Bangalore District Court
State By Deputy Superintendent Of vs Sri S.G.Gangadharaiah on 4 February, 2019
Spl.C.177/2016
1
IN THE COURT OF THE LXXVI ADDL. CITY CIVIL AND
SESSIONS JUDGE AND SPECIAL JUDGE,BENGALURU CITY
(CCH77)
Present: Sri Sachin Kaushik R.N.,
B.Sc.LL.M.,
LXXVI Addl.City Civil & Sessions Judge
& Special Judge, Bengaluru.
Dated this the 4th day of February 2019
Spl.C.No.177/2016
Complainant State by Deputy Superintendent of
Police, City Division,
Karnataka Lokayukta,
Bengaluru.
(Rep.by Spl.Public Prosecutor)
vs
Accused Sri S.G.Gangadharaiah,
s/o late Giryappa,
51 years,
Tax Collector,
Laggere Sub Division,
Nagarabhaviy2w BBMP Office.
Bengaluru.
(Rep.by Sri S.K.Venkata Reddy
Advocate)
1. Nature of Offence Offences punishable under
Sections 7, 9, 13(1)(d) R/w 15 of
the Prevention of Corruption Act,
1988.
Spl.C.177/2016
2
2. Date of
Commission 20.12.2014 & 27.12.2014
of offence
3. Date of First
Information Report 06.01.2015
4. Date of
commencement of 25.09.2018
recording of
evidence
6. Date of 07.01.2019
closing of evidence
7. Date of
pronouncement of 04.02.2019
Judgment
Acting under Section 235(1) of
8. Result of the case Cr.P.C., the accused is acquitted of
the offences punishable under
sections 7, 9, 13(1) (d) R/w 15 of
Prevention of Corruption Act,
1988.
Spl.C.177/2016
3
JUDGMENT
The case of the prosecution is that the accused, S.G.Gangadharaiah, being public servant, working as Bill Collector in BBMP, Bengaluru, has demanded illegal gratification of Rs.3,000/ from complainant on 20.12.2014 & 27.12.2014 for getting BKhata done to his building in Ramakrishna Layout. On 06.01.2015, becoming suspicious of trap, the accused did not accept Rs.3,000/. The Lokayukta Police have filed charge sheet against the accused u/s 7, 9,13(1)(d) R/w 15 of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.
2. The accused has denied the charges and claimed to be tried.
3. The prosecution has examined in all 5 witnesses and got 21 documents and 7 materials marked.
4. The accused has denied the allegations in his Section 313 Cr.P.C. statement, and got 2 documents marked in evidence of PW5.
5. Heard the learned Spl.P.P. and learned Advocate for accused..
6. The points that arise for determination are as follows: Spl.C.177/2016 4
1. Whether the prosecution proves beyond reasonable doubt that the accused has committed offence punishable u/s 7 of Prevention of Corruption Act?
2. Whether the prosecution proves beyond reasonable doubt that the accused has committed offence punishable u/s 9 of Prevention of Corruption Act?
3. Whether the prosecution proves beyond reasonable doubt that the accused has committed offence punishable u/s 13(1)
(d) R/w 15 of Prevention of Corruption Act?
3. What order?
7. The answers to the above points are:
Point No.1: In the Negative Point No.2: In the Negative Point No.3: In the Negative Point No.4: As per the final order, for the following:
REASONS
8. Points No.1 to 3: As the Points No.1 to 3 are inter connected, they are taken together for consideration.
9. PW1, Sri B.G.Ramesh, complainant, has stated that, he has property No.61 in Ramakrishna layout, Malagala, Spl.C.177/2016 5 Bengaluru, measuring 30 ft. x 40 ft. He had to get BKhata done for the same. He went to BBMP Office, Kottigepalya, Malagala, Bengaluru. He met a clerk by name Nagaraj there and gave application for the same on 3.12.2014. The said clerk asked him to come after a week. On 20.12.2014, he again met the clerk and the clerk asked him to come again after a week and said that the spot inspection has to be done. He met Gangadharaiah, accused, Bill Collector. PW1 has identified the accused. The accused told him that he will get the work done, and PW1 gave the file from Nagaraj to the accused. The accused told that he wants to see the spot and PW1 after one week showed the spot to the accused. The accused told that, the expenses for BKhata would be Rs.3,000/. PW1 asked him to reduce the amount, and the accused did not agree. PW1 got the conversation recorded in pendrive. He went to the Lokayukta Office and lodged the complaint against the accused, for demanding bribe of Rs.3,000/. The complaint is marked as Ex.P1 and CD, MO1. PW1 also gave 6 notes of Rs.500/each to Lokayukta Inspector for laying the trap. The Police Inspector called two panch witnesses and got the amount of Rs.3,000/ kept in his left side pant pocket through CW2, Sri Rajan. The hands of CW2/PW2 were washed in the solution and it turned to pink colour. Witness identifies the sample solution, MO2 & 3. The police gave instructions to him that he should give the amount only on demand and after acceptance, he should give signal by scratching his head. PW2 Spl.C.177/2016 6 & 3 were instructed to be near him. Witness identifies pretrap panchanama, Ex.P2, and the CD containing videograph of the PreTrap proceedings, MO4.
