ootu-L cannot be said to of material on 4' to by the learned counsel also in support of the 1.I..Lor.;1.-"'c:.i';.l. oou_rt., Once the domain: is]jnot" and u.|1:""' slztadowx to; support the prosecution case, it eonnot basis of more lcoovery of the " ' cm1m1o§ the pocket of the accused that the no »' nssvwn in! hit u I EIVIIJ Illa 1!' Ir! w \a' u -urn-suns-' *1: t.*IfI.r.p order of -'r'iie:"ﬁ~.=1"'x.'u'1":';, uuw""'"' " not: for any into:-fexence. V' a __ "18. As far as the sanction older is ctmoernuti. it has be mentioned that P.W.3 has deposed in the course of her evidence about the documents rel'er.ved to by her before according sanction to prosecute the accused. In 0 4 2' I--

is view of the said evidence of P.W.3, I do not see any defect in the sanction older and, as such, h1eti£':eJ'.na the cannot be 'L0 be susiainabie in ..:"!1nui'i'.i7iI'ia'ii:3}1ff;'~-_A for the other 1'C&S0l.lS stated Ij'ilt;:..::V hf 3311011011 order being laiw, the uxlido the daluage to a by P.W.l

19. As um aiéaiisioijnsrexﬁud In by the learned P" the Ai%e**"n<l"-as". '.-..!.!1 zege.-.111 !.e the ltfspoljdenl in me deparinaeniai :_'th:enefo1e, no criminal case euuld have ;been .é.gei11sl. him is concerned, the said made too late in me day inasmuch as ﬂit} iﬁi-L 'IIIJ lilac)' IAIM' IIIIIII am: {he pmaeeuljon led evidence and upon: an A. , ugipnx.-iatjoln of the evidence on would that the trial ";(,'()lll'l. rendered the judgment of aequiual in favour of the agxnmli «x III II:

20. in the light of the afowsaid reasoning, the 1;l;aI_. ﬂy: 911161' of acquittal passed II. tr: :1 Iagbnatn ' as uﬁ v a- unnun u :1:-.53'. 3%.!-:«..

possible View elnerging on Iccord. Hence, I ﬁ5HcMi1;g . The appeal is K

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Karnataka High Court