State Of Karnataka vs R Mallegowda on 22 September, 2010

[Cites 8, Cited by 0]

Karnataka High Court

State Of Karnataka vs R Mallegowda on 22 September, 2010

Bench: N.Ananda

IN THE HIGH comm 012' KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE
DATED THIS THE 22% DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2o__1o
BEFORE ''  V
THE HONBLE MRJUSTICE N. ANAN:oA" if  .
CRIMINAL APPEAL Ngisgs/2oe:z.§'.:'j:j   3
BETWEEN: .'  1' M K

State ofKarnataka    "   % 
Through Lokayukta Police  ~    ";..,.App;e11ant"

{By Smt. T. M.Gayathri,;__AdvocaIej:' ~ . _ _ ' 'A
AND: ' "

R.1\/Iallegowda SA/'--o Rudrappa: V
Aged about 54'YeVa":'s __ __   A ' 
Block Eduea.ti.on{a1_ _Qfﬁee_r     .

Bang4:_1rpet_'}i)ii%,i«siori; V Ba Dg;a_rpet_*
R/ o. 81h Cross, Ja'y.ar1aga1j " __

Kolar. * ...Respor1der1t

(By_ Aﬂvoeate for M.R.Nanjunc1a Gowda <3:
As,s_Dciates, Adv'o.c«a_1;es)V

'sfiiis.4appeal is filed under section 378(1) 81 (3) Cr.P.C., to

 V vgraizl; "ieave" :o"-- ﬁle an appeal against the judgment dated
 .1'O}10.2.003 passed by the Principal District and Sessions Judge,
Kolar in C',jC.No.7/2001, acquitting the respondent/accused for

o1'Te_nces-- under sections "7 & 13(1](d) punishable under section
13(2) ofthe' Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.

This appeal commg on for final hearing thls day, the Court

A  eleiivered the following:



JUDGMENT

The accused was tried and acquitted for oiffences under sections 7 and 13{1){d), punishable 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 'the Act'). in C.C. No.7/200}, on:-the*file of 1'81 V Sessions Judge at Kolar. Therefore, ﬁled this appeal.

2. 1 have heard Smt:T.M;G'ayathri,.plearnedi counsel for appellant and Sri counsel for respondent/ accused.

3. lcl>vrie'f~,l.5*Vtfhe"caseloflproseclultion is as follows:--

liairing PW3 was working as an Assistant TcacI1er'-- Government Model Higher Primary at fA'ichahVa'i'li'VVillage, Bethamangala Hobli, K.G.F. within the supervisory jurisdiction of Block {for short, 'BEO'], Department of Public Instructions, K.G.F. Zone, Robertsonpet, Kolar District. PW3- , A1\/lilellanumanthappa had raised house builc:i:1(i loan of A' i it 'X35 - E uﬂ-21,--\»c,1>1l\r .1é'N::3 :1§a[m~.--¢)'.~s-r % 3 Rs.2,00,000/-- from HDF C for construction of a house at Bethamangala. During the month of July 2000, PW3 was transferred to Government Model Higher Primary School at Bethamangala. At the relevant time, accused was as BEO at Bangarpet and he had supervisory Government Model Higher Primary_SAch_ool K "

That on 20.09.2000, the Instructions, Bangalore, Department of Public Zone, .VlR0l3ertsonpet, Kolar District, to 1fe;0.o4rtVt'v':re1ating to stage of const1iuc--ti0Ar'i}0f .':rs;¢nise.'.V and also about recovery particularslwithinf from the date of receipt of letter or by returr1itpost._'i'ne" copies of said letter were sent to the Assistant Directorv of Public Instructions at Bangalore and Itvjs' lthcixcase of prosecution that PW3 approached BED at KG~FJ'i'or compliance of letter dated 20.09.2000, addressed X bvltljie Commissioner of Public Instructions. In the office of E R5. 4'\_£?\--"""° «-

