Mailarappa vs The State Of Karnataka By Its Spp on 2 December, 2010

[Cites 1, Cited by 0]
Karnataka High Court

Mailarappa vs The State Of Karnataka By Its Spp on 2 December, 2010

Author: K.Govindarajulu

Bench: K.Govindarajulu

  srzzéx/1,3 ggggmade, SPF.)

1 C7r1.;X;. Ni2.Zé€§V6".§{}M{}$V;* A'

IN THE HIGH 0015123' 012* KARNATAJKA c1Rc:;.:.2*.§3::::N€1}i.A'*;*"  

DHEXRWAB   . 

m*r§:::> THIS THE mm DAY 01:' :'»3C;jE::v:%BE;1§'2:j'p;{j 

THE HOEVBLE MRJUSTICE 'K,¢§ov1N:;ARaJUL:J
CRIMINAL APPEAL Nd; :5:;:éi2_oo5 '  

BETWEEN:  " '  A'   

B. Amarnath,

S/0 B.Raghurarn Gupta,  _  . 

Aged about 51 §?€af \§¢       

Occ: Developmeljlt"'f'}ffi{3€t1*;% " .1   .

Office of the Distrjct::_Qffic<=:r'  «_ ~ iv

far Backward ----GV1.a,As's{_>,s ::Mi11.Q1*i:ies; ~  .  V

Beﬂary.  7 

 * V     ...Appe11ant
(By Sri Mahan"'£§S'hM C'. -I._<t>?:i;'u:(fs3-}:_1_¢E:"a1r§ Adv.)

         

The _VS't€;:1i:c:> 29$ .Ka:rr:§f{taka.
 T '  "  7 .'.ReSpO:1cie:1t

j This" Cfiniinai Agpeai is filed under Section 37-4H2}

""€:f:'::;7E}'§<Z'A.A agairiysi the judgment dated 25.08.2005 passed by the
A «:'S;3§g..fJudgé§, Beliarjg, in Spiflase No. 4'7j'98 csnvicting the
g-~_"'a;j'pT:E1-33:3:{accused fer the Crffﬁflélﬁ' punishable under Sactien
V" 73.7'? é«3(1 '§{:i) sf P,Ci.Act and Séntencing him to Lmderge Si. 179:'

:1}-£;§:'m.:::::[aihs arid pa}; a fine ?}QG;"~ far 'aha: affencs p'é..mi,$hab1e

MW)/V, ,.



2 C,'r§.z-XN0.¥6f3{5'§2{}{}5.
under Sectien 2?' cf PC. Act and further sentencing_<vh_i'11:'-£0

Lmderge 8.1. far one year and to pay a fine ef :\'1{)Q.g.'_~_~<' fee 3
13(2) (if   V-

effence punishabie under Section
sentence shall run eoricurrently.

This Criminal Appeai coming 02:1' f0i*finé--1.1 heai*§«f:g'this '«

day, the Court delivered the feliewingz  :

JUDGMEF4J'e'eF: ''

Accused in Sp}. CasVe%.I_\fe.4;'?/  tfie"'fi1e of Sp}.

Judge, Bellary, is the appe1Ieei%t_e_herei:}f1;.:'

2. Rama1ir:ga=i' Reariappa. He is the
compiainarﬁ.' """   ' aef oriixagaliu. Complainant
providing i0anu'to_ the   communities and backward

<::1aeses. __Afe:1u,1r :1ie:1th.$~ eariier to filing of complaint in

qtie-3tie§f:;'  for Eoan :0 the District Officer for

:77e,_baekvaaiii'-V~e}.aSeeL:e  minorities, Thereafter? he has Come
 "--_.3'_1'11£€"2V <:<:s:1{a.<:*s:"'*V_ vifih the accuseﬁ, wha was working as
.: --E:}e€%ee§.V;0j§;:e;2.e:1tVCffieer, It is the ease of the cempiainant that

  'éeeked fer a; sum :3? ?1§S€L':G;'~ bribe te earzeiiefz his

,2/my



3 CrE.A,N0. 1 §<;'é.,_§;<f:Qs.

Egan. He contends that he paid E5600/-- in insta1Ime~r;.ﬁ$;  

accused and agreed to pay 3100/-- on O7.O7.19H9_'_?:".~._:   

Iléi interested to pay the bribe 

P:'abhaka:; 1.0., examined as PM/f.5 a:{&._§11--::d co.f:1+pIair1t'V

P.W.5.

