Bangalore District Court
By Police Inspector vs V.Shankar on 2 August, 2018
IN THE COURT OF THE LXXVI ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL
AND SESSIONS JUDGE AND SPECIAL JUDGE, MAYO HALL
UNIT, BENGALURU. (CCH-77)
Present: Sri Sachin Kaushik R.N.,
B.Sc.LL.M.,
LXXVI Addl.City Civil & Sessions Judge
& Special Judge, Mayo Hall Unit,
Bengaluru.
Dated this the 2nd day of August 2018
SPL.C.NO.427/2015
The State of Karnataka,
COMPLAINANT By Police Inspector, Karnataka
Lokayuktha Police Wing, City
Division, Bengaluru.
(Rep. by Spl.Public Prosecutor)
-vs-
ACCUSED V.Shankar, s/o P.Venkatesh,
38 years,
Second Division Revenue
Inspector,
Ward No.97, Srirampura Ward
Office, Bengaluru.
(Rep. by Sri P.Govindan-
Advocate)
1. Nature of Offence Offence punishable under Section
7 of the Prevention of Corruption
Act, 1988.
2 Spl.C.427/2015
2. Date of
Commission 28.7.2014 & 30.7.2014
of offence
3. Date of First 31.07.2014
Information Report
4. Date of arrest 06.08.2014
5.Date of
commencement of
recording of 27.02.2018
evidence
6. Date of 06.07.2018
closing of evidence
7. Date of 02.08.2018
pronouncement of
Judgment
Acting under Section 235(1) of
8. Result of the case Cr.P.C., the accused is acquitted
of the offence punishable u/s 7 of
Prevention of Corruption Act,
1988.
JUDGMENT
3 Spl.C.427/2015 The case of the Prosecution is that, the accused being a public servant, working as Second Division Revenue Inspector in Ward No.97, Srirampura, BBMP, Bengaluru, on 28.7.2014 & 30.7.2014, in his office, has demanded illegal gratification of Rs.1,00,000/- from complainant, and after negotiation, agreed for Rs.75,000/- for reducing the tax amount from Rs.2,26,000/- to Rs.20,000/- to 35,000/- The Lokayuktha Police have filed charge sheet against the accused u/s 7 of Prevention of Corruption Act,1988, for demanding the said amount of Rs.75,000/- to be paid in two instalments of Rs.40,000/- and Rs.35,000/-, and demanded to pay Rs.40,000/- on 31.7.2014 as the first instalment, and Rs.35,000/- after completion of the work.
2. The accused has denied the charge and claimed to be tried.
3. The Prosecution has examined in all 5 witnesses and got 20 documents and 7 materials marked.
4. The accused has denied the allegations in his S.313 Cr.P.C. statement, and has got 4 documents marked in evidence of PW1 and PW5. In the evidence of PW1, the accused has got 1 document marked, and in the evidence of PW5, the accused has got 3 documents marked.
4 Spl.C.427/2015
5. Heard Learned Spl.P.P and Learned Advocate for accused.
6. The points that arise for determination are as follows:
1) Whether the Prosecution proves beyond reasonable doubt that the accused has committed offence punishable u/s 7 of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988?
2) What order?
7. The answers to the above points are:
Point No.1: In the Negative
Point No.2: As per the final order
for the following :
REASONS
8. Point No.1:- PW1, Sri Y.Ashok, complainant, has
stated that he purchased the property bearing No.62/1, 13 th cross, Laxminarayanapuram, Bengaluru, in the year 2009-10. From 2011, he has not paid the property tax for a period of 4 years. He went to the BBMP Office, and there the accused, told him that the total tax for the period of 4 years would be approximately Rs.2,20,000/-. PW1 told him that it is very high, and the accused told him that he will reduce the tax to somewhere between Rs.25,000/- to Rs.35,000/-, and for that, demanded bribe of Rs.1,00,000/-. After negotiation, i.e., after about 2 days, the bribe amount was reduced to Rs.75,000/-, 5 Spl.C.427/2015 and PW1 agreed to pay the first instalment of Rs.40,000/- on the next day, and balance Rs.35,000/- after completion of the work.