mt 4 BEO at KGF, PW3 was directed to approach the office of BEO at Bangarpet. On 03.10.2000, PW3 approached the Office of BEG at Bangarpet. In the said office, PW3 was adxsised to meet accused, who was the EEO of 1E3angarpet.__"l?lJtV_i?»O'Ojjhazdp been transferred to Government Model . School at Betharnangala, which woo.' under jurisdiction of accused. PW3 Inet anddvtfequestedfhint,' to inspect his house and submvitfarepodrt-.as under' letter dated 20.09.2OC).O..paddresset;i'*bjktthe Oo'1i1m1ssioner of Public Instructions. thepaccused inspected the house of at V_art'd'1dem;anded a sum of Rs. i,0;t)O»~" gratifica_tiovnV'to submit the report to the Commissioner O'I§VubIi'::rI'nstructions. PW3 bargained, the accused didnot b.udge. accused told PW3 to meet him in hi;eTofﬁe.e.wvt.}§W3v'lVas"'not wiiiing to bribe the accused. On lodged first information with the Office of Kolar. On the basis of said first information, Lolcayuliita police registered Crime No. 12 / 2000 for an offence A punishable under section '7 of the Act. PW6--~B.Lokesh, the R} _ ~-C-£13» 5 Inspector of Lokayukta police secured shadow witnesses namely PW4»Parashurarnaiah, who was then working as Second Division Assistant in the Office of District Social Welfare Officer at Kolar and PW5--Srirama, Working as a Second Division Assistant in of V' R.T.O. at Kolar. After their arr*iva£,,"l in't.rodLz.ced_then1 PW3 and narrated the facts. '~ Rs. 1,000/-- i.e., 10 Currency notes-tof 1-Q0/.--T _"deri0Trninati0n.lVV PW6 smeared phenolphthaleiin on "s'-aid': Currency notes and demonstrated' test to PW4 8: PW5 and instmcted.PVV'3 to§hand':o'»*er"tlai.nted";cLirrency notes only if denianded' As per the instructions of PW6, PW4 aceompaiiieci as to what would transpire between ac'c:.ised_'and*. The raiding party consisting of PW'.6l:4B,.,'Lokesh to PW5 travelled in a jeep to the if)ff_i"c::-: of_Si§O.__at--vBangarpet. The jeep was stopped at a distance iiroxiithe «said oiﬁce and PW3 was asked to meet accused. I-"W4 was irtstlrticted to follow PW3 to see as to what would transpire betwjeenl accused and PW3. PW3 was also instructed that if ',\7_ ~ \._ .4531 \v- 5* b the accused were to accept illegal gratification. he should give a predetermined signal to PW6 by wiping his face with a kerchief. Thereafter, PW5 & PW6 took positions. After some time. PW3 came out and gave pre--deterrnined signal Thereafter, PW5 <3: PW6 entered the office Bangarpet and PW3 told the accused had receﬁfjedigai 1Rs.1,000/-- as bribe from him. As instructed b3,r'{:§W6£V:s'odiu1n b carbonate solution was prepared two bowls; 'Wi1ei:;:"i~igP1t_V hand ﬁngers of accused Welre.u..e:dipped.V.in the: "solution,'V'there"

was no change in colour. When --l.e'f'H?l8_ﬂd ﬁingers..~of accused were dipped in Sodium' C_a1*bonfat:e sloelutiom solution turned into resu1t_ant' was collected in two separate bottles." f1'hereafter;eg'as""instructed by PW6, PW5 removed tainted currencynoies. from left pocket of trousers of PW6 protdded a trousers to accused. The left side itrouser of accused was dipped into sodium ca.rbon.atevl'solution and the solution turned into pink colour, the rievsultant solution was collected in a bottle. PW6 seized 'n.ec:%;-ssary articles and prepared a mahwar. PW6 recorded Ni 7' statements of witnesses: sent incﬁminating material to Forensic Science Laboratory and obtained sanction as per Ex.P.2 to prosecute the accused.

4. In order to bring home guilt of accused. prosecuti.on has examined PW} to PW6 and documents as to Ex.P.12 were marked so also M.O.1 to On behalf of defence, one Ramanjanappaz was examined as DW1 and documents as.'pet'».Ex;D..'i.Vvv8z_V Ex.D.2 were marked.