3. it is the case 0f p.w.5%:§;a:A  the Complaint
from Ramalinga, he 'hsfs r¢.gis%é§*¢ﬁ'--'Crime N0. 5/
199?, sent FIR,  as per EX.P.2.
For preparing 1  he has secured
panchas, re§ eiy*§g:1A teak the assistance
cf staff, got aA§ppLIi€d  to the notas, thereafter
€Xp1aiI1€d "E}"€3.   'régction of phenoph':haier1e to

 witﬁésses by washing the hands of the

paniﬁ   kept the notes in the pocket of the

'  Aéé';¥f1pia§n'3._:":t,_ > ' _ 

  ihe further sass :31" $123 1.0. that 351% énaiructsd the

"sL'V"€'I2'Z'}7'}! §.:8".f°§§§'E&§E§ ta mas: ERGO taék in regard; is the axzérkg pay tbs



4 Crl.A.N0. l 606-.2005.
tainted meme}? only on demand. He directed the ehaudcew

witnesses l3.W.2 to go along with cemplainant,__i%at--ch..::ll'1e_

happenings and repert.

5. It is the further ease of 1.0;; he recs-i\}edV si;g:fie§§,.;§?er§c§t te 

the office of the AGO, AGO was mi'  he
introduced himself to the   a cese being
registered against accused  cooperation
tc conduct   find tainted
netes in the   They are recovered
while drawirlg   He further states
that he receil§*ed"tlle'  to the money which the
accused pccsesseld   and he ascertained from the
 .c'orrlec£ﬁ'ellss or otherwise cf the contents in

 ezzd   the same; It is the further case ef the

 "'--€;:ate, after c.biejIl1ing sanction, completed imsesiigatienc

- .lfcl<:afge shee":£é1~ filed.



5 Cri.A,N0.1§§é_.:§GQ§.

6. Learned advocate fgr accused submit that 

has turned hestile, 39 the canvictisn recoréed fa}!-~.ﬁ1;:eV1,e:s;;;iici$i' 1 V'

tyiai Judge is 119$ spi. Further add ih$::':"S-3*18.Ci€_1f§$.%"f§£?i§:~f%éSv  _1:.aé., 

rm: £21113: supperted campiairzant «:33: thé"«ca}§_éA'éf '£§§";r:"{ E§£a.*;e"

becarnes further doubtfui though»£§§§...i'Q. ¢%ai1r:;§[V Qi'   a " V

writing by the accusea of ET}.  of the
money. The defence is   by the
complainant imo the    A60 got up
from the chair ti;  ':3_a;_1fi';_  law laid down in
D. Rczjendrafzg.C_éLS§"ié§1.:§;p§p§,i:(:§f§ie  fact sf this case. It
being not  'being not foumd, ii is a fit
case for an  €ii"(jiT4e1'v €:V?f  so pray for an order of

acquittal . 'V 

 27.  1::: i¥.g;31j.§;1;;2a,fif§éE:§ SP? submits that identity of party is

 *? n0 {-Véisp§f£:&d;--V é.C:§:.;sec1 'wing Qeveizmment Officer as 5:: the

4: is *$£:§: dispuied, mmpiainarzt apgaiying for ban is gai

 ' ."V..3<:iis_§;4:.1'{;:>§{;  Eiimﬁgzg fan" sanssiizm af £93.12, a<:cu$&:;1 havirzg

  ' .___a'Ee':<é§a;%::%&d Eribe ans} 3:1 ihﬁ saiﬁ ﬂag; wag fszgné with Rs. iQ§g'~



:3 CTri,A.Ng._:6§6.§G£§S;« V

is not disputed' Explanation that it is thrused-A"'ean:hef V'

accepted. There was no need for a::<:u.s<ed jio ;fe~€;eix%e._'i*ehe._V V

money: It rcsbabhze money' Qfhﬁf thaiés. ieéfaiiv 52.1% 'ihie i1;:€;3:1éi:'.A
~ 33 ~ .e«g_.__._u..

is faund with the accused. it bve<::o:nej;~é.vAé:;1«..,..i}Zega1 r L'

gratification, so the prosecuﬁon has vfxroved the«eV::trpfstment;
recovery. There ie no e>£:p2ar1é::iGh; t"0«VeeV"a{Ccept the lawful
possession of the saic:1<m0n<;:y "b§.%:"the.A,é;;:c1ise§i;.v"S0 support the

approach of the  ._:ri';14i«J%a§ige,4V}L::r'§2:j'37u iftif dismissal of the
appeal'      ._  

8. In thevvh'-«light  point that arise for
consideration is as un,c1e:~:  V 9
V '_ v_~5,"W}xe:hef"'th.e____;:0nVic:tion recorded by the
 }e:s:.1j1"ic:di3pL L§udge, Bellary, is justified in the facts