10. PW1 further states that all of them went to BBMP Office, Kottigepalya and reached there at about 5.15 p.m. He, PW2 & 3 went to the office of accused, and from there they came down and accused went away without taking the money. Witness identifies the return panchanama, Ex.P3. The CD pertaining to the conversation at the time of trap is marked as MO5, and the transcriptions, Ex.P4 & P5.
11. In crossexamination of PW1, he has admitted that he has seen accused in court only, after trap day. He does not state anywhere that on trap day, the accused demanded the bribe amount of Rs.3,000/.
12. PW2, Sri L.V.Rajan, has stated that, on 6.1.2015, his senior officer, Divisional Controller, asked him and CW3/PW3, Sri Vishwanath to go to Lokayukta Police station to act as witness. They reached there at about 12.00 p.m. The Police Inspector introduced them to the complainant and gave the copy of complaint to read and understand the same. They ascertained the contents of complaint through PW1. PW1 gave Rs.3,000/ to the police for laying the trap. It contained 6 notes of Rs.500/ each. The police prepared the list of Spl.C.177/2016 7 currency notes, smeared the notes with Phenolphthalein powder and got it kept in PW1's left front side pant pocket through him. His hands were washed in sodium carbonate solution and it turned to pink colour. PW2 identifies MO2 & 3 and pretrap panchanama, Ex.P2. All of them left to BBMP Office in Nagarabhavi. PW2 identifies the accused. PW1 said that, the accused declined to accept Rs.3,000/ and said that he will tell after 2 to 3 days. The police played the Voice Recorder, burnt to CD and transcribed. Witness identifies transcription, Ex.P5, and panchanama, Ex.P3. On 23.1.2015, the police took the specimen voice of accused in his presence and PW2 has identified the panchanama, Ex.P6, and the CD of specimen voice, MO6, and the videograph recording of specimen voice, MO7.
13. PW2, in chiefexamination itself has stated that he has not overheard the conversation, and that he was at a distance. Hence, his evidence, does not help the prosecution.
14. PW3, Sri Vishwanath, has stated that, on 6.1.2015, on the directions of his senior officer, he reached the Police station and reported before the Police Inspector, Mushtaq Ahmed, CW14. The police introduced them i.e., him and PW2 to PW1 and played the CD that PW1 had given. PW3 identifies the CD, MO1. PW1 gave Rs.3,000/ and got the same kept in the pocket of PW1 through PW2. The hand wash of PW2 turned Spl.C.177/2016 8 the solution to pink colour. PW3 identifies MO2 & 3. The police drew the pretrap panchanama, Ex.P2. All of them left to the BBMP Office, Nagarabhavi, and PW3 identifies the accused. The accused did not receive the amount. The panchanama, Ex.P3 was drawn, and the contents of the Voice Recorder converted to CD and transcribed, CD is MO6, and panchanama of specimen voice of accused, is Ex.P6. The acknowledgment for having given the CD is marked as Ex.P7.
15. PW3 too, another Panch witness has not deposed anything about accused demanding bribe amount, and has said that accused did not receive the bribe amount.
16. PW4, Sri G.Kumar Naik, working as Commissioner of BBMP, Bengaluru, then, has deposed that, on 17.8.2015, he received requisition to accord Sanction to prosecute the accused. He received along with the requisition, complaint, panchanamas, sketch, statements of witnesses, detailed report and other documents. On finding prima facie materials, he accorded Sanction. The same is marked as Ex.P8. PW4 has stated that he has power to remove the accused from the job.
17. Nothing useful to defence has come up in cross examination of PW4, and the court finds Ex.P8, Sanction order, running into 4 pages, legal and valid.
Spl.C.177/2016 9
18. PW5, Sri Mushtaq Ahmed, working as Police Inspector, in Karnataka Lokayukta, City Division, Bengaluru, then, has deposed that, on 6.1.2015, he received typed complaint and CD containing conversation between PW1 and accused. He registered the complaint and drew F.I.R., Ex.P9. He secured two panchas, PW2 & 3, and conducted PreTrap proceedings. The list of currency notes is marked as Ex.P10. The transcription of MO1 is marked as Ex.P4, and PreTrap Mahazar, Ex.P2. All of them went to the office of accused, and the accused did not receive the amount and went away on his motorcycle. He prepared rough sketch of the spot, Ex.P11. All of them returned to Lokayukta Office and he drew return panchanama, Ex.P3. He took the Voice Recorder from PW1, burnt to CD, MO5 and transcribed, Ex.P5. He has subjected all the seized materials to P.F, Ex.P12 and gave the certificate u/s 65B of Indian Evidence Act, Ex.P13. He has recorded statements of witnesses and drawn panchanama relating to specimen voice of accused, Ex.P6. The acknowledgment of seal given to PW2 is marked as Ex.P14. The transcription of specimen voice is marked as Ex.P15. The explanation of accused is marked as Ex.P16, call detail records, Ex.P17 and voice analysis report, Ex.P18, the report of senior officer of accused, Ex.P19 identifying the voice of accused. The service details of accused is marked as Ex.P20 and sketch of spot Spl.C.177/2016 10 prepared by PWD, AEE, is marked as Ex.P21. Siddaraju, CW15 filed the charge sheet.