5. As already stated, thegpt-lear1i.elCi--~..g't1'ial lldudgevﬁacquitted accused forfffoffencesp section 7 & 13(1)(d). punishable under section l3(;.VZi*f:.of

6. 5* -vT}1erefore,l"'t11e.lV' following points would arise for it " detenr};iI1ation:--

' the prosecution has proved that on if if :l1.2000, accused being BEO at Bxangarpet demanded illegal gratification of if Rs.1.000/~ as a motive or reward for forwarding house completion report of PW3 1 10.6"

/\___ '\«'\--al..g\.7 ' to the Commissioner of Public Instructions and in furtherance of such demand, 22.11.2000 at 11 a.m., accused de1na~nd_jed_'__"'V.j' and received iliegal gratification Rs.1,000/- from PW3 as_;a»motiVe.Vor' for forwarding house cornpletion is thereby committed, an offence pu'n_is'ha3031§~,' under section Pre'«rentionV"'""0f Corruption Act, (2) Whether the' 'proved that accused beir1g- . tat *V_Bangarpet had a]'t)1L'l"S'e'(':1:V~.h'iS 15-osiitgion as_a'~--Vpub.3ic servant and obtained for a sum of Rs. 1,000/-

.... _(p-ecuniaiy.advantage) and thereby _ coxmirnittedg an_»'offenc_e under section 13[1)(d), section 13(2) of the Act?

(3) the AT1.3rosecution has obtained a Valid satiation to prosecute the accused? \?if§:et§.3er the learned Sessions Judge has "V'f'p_;'o:'[JerIy appreciated the evidence on record?

" _(?;'») Whether the impugned judgment calls for interference? 'U' EA ..VL(g;L (6) What order?"

7. The accused was working as BBC). The competent to remove him from service was the ;C§o't=ern:nr+:.nt«p of Karnataka. The sanction order as per issued. by the Under Secretary to and in the name of Governor of Karnatak.acV..v*'The san;ct'ior1.'ﬁ order would reveal that sanctioiiing authoritp3pVf1i'adﬂa:.pplied its mind to the report Ceneral of Lokayukta Police, .AA_',cf;1v""pp'.'e:.-ntire case are narrated. The ondetailed examination of report of Lokayukta 13o1ice:,"'after»ﬁ?¢:i1;t§:§fS3tiSﬁéd 'Existence of prima facie case sanction to prosecute the accused. The accu'sed.vh'as'Vmade an issue regarding sanction by the"U;1d,e'r Secretary to Education Department. ' decision reported in ILR 2003 KAR 618 {in the of Urs Vs. State of Karnataka), has held that Under Secretary to the concerned department is competent .. to tissue sanction order, but the sanction has to be accorded {K}! _ «_..,£37\."""€ﬂ'z~' 10 by the competent authority. This Court has held the sanction accorded by the Under Secretary to --'E3diicaition Department by order and in the name of Karnataka is valid. ._

8. PW2 has given evidence in proof-- of Sa1flCi_?i(.)i1'aCC.Ofd€(i¥y as per Ex.P.2. PW2~H.Hanurnantia.aiah, 'tlie'11iﬁ.rorIs.jnVgH as the Under Secretary to Eduxcationiiiﬂepartrnent, Covemment of Karnataka, has deposecij' tiie Jsa_nc'ti[_o.nkiI1_g authority on perusal of .1'Fr,---1;3:&o1rt_ bpector General of Lokayukta-, Vaccorded "sanction. There is nothing~o_n"~rec'oir:d_ '-susp'ect.v"evidence of PW2. Even otheryv.ise«. ' i as" per Ex.P.2 would manifest application' " jofeeiéésanctioning authority. In the circ_r§1n1stances,'-neither competence of sanctioning authority nor vaIidity'A'o.f sanction order could be called into question. Th'@.'.17\I VA'.i'1~m"1c1 sanction accorded by the sanctioning autihority' isiivalid in law. Accordingiy, I answer point No.3 in it affinnatﬁre. N r .L,,.c'>x «Aria.