9. PW1 lodged the complaint before the Lokayuktha Police, and gave them the CD containing the conversation. The complaint is identified as Ex.P1. He also gave Rs.40,000/-, containing 40 notes of Rs.1000/- each to the Lokayuktha Police, and the Lokayuktha Police secured two Panchas, and in their presence, put phenolphthalein powder to the said notes on both sides, and through one of the Panchas, got the said notes put into the pocket of PW1.
10. Prakash/PW3 was instructed to act as a shadow witness and he put the amount in PW1's pant pocket. PW3's hands were washed in sodium carbonate solution and the solution turned into pink colour. The police drew Entrustment Mahazar, and the same is marked as Ex.P2.
11. At about 3.45 to 4.00 p.m., all of them reached BBMP office. PW3 followed PW1. The accused enquired about PW3 with PW1, and then the accused went outside the office. The conversation recorded was converted into CD and transcribed, and the Return Mahazar was drawn. The Return Mahazar is marked as Ex.P3. The police asked to come after 2-3days and again Pre-Trap Mahazar was drawn as per Ex.P4. The accused did not receive the amount of Rs.40,000/-. The 6 Spl.C.427/2015 Return Mahazar is marked as Ex.P5, and the same procedure was done on 2.8.2014 & 4.8.2014 and the Mahazars are marked at Ex.P6 to P9.
12. In the cross-examination of PW1, PW1 has in page No.9, paragraph No.14, answered that, his weaving factory is in the ground floor of the building belonging to him, and that he has taken 15 HP electric connection to the said factory. His 5 year applications under Self Assessment Scheme from 2010-2015 are marked as Ex.D1. It can be seen that, though the Trap Team had gone to the office of accused with PW1 to pay Rs.40,000/- on 31.7.2014, 1.8.2014, 2.8.2014 and 4.8.2014, i.e. 4 times, the accused has not taken the said amount, nor demanded the said amount, and on the other hand, has asked PW1 to make the tax payments through cheque. This shows that, no case is made out against the accused.
13. PW2, Chidambar S.Savalagi, shadow witness, has stated that, CW3 is his colleague. He was working as FDA in Education Department, M.S.Building, Bengaluru. The contents of the complaint were made known to him, and the CD was played and transcribed. The transcription is marked as Ex.P10. The list of currency notes is marked as Ex.P.11. CW3/PW3 put the currency notes into the pocket of PW1, and his hands were washed in sodium carbonate solution which turned to pink colour. He identifies the Entrustment Mahazar, already marked at Ex.P2.
7 Spl.C.427/2015
14. At about 4.00 p.m., the Team left to BBMP office, and when he was near the office following PW1, one person asked about him with PW1. He was not allowed to enter the office. After 5 minutes, PW1 came outside, and thereafter, the complainant informed the Lokayuktha Police that the accused did not receive the money, as he had become suspicious. The Return Mahazar has been identified, which is already marked as Ex.P3. The same procedure was conducted, another 3 times and Entrustment Mahazar and Return Mahazars were drawn on all the three occasions. He has identified the said Mahazars which are marked at Ex.P4 to P9.
15. On 6.8.2004, he was called again to Lokayuktha Police Station where the accused was secured and in the presence of the Superior Office of accused, the sample voice of accused was recorded, and converted to CD. Mahazar was drawn, and the same is marked as Ex.P13. The transcription of conversation between PW1 & the accused in the office, at the time of Failed Trap is marked as Ex.P12.
16. In the chief examination, at Para No.4, PW2 has stated that, he was not allowed to enter the office of the accused. He too says that, all the attempts made by them were futile.