19. In explanation of accused, Ex.P16, accused has stated that there was no matter or discussion of bribe between him and PW1. PW5 has admitted that there has been 10 days delay in lodging complaint, and no document of correspondence is produced pertaining to that period between PW1 and accused. Ex.D1 is statement of CW6, Sri Dharmender, wherein it is not mentioned that accused had the file. Ex.D2 is Summary of Final Report, prepared for obtaining Sanction, and PW5 has stated in page No.16 of Ex.D2, Point No.4, that accused was not in charge of PW1's work.
20. From above evidences, it can be seen that none of the witnesses, PW1 to 3 have deposed about demand of bribe by accused. Admittedly, it is a failed trap. PW5, Investigating Officer, has not sent the Voice Recorder or source of recording of C.D., MO1, 4 to 7 to F.S.L., and hence, the transcriptions, Ex.P4, 5, 15 & C.Ds, MO1, 4 to 7, does not stand proved. PW1 also says he got conversation saved in Pen Drive, but produces C.D. The delay of 10 days in lodging complaint is also not satisfactorily explained. Hence, for all these reasons, this court has come to the conclusion, that the prosecution has failed to prove guilt of accused beyond reasonable doubt. The benefit of doubt is given to accused, and Points No.1 to 3 are answered in Spl.C.177/2016 11 the Negative.
21. Point No.4: For the aforesaid reasons, this Court proceeds to pass the following:
ORDER Acting under section 235(1) of Cr.P.C., the accused is acquitted of the offences punishable under Sections 7, 9,13(1)(d) R/w 15 of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.
Bail bond of accused stands cancelled.
MO1 to 7 shall be disposed as per law, after appeal period.
(Dictated to the Judgment Writer on computer, corrected, and then pronounced by me in the open court on this the 4th day of February 2019) (Sachin Kaushik R.N) LXXVI Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge & Special Judge, Bengaluru.
(CCH77) Spl.C.177/2016 12 ANNEXURE List of witnesses examined on behalf of the prosecution:
PW1 B.G.Ramesh PW2 L.V.Rajan PW3 Vishwanath PW4 G.Kumar Naik PW5 Mushtak Ahmed
List of documents marked on behalf of prosecution:
Ex.P1 Complaint
Ex.P1(a) Signature of PW1
Ex.P1(b) Signature of PW5
Ex.P2 Pretrap panchanama
Ex.P2(a) Signature of PW1
Ex.P2(b) Signature of PW2
Ex.P2(c) Signature of PW3
Ex.P2(d) Signature of PW5
Ex.P3 Return mahazar
Ex.P3(a) Signature of PW1
Ex.P3(b) Signature of PW2
Ex.P3(c) Signature of PW3
Ex.P3(d) Signature of PW5
Ex.P4 Transcription
Ex.P4(a) Signature of PW1
Ex.P4(b) Signature of PW5
Ex.P5 transcription
Ex.P5(a) Signature of PW1
Spl.C.177/2016
13
Ex.P5(b) Signature of PW2
Ex.P5(c) Signature of PW5
Ex.P6 Sample voice
Ex.P6(a) Signature of PW2
Ex.P6(b) Signature of PW3
Ex.P6(c) Signature of PW5
Ex.P7 Acknowledgment
Ex.P7(a) Signature of PW3
Ex.P8 Sanction order
Ex.P8(a) Signature of PW4
Ex.P9 FIR
Ex.P9(a) Signature of PW5
Ex.P10 Currency notes sheet
Ex.P10(a) Signature of PW5
Ex.P11 Spot sketch
Ex.P11(a) Signature of PW5
Ex.P12 PF.No.1/15
Ex.P12(a) Signature of PW5
Ex.P13 Certificate u/s 65B of Indian
Evidence Act
Ex.P13(a) Signature of PW5
Ex.P14 Acknowledgment
Ex.P15 Transcription
Ex.P15(a) Signature of PW5
Ex.P16 Explanation of accused
Ex.P16(a) Signature of PW5
Ex.P17 Call details of accused &
complainant
Ex.P18 Report
Spl.C.177/2016
14
Ex.P18(a) Signature of PW5
Ex.P19 Report
Ex.P20 Service details of accused
Ex.P21 Spot sketch
List of material objects marked on behalf of the prosecution:
MO1 CD along with complaint MO2 Sample solution MO3 Solution turned to pink colour MO4 to 7 CDs
List of witnesses examined on behalf of the accused:
Nil List of documents marked on behalf of the accused:
Ex.D1 Statement of CW6
Ex.D2 Summary of Final Report
(Sachin Kaushik R.N)
LXXVI Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge & Special Judge, Bengaluru (CCH77) Spl.C.177/2016 15