9. Before adverting to appreciation of evidence, it is necessary to state even before first information was 'lodged by PW3, there was no cordiality between PW3 andvaeetised. PW3 was transferred as an Assistant Government Model Higher Primary Sohool, ~ Bethamangala Hobli to Government School at Bethamangala during thelllmvolnth the relevant time, the Head Model Higher Primary Sch0'u'.';:1'g.."g0f transferred. Therefore, one of by name Narayanaswarn3lk".;iwas :p1aci:edx as Ainicharge Head Master. In that eonneetion, hj.vadl_'eontaeted accused and questioned legalityl placingilarayariaswamy as in--eharge Head Master of said schooil, said"':Narayanaswamy did not possess V' . neeeissary training"to"ho1d the post of Head Master. PW3 had ~toA,;:3lace one amongst Assistant Teachers. not only eenlsideringe: seniority but also considering requisite training shall be placed; as in--charge Head Master. In that connection, PW3 had addressed a letter to one Devakumar, who was the District (L? g 5,-~m.~--C{[':s 12 Organising "Secretary of Karnataka State Primary School Teachers' Association, Kolar District. The said letter was submitted to the Deputy Director of Public Instructions of Kolar District, who had made an endorsements. on 03.11.2000 to the effect that any senior who had undergone training, shall be placed"as':i_n~»cEiarge_' it Head Master of Government Model at Betharnangala. Therefore, there was no cordi_ality'* accused and PW3.

PW3 has deposed xthatghe' hladlreceived 'a--.coﬁy of letter dated ,.2o;0ej;2.ooi5:;:.:(Ex';--ié,s1; ad-¢;res'§e.ed by the Commissioner of Public' BEO, Department of Public Instructions; , KGF Zone, Kolar District, wherein' " was directed to submit a report » regarding completion of house of PW3 and also a report of housing loan of Rs.2,00,000/--, which . *ser_1't to"P.\/V3. W} -

PW3 "raised from HDFC, a copy of said lett r was also (ﬁx, \. 5%..-x M'xCﬂf1 13

10. From the contents of letter dated 20.09.2000,__.__l find compliance was demanded within three days from:

of receipt of letter or by return of post, which In the said letter, BEO of Robertsonpet, V' District, was directed to subiinit it completion or stage of const:rt1c.tion doihlotiseir PW3. The BEO was also to 'recovery statement after collecting_Anieceisisdaigfparticulars from the Salary Disbursing Officerrof to have received this V'

11. PW3 O3-.--10.2000, he had approached office V'concerned clerk told PW3 that as PW3 was",vv0rking."V'as gﬁissistant teacher in Government Higher Primary at Bethamangala, which is under the itsupeividsory'jurisdiction of BEO at Bangarpet and he shall meet.1BE?)~..at'V.l3angarpet. PW3 has deposed; on 03.10.2000, he i""met._'~acc"t1sed in the office of BRO at Bangarpet and han_ded*'over letter as per Ex.P.6. The accused received said ' *.Ietter''iand kept it with him and told PW3 that he would inspect N. J ...a».,/% ~-«(.52.

14 the house constructed by PW3. The accused inspected the house constructed by PW3 on 17.11.2000 and thefeafter demanded bribe of Rs.i,000/v to forward a rep.oijt.VVi'ri?'that regard. PW3 was not willing to bribe the 22.11.2000, PW3 Visited the Office""o'f'4I.01t.ayuE§ta._po1ice £1:

Kolar and lodge first information * . ~. 0'

12. PW3 has deposed; shadowdtlvfwitnesses namely PW-4 3: PW5; asum 1,000/--

i.e., 10 notes er Rs.i0_0'/A._e_ to PW6, who smeared currency notes;

hands off: shadow"-witnesses...=were washed in sodium carbonate--. "turned into pink colour;

thereafteﬁraiding _oafty'tc"onsisting of PW6 and PW3 to PW5 reac]f;:1e'deA.the of BEO at Bangarpet; PW3 and PW4 vidtogethelffeiiteited the office of BEE) at Bangarpet; at that time, A"etcetlstedvvd:(B.iE(j}v'-viras talking to some one; after that person came otit,' & PW4 entered the chamber of accused; PW3 'd"4"--._ﬁ"'enqui1:eciL accused about report to be submitted to the

--Com_ii1issioner of Public inspector; accused asked PW3 I '\»~ YU .