R:1f¢;he"<:v:»?Ls:~e,"" A'

 T}':.is§'=<:oL1é'*é'ej§_rif'fiR0:jendran :23, State by Poiice fnspeeter,

  2233} case while censiciering ease of this

 held zhaé: the evidence ef the eempiainant er a

V" V.';shh_e<§oai?; witness eenhei: he accepted if: ésoiezzien and



C? C:'I.A.N0.16062005,
eorroboratien is necessary. The Court has further 'h\e15i_'3ra,s

under:
"The very purpese of examining the 3%;-egdojae. L"

Witness is to rule out possibﬁitg;'"0f--.eor;%j:p1e.iﬁ§a:1iV 

accomplishing their revenge aglainstee. 

servant for not obhging ee»fta_ir1  

public. Therefere uniess 'fh.Ve"e~evidei1ee"'edf 'ﬂue

cemplainant and the shadosﬁierivtizess. corre'eorézte
with each other it is '%n--et'~e__s%if}:  teV ,e%o»:3Vvict the

accused Perseus?   .  V

As agains;  gﬁsists of ruling of
M.Narasingc:§%e1e'V  } SCC 692 ,1 ease and
contend rec0ee§y'-- Qf  is almost admitted, so the
p:rovisior'1s;.0f_  efV t:he P.C.Act are automatieaﬂy
at:%_1;eicA€€$i':"*"CSe"See:j'on 'the Act is attracted, the burden is

on the 'peeve. There is T10 such evidence, s0 pray

 "sfcger an er  sf. eiis--;;1}:issai sf fhe Appeal,

' 'TjfE1€:if.-'CGI1Ep1§i§IEZ3.I1f is examined as P.W.1; F.17vCE.

":*i::*f;;:>Ee{e3§ denies sagging sf eempleinte emtrustmemt mahazar

J':



8 C71'L/XN0.16062005.

and recovery rnahazar. He only states of finding 
pant pocket of the AGO and AGO being provided  "
pant, it is Seized. P.W.;2 is the sh§ad'c':}w--. 
C.W.3 shadow witness gives Vthe 
examinatiomin-chief. 9 I A T A

.J U\ ~'  ' *   "-»> ' ~ "4/~.\-.,~v
esggzeresezds   wsﬁegﬁe o.s<,::-"Edge

 «=~ .-.3 =~'»*.._.?~»;  «x J
 at-3;; waeezexdsv :ea:?*_.%.3ce\:¢¢3; e.»'&EEC39a

" :2' d<:;.:o0.o0

  

sscﬁxaeébcafgcﬁ "er*;'*'

 

 6023:"-es to the spa': after the
incident. He"Ai's"f:ot  and taking of bribe. He
is witr1ess_ for:"1*ec'oVe:jye}   importance is given for
 g'i{/in'g-------arid taking. 80 it cannot be read in

isQV1at io'ﬁj§"'P;'WA§4,"'eﬁ:at.es of getting pant as per the direction of

 P.§R7g5/IfC§§i._AﬁarrateS from receiving of Cemplaint to

» .T.?'_;ree0*.5ez*y Of "iai:::ted money: P.\7V'.6 is witness to EEQP, 12.

  'Careful peruse} ef the evidence wouid discioee tainted

Ve::2}:;;:e§;.eVbeing feutad E3: the §9esessie:'1 3? aecugede There is me

e,,.W..,,,,,,, ,



9 CrE.A.No.1606.2005.

substantive evidence in regard to demand, a<:ceptanc€} "»TS0

the sL1bmiSsion 0f the learneci SPF' that 

13(1)(Ci)j? of the P.C.ACt are atﬁacted cannot be  b 

submission principle in B, Rajezzdrar/{ifs casefj. is,a_::pp£iC:ai;a.I'e 

accepted, 39 prirxcipie laid in ..i¥ica2j0:sin§;A:;fézo's -iCZVc*;li'fSx<?._8.1'€:'§1:1(V)'{ 

attracted So the Court holds c0nv§{(:Vii:C;1LVV reC<§'I"f1t<é€i" byvjlearned

Sessions Judgé is not justificzﬁéiéi _ 

12. Appeai is a1I;}w:E:i<i.._ E3é,i'1 'Ef;§3:;j{i'«.t'§3t_a1§d;jeﬁlﬁnceiled. Fine

amount if any pai€i' i_sV<3r~ciV§:E7e€iV-::§"b¢ 

Séégi

     .....
Legal Document View

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Karnataka High Court

Mailarappa vs The State Of Karnataka By Its Spp on 2 December, 2010

Author: K.Govindarajulu

Bench: K.Govindarajulu