17. PW3, Sri Prakash N, Pancha, has stated that on 31.7.2014, he went to the Lokayuktha Police Station, as he 8 Spl.C.427/2015 was directed by his Senior Officer to act as witness. He has deposed in the same manner as PW2, and he has stated that, he was given the Metal Seal with English letter 'V'. The Seal is marked as MO1, and the Acknowledgment is marked as Ex.P14.
18. PW3, too states the same thing as PW2. As the amount was neither demanded nor accepted, nothing useful comes out of the evidence.
19. PW4, Smt.C.Shreevidhya, working as Scientific Officer, FSL, Bengaluru, has deposed that, she received two CDs on 18.8.2014, for examination containing the conversation between the suspect and PW1, another CD containing sample speeches of the suspect, i.e., accused. After examination, she found that the speeches are of the accused, therefore has given Report, and the same is marked as Ex.P16. The said CDs are marked as MO.2 & 3.
20. In the cross-examination, PW4 in paragraph No.9, she has stated that, the device or memory card was not sent, and as such, the Report, Ex.P16, is not useful to the prosecution.
21. PW5, Sri Sudheer R, Investigating Officer, has stated that on 31.7.2014, he has registered the complaint, and drew FIR, 9 Spl.C.427/2015 marked as Ex.P17. He has given instructions to PW1 to give signal to him by giving missed call to him, and has given his mobile number to PW1. He got the notes put into the left side pant pocket of PW1/complainant through PW3, and instructed PW2 to act as a shadow witness. He identifies the Mahazars, already marked at Ex.P2 to P9. The solutions are marked as MO.4 & 5, the CD of pre-trap proceedings is marked as Ex.P6, the CD containing conversation between the complainant and the accused, is marked as MO7, and its transcription as Ex.P12. The transcription of sample voice is marked as Ex.P18. The Report of Senior Officer of accused about the identification of the voice, is marked as Ex.P19, and the certificate u/s 65B of Indian Evidence Act issued by him, is marked as Ex.P20. He has filed the charge sheet.
22. In the cross-examination of PW5, the documents from page Nos.33 to 38 are marked as Ex.D2, in which it is shown that the Tax Application Forms were under Self Assessment Scheme, which goes to show that the accused had no role in reducing the tax amount. The duplicate approved plan of building of PW1, which has ground floor to second floor and terrace floor, dated 20.12.2010, is marked as Ex.D3, and the electricity sanction load to the said building No.62/1, is marked as Ex.D4.
10 Spl.C.427/2015
23. Ex.D1 to D4, and all other evidence, including evidence of PW1, show that PW1 was supposed to pay the taxes on commercial rate as he was running a factory, and to avoid the said tax on commercial rate, and to keep BBMP officials at bay from claiming taxes at commercial rate, PW1 has got this false case foisted. This is the specific defence of the accused.
24. From the above evidences, it can be seen that, there is absolutely no clear evidence to show that the accused demanded illegal gratification. It also appears that the defence of the accused is probable. Ex.P.10 & P12 cannot be relied i.e. transcriptions, as the Source i.e, Instrument, was not sent to FSL to prove that the CD, M.O2 & 3 are not tampered. The benefit of doubt is given to accused, as also because, PW1 says PW3, Prakash was shadow witness and PW.2, 3 & 5 say, PW.2, Chidambar Savalgi was shadow witness. Hence, for all the above reasons, this Court finds that, the prosecution has failed to prove the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt, and therefore, Point No.1 is answered in the Negative.
25. Point No.2:- For the aforesaid reasons, this Court proceeds to pass the following :
ORDER 11 Spl.C.427/2015 Acting u/s 235(1) of Cr.P.C., the accused is acquitted of the offence punishable u/s 7 of Prevention of Corruption Act,1988.
MO1 to 7 shall be disposed as per law after appeal period.