es' 15 whether he had brought bribe amount; PW3 removed currency notes from his pocket and gave them to accused; accused received bribe ainount from his left hand aridekept the amount into left side pocket of his trouser. the accused to expedite the matter and came _out_of V' of B130 and flashed pre~determine{dAsigrlaJ to P'I,t:('§t4b3r his face with a kerchief; immediately,"-r?ws, iéiizsrvana-:.iothf¢:~--iVp members of raiding party entered the._o'ff17ée atff Bangarpet; PW6 introduced himself' to"'accused"andf informed the purpose for which office; accused had kept copy diary. PW6 seized the _that he had kept bribe amount in his left "side trousers; PW5 removed bribe amount from _1eft.side"poéket of trousers of accused; numbers ' V' _ found the currency"notes recovered from possession of accused pt i'i.'1'1:'1i'€?(_3'\5'tJTi_"L':.t'i:V'1'1"lJ,:!ivI1b€1'S mentioned in the pre--trap rnahazar (E3x.P.5]. fingers of accused were dipped into sodium carbonate solution, the resultant solution did not show any cliarpigeﬂtof colour. The fingers of left hand of accused were N ac, _ \....£m «A--0(£1~»"

dipped into sodium carbonate soiution and the solution turned 1nto pink coiour; the resultant hand washxgwas collected In separate botties; accused was trousers; the left pocket of trousers of accuse'd__"was.:di1:3hpe:e1 into sodium carbonate solution,-'Which turned'-Vinto-[piniag colour; after completion of trap a asfper-Ex.,P'. prepared.

During cross--eXa'm_1na_tiong 0'-"1'--f'J§f3.._has deposed: on 03.10.2000, he had handeafevfef 1.-etfter{_*.da;-ted 20.09.2000 (EX.P.6] to accused_':-- ac:e_us._ed!did. any endorsement for rece1xdngV"E3<.;P'.:{5:._after_:v~4-t5"-days, PW3 met the accused; PW3 has: "correspondence takes place between o*:1ae"ofﬁVcia.I'u *and:ﬁanother official, there would be a coVge_r1;ngtr1etter;"PW:3 has denied suggestion that he had made on Ex.P.6 to the effect that accused had A":nsfp0eét'e-Siege'house of pws on 17.11.2000. PW3 has denied the"'~suggestfon that he had brought EX.P.6 by committing ' "theft office of BEG at KGF. PW3 has denied suggestion ,that.'.xaccused had no information regarding loaﬁ raised by ._ E r\_\ A (34. v -; 5» 17 PW3 and particulars of recovery of toan from PW3; PW3 has denied suggestion that accused did not receive the letter as per Ex.P.6 and he did not inspect the house of pw3:;j~P'w3 has denied suggestion that on 17.11.2000, acctised_ ' . inspected the house of PW3 and accused it it bribe of Rs.1,000/-- from PW3.

PW3 has admitted he"~vV\:7as_ Assistant Teacher to the Gover_nfne_nt._»Mod'e1'* «Higher Primary Schoot of Bethamangaia--,. tjnerepwfere "i:~2v-Assistant Teachers in the said school.PW3:.has.iideposedtﬁ"that,"he had given a represeriitattong toplace".spe--nior'rnssvE Assistant Teacher as in-- charge':_H'ead' has denied suggestion that accused hadnotretceivecttainted currency notes from PW3 an;1.§:1:1ad*smearedtphenolphthalein powder to the hands and .' {git pocket of trousers of accused.

consideration of evidence of PW3. I ﬁnd eviderx1c'e!PW3 suffers from basic errors. PW3 has not it V' ., deposed that PW6 after smearing phenolphthalein powder on N 2 L,£?m'\-xﬁiﬁl' 18 ten currency notes of Rs. }00/-- denomination had entrusted the same to PW3 with an instruction to give the accused if it was demanded by accused.

deposed that he was in possession of 'tainted"c'iu-r':'encw3rnotes" "

when he entered the office of accu'sed.:1' 'PW3i1as. not"depo'se_d that he handed over tainted cu_rrency_ notesi?vto]jac.cVused on:* his demand. On the other has that he removed a sum of ﬁocket and gave it to accused. PW3 has handed over currency notes' mi Qftéicetof--Idokayukta, PW6 had noted notes in the pre--trap manage-0000045 deposed; after trap, his handsvxdwere carbonate soiution and the so1ut.i,on turneid into colour. PW3 has not deposed that V' _ ho'.v'hi;?--..1qands can"£e"'i1'£ 'contact with phenolphthalein powder. The L' evidenceof does not disclose that accused had told PWJ3 to afnount on 23.11.2000. PW--3 has deposed that accus.ed demanded bribe on 17.11.2000. However, the first N. -xx-éiﬂgc:

information was lodged on 22.11.2000 for which there is no satisfactory explanation by PW--3.

M. As already stated, the letter addressed the Commissioner for Public Instructions (Ex.P--6] was addrgessed to the BED at K.G.F. The evidence of brought Ex.P~6 from the BEG at V' accused, looks improbable as the BECe.'_'_of letter as per Ex.P--6 was addressed had no to-it inspect the house of accused,_'___'VEvenV.if had no supervisory jurisdiction inspefct; theglhgiouse of PW3, in view of transfer of PW.~3 frontiiigherl?rirnarfy;Sehool at Pichalli to Government School at Betharnangala, the BEO at Ks,.§}".F_ 'hai_re forwarded EX.P--6 along with a letter" accused (BBO at Bangarpet} for .0 compiivanceiévlhof instructions contained in Ex.P--6. The that he handed over the original of Ex.P--6 to laccusedvvvithout specifying the date looks improbable. On perusalof contents of letter marked as Ex.i3--6, I find several "signatures and several endorsements. It is not in dispute M C,g;W. 20 that accused had not received this letter through official channei. In the circumstances. several endorsements and several signatures found on Ex.P--6 would create a doluhtpp as to whether accused was in possession of on 22.11.2000.

15. The evidence of PW-3 that BEO no jurisdiction to inspect the.4house._ccnstrt1cteC1'V tiy and submit a report. cannot heaccepted*inu'vieW0:of specific directions contained in"'t_he _'letter" Eh<.P-6, the Commissioner of PublicV_iri'stru..ctions'~h'asf_*clearly stated that accused has been :v_vorking"~asf'Assistant Teacher in Goverrirnent at Pichalli and he had availed housing u"io_ar1.V of lakhs till 20.9.2000, neither comtpletion rep"o--rt_ nor recovery report was received in the » office of'(3orr1'missioner of Public Instructions. Therefore, the Public Instructions had directed the BEO, iiivision to personally verify the facts and submit the reportvvithin three days or by post, whichever is earlier. It is liaise" stated in the letter that the matter shaii be treated as {Li -'~5'(-(fa 21 "very urgent". The copy of this letter was sent to accused with specific instructions that he should furnish particulars relating to recovery of loan to collecting the same from salary disbiirésingdldfﬁcerof PW--3 has been instructed to corizplyfwith "the~ contained in the letter. has admitted th'at,:.11e..ereceivhed.1"

the copy of Ex.P--6 on was of the consequences of his the instructions contained in the addressed by high ranking i3f""ii3ublic Instructions. Therefore: immediate follow--up action; deposed immediate follow--up action taken 16mg' "The evidence adduced by the prosecution does not theﬂmletter as per Ex.P--6 had been officially 1:ti*ansn§.vittedV.t1'0in the office of EEO at K.G.F to the office of BBC atﬂangarpet. {U --5~,4f"\-'-5" ""'L" 22

17. PW--3 has not deposed that he had furnished necessary documents such as Iicence and sanction pian to accused to inspect his house. Apart from oral testirriotny of PW-3, prosecution has not produced any evidence to prove that on 17.11.2000 accusedhad infspected: K V' the house of PW-3. At this juncture»; it is 're1evant--_to_Vstate7 that on 3.11.2000, accused had addressed a_~:¢d;ar~ {oj"thé'= Secretary of Kolar District, High.er'--tPrima1=y_VSch'ooi*fI;eac'hers' V Association, Koiar. wherein hehas ._grievance"about the placement of in--charge PW--3 could spare his time toatq-uestionpbthce p1'aI::¢men:«o'f in--charge Head Master; it _unndersta'ndab1eVV'as to why PW-3 had not bothered' 'to action to comply with the instrpuctionsu"contained:in":EX.P--6. In fact, PW--3 was duty V, tocomply withthe instructions found in EXP-6. PW3 it of Rs.2.00 lakhs for construction of his house andiulie was expected to submit the stage of '<._cons_truction and he was also expected to furnish particuiars "of recovery statement. [9 (H--,¢Q.\-«»»..£9't-*~¢€""' 23