(Dictated to the Judgment writer, transcription thereof corrected and then pronounced by me in the open court on this the 2nd day of August 2018) (Sachin Kaushik R.N) LXXVI Addl.City Civil & Sessions Judge & Special Judge, Mayo Hall Unit, Bengaluru.
ANNEXURE List of witnesses examined on behalf of the prosecution:
PW1 Y.Ashok PW2 Chidambar S.Savalagi PW3 Prakash N. PW4 Smt.C.Shreevidhya PW5 Sudheer R
List of documents marked on behalf of prosecution:
Ex.P.1 Complaint
12 Spl.C.427/2015
Ex.P.1(a) Signature of PW1
Ex.P.1(b) Signature of PW5
Ex.P.2 Entrustment Mahazar
Ex.P.2 (a) Signature of PW1
Ex.P.2(b) Signature of PW2
Ex.P.2(c) Signature of PW3
Ex.P.2(d) Signature of PW5
Ex.P.3 Return Mahazar
Ex.P.3(a) Signature of the PW1
Ex.P.3(b) Signatures of PW2
Ex.P.3(c) Signature of PW3
Ex.P.3(d) Signature of PW5
Ex.P.4 Pre-trap Mahazar
Ex.P.4(a) Signature of the PW1
Ex.P.4(b) Signature of PW2
Ex.P.5 Return Mahazar
Ex.P.5(a) Signature of the PW1
Ex.P.5(b) Signature of PW2
Ex.P.5(c) Signature of PW3
Ex.P.6 Pre Trap Mahazar
Ex.P.6(a) Signature of the PW1
Ex.P.6(b) Signatures of PW2
Ex.P.6(c) Signature of PW5
Ex.P.7 Return Mahazar
Ex.P.7(a) Signature of the PW1
Ex.P.7(b) Signature of PW2
Ex.P.7(c) Signature of PW3
Ex.P.7(d) Signature of PW5
Ex.P.8 Pre-Trap Mahazar
Ex.P.8(a) Signatures of PW1
Ex.P.8(b) Signature of PW2
Ex.P.8(b) Signature of PW5
Ex.P9 Return Mahazar
Ex.P.9(a) Signature of PW1
Ex.P.9(b) Signature of PW2
Ex.P.9(c) Signature of PW3
Ex.P.9(d) Signature of PW5
Ex.P.10 Transcription
13 Spl.C.427/2015
Ex.P.10(a) Signature of PW2
Ex.P.10(b) Signature of PW3
Ex.P11 List of Currency notes
Ex.P.11(a) Signature of PW2
Ex.P.11(b) Signature of PW5
Ex.P12 Transcription
Ex.P.12(a) Signature of PW2
Ex.P13 Sample voice of accused
Ex.P.13(a) Signature of PW2
Ex.P.13(b) Signature of PW5
Ex.P14 Acknowledgment
Ex.P.14(a) Signature of PW3
Ex.P15 Sanction Order dated 20.6.2015
Ex.P.16 FSL Report
Ex.P.16(a) Signature of PW4
Ex.P.17 FIR
Ex.P.17(a) Signature of PW5
Ex.P.18 Transcription of sample voice
Ex.P.19 Report
Ex.P.20 Certificate u/s 65(B) of Indian
Evidence Act
Ex.P.20(a) Signature of PW5
List of material objects marked on behalf of the prosecution:
MO.1 Metal seal
MO.2 CD
MO.3 CD
MO.4 & 5 Sample solutions
MO.6 CD containing pre-trap
proceedings
MO.7 Transcription
List of witnesses examined on behalf of the accused:
14 Spl.C.427/2015
-Nil-
List of documents marked on behalf of the accused:
Ex.D1 Application forms
Ex.D2 Documents pertaining to Self Assessment
Mode (page Nos. 35 to 48)
Ex.D3 Duplicate approved plan
Ex.D4 Electric sanction load
(Sachin Kaushik R.N)
LXXVI Addl.City Civil & Sessions Judge & Special Judge, Mayo Hall Unit, Bengaluru