18. During cross~examination, P.W.3 has admitted that he handed over Ex.P6 to the accused on 3.10.2000. or 5 days, he had met the accused in the officepV...0f' Lat. Bangarpet. P.W.3 has not deposed that accdsedv told P.W.3 that he would inspect h:§;"ih'oug¢".tpm«':iff;.ii52ooo;t P.W.3 has not deposed that he had approved plan to enable the "house.'V' The prosecution has...' not..t""eVrfa'inii:ed one from Be-thamangala to proxte inspected the house 0 it tokayukta police had not seized office of BEO at Bangarpet to proVe..that'tm._:V17V. accused had inspected the house " " _ Acon.str5s};cte'd_by 15W;

1 vvEn'V...t1rre,i'-circumstances, the evidence of P.W.3 that accuse_d'h!aTdA0demanded bribe of Rs.1,000/-- from P.W.3 on and the accused received bribe of Rs.1,000/-- 'froth P.W.3 does not inspire confidence. As already stated, 1'0.

24 there was no cordiality between the accused and P.W.3 before the first information was lodged and even before the date of so called inspection. The interested testimony of P.W.3 does not stand the test of scrutiny.

20. At the relevant point of time, P.W.4_.Parashii~rarnaiah--«.. was working as a Second Division Assiostjarit in the'v.D.istijct Welfare Office. P.W.4 hasnot supported of 'tired?' prosecution. Therefore. he xvastitreatedf hostile witness and subjected to cro's.s¥exar.LiiI1ation byrthe learned public prosecutor. The evidence' brotigifit -on record during cross- examination of does incri'Ininatethe accused.

21. P;W;5 Srirarr1a.»'working as a second division assistant ti1evofﬁcAe.of"'the Road Transport Office at Kolar. '' V' A'I'iie€'eviderice of relating to pre--trap proceedings is very not even speak about the presence of PW6- 'th__eVi of Lokayukta Police. P.W.3 has deposed that they" reached the office of the B1330 at Bangarpet at 11.30 "ii P.W.3 and P.W.4 entered the office and after some time N Eg,.,m,t-i.i, 25 when P.W.3 gave a signal to Lokayukta Police, they entered the office of BEO, accused was present in his chamber. The currency notes were in the pocket of accused. P.W.5 who had been taken to witness the i.

tainted currency notes has not deposed 't;iie.VV'po:}&ice._V 'ix inspector recovered the tainted notes_.'f1*oni"~ possession of accused. 'I'hcd__e*.ridenc'e of. the = L' hands of the accused were w_ashe_d=i_n Sodium carbonate soiution does not improve the £€it:1atiVovn"in the absence of vital evidence relating t(:).'I'§'_~C.(]::\;vEi'3,*A"(jf". notes from the possession d

22. At, the reievém :P..__W.6--B.Lokesh was Working as Inspector uiQov1<aV3'/ukt:id'Po~iice at Koiar. P.W.6 has deposed p_ on 9,_3_QvA.1\/1., P.W.3 lodged first information 'per registered crime No.11/ 2000 against the accused.' V secured witnesses naniely P.W.4-- Paradshuvrarnaiah and P.W.5--S::irama. PW6 has deposed dxgabioiipt the preparations made to trap the accused. P.W.6 in , M 1 J6', 26 has deposed that P.W.3 produced Rs. 1,000 / --{i{) currency notes of Rs. 100/ -- denomination). P.W.6 with the help of his staff, smeared phenoiphthalein powder on the said currency notes and also demonstrated phenoiphthalein the notes to P.ws.3 to 5. At this juncture,.it":'s..;~e1g§vant to V notice that P.W.6 has not deposedb:that"«_after::sme:aring7 phenolphthalein powder on, notes}; t':PW(3V handed over the tainted currency notes with instructions to give the ''same to"aceused,_ if the Vaccused were to demand the bribe. 15.'xv.'s"w;is't theta'-it;az§st.igating Officer. It is rather st_r,ange'_- to iiotice'V.«ithat"~hisuevilfience is lacking on such vital 'V _ H

23. RWL6 hasdde}3.osedt'i'th'at they reached the ofﬁce of the BED at Bangar'pet'at71 P.W.3 and 4 were sent to a_ccusuéd«,-. ..... After some time, P.W.3 gave a signal. 'When_ 't_heyfr.er1tered the chamber of accused, P.W.3 told P.W';6 accused had received Rs.1.,0O0/ -- from him. introduced himself to accused. PW6 conducted Phenolgidhthalein test by dipping the hands of accused into N "A£a-\.a..,.é"L.u~mé~9-/ 27 Sodium Carbonate solution contained in two bowls. The right hand wash did not show any change of colour. However, left hand wash turned into pink colour. P.W.6 had deposed that P.W.5 removed tainted currency notes frorr'1. the ieft side pocket of trousers of accused. At this it relevant to notice that P.W.5 has not deposedvithattd he" 0' removed the tainted currency notesdirorn ._left side of trousers of the accused. P.W,6 hashdelposed attendance register as per no other»d'ocurnent was seized from the office ofthe B1330' Bartgarpeti

24. has not given explanation as ietter marked as Ex.P.6 had reached the dofficVe_ at Bangarpet from the office of BE£1iaat "KGF. deposed that he had not cokkected docunaents to show that on 17.11.2000, the accused the house of P.W.3 and P.W.3 had furnished necessary docurnents such as licence and sanction plan to accused' to enabke the accused to inspect his house. ['\3 , x-A» E'/~'v~"(¢' 28

25. Accused has examined D.W.1 Ramanjaneyappa who was then Working as BEG at Bangarpet. D.W.1 has .dep:osed that P.W.1 had given a letter on 3.11.2000 to _ of Karnataka District Higher Primary Schooi~.V Association, making a grievance about placing one--.Narayan.a.0 Swamy as incharge Head Master of Government Higher Primary School, Bethamangalat"»:_"The ot':}).W.1 is not controverted. receiving the representation give_nV,'0_a0 convened of panchayath ;nen1ghers:=A._ members of teachers assoc:-ati.on'wherein"it wasgresolved and agreed that said Nvairayaria continue as in charge of Head Master an'd._P.'N had consented for the same. Thus, we that the"E.'.&W.3had grievance against the accused for plavciﬁg. as incharge head master.

'(:3 reappreciation of evidence, I find the protsectitionétthas failed to prove that the letter as per EX.P6 0 00w'as<_for\5varded by the BEG at KGF to the office of BEO at Ix';

29 Bangarpet through proper channei. There is no evidence on record to show that BED at KGF' had requested the accused to inspect the house of P.W.3 and the prosecution has not adduced evidence to prove that on 17.11.2000. inspected the house of P.W.3. The evidence P.j'v'xT:.Vi5"

and 6 is highly discrepant and these . --l.have been highlighted in the discIl$S.io14:V':A"r~l-t'1d..;'f'1,ét V'

27. In the circumstances. it possible. the prosecution has provedbeyogridllali'relas.o'nabieVdoubt that on 17.1 1.2000 the accused P.W.3 a sum of Rs.1,000/-- asille-gal v'forvvard the report of compieticn of to the Commissioner of Public Instructi.on_sii atlBanAgaior'e.' The prosecution has failed to projiprelv that in ldfurtheraince of such demand, on 22.11.2000 at ~Pv.l.\/E.. the accused demanded and received illegal /-- from P.W.3 to show official favour to forward completion report regarding construction of nb0_.use"o:f P.W.3 to the Commissioner of Public Instructions. learned trial Judge on proper appreciation of evidence 30 has acquitted the accused. Therefore, I do not ﬁnd any reasons to interfere with the impugned judgment.

28. In the result, I pass the following :-- "

ORDER The appeal is dismissed.

SNN/nas/yn.

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Karnataka High Court