Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

Karnataka High Court

State By Police Inspector vs R Mallikarjunaiah on 20 July, 2010

Author: N.Ananda

Bench: N.Ananda

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE
DATED THIS THE 20"' DAY OF JULY 2010

BEFORE

THE I-i0N'BI.E MRJUSTICE N.     _

CRIMINAL APPEAL No.23:2g_:_z_.g_.>--_9;_:'_3_:'V.,, ' '-Of: ._

BETWEEN:

State by Police Inspector.

Karnataka Lokayuktha,

Bangalore Division,   A A _   
Bangaiore.   2   *  Appellant

(By Sri.S.G.Rajendrav 1§'eddy_.'A  .

AND: '- _ f

1. R.Mal1ikarjui1aiah,*"'  ' 
S / 0 Late ;Ru'drfi.ppa, _ "
Sub Inspect¢:i;r'_o_f Po.1_ice_, _  .
Hebbag§odi."3?oii¢e Stat-.ion..VAA.~ _
BangaIor¢"im_;a1 Disttic-.t,. '_ 
R/vat'"No..9;., II Eiock',~_f 

Ac1ugoc§_i.* l3ai1g_s'§iaVr§re.:"'~~v.,. '

2. " .A.VB.eRamesh_.V
 _ W-..._S/o-.Basavego'wda;' 32 Years,

v. 3 Workingas 1=-.c. 1335.
 T 'Hebhagodi Police Station,

 '__Bafiga&!,or=e:v' Rural District,

A V R/at Baddamaralavadi,

'I-Ia:t_oha1li I-Iobli, Kanakapura Taluk
Banggakore Rural District.  Respondents

A  n[BOy«..S«ri.AAC.M.I£empegowda. Adv. for R~1, Sri.A.R.Kha.n, Adv. for
 _ '  R-.2_(Absent])



This appeal is filed under section 378(1) and [3]
Cr.P.C., praying to grant leave to file an appeal against
the judgment dated 10.03.2003 passed by thespecial
Judge, Bangalore Urban and Rural Districts,...Bangalore

City, in Special C.C.No.94/1999, acciiiaitting 

respondents/accused for the offences punisliable under

sections.7, 13(1) ((1) read with,,,,Vsecticn""13E:2)"=of, the'

prevention of corruption Act. 1$.?.i88.'"' « ,_ 

This appeal coming on  hea';§,,g..

the Court delivered the following:

J U D G  mgr 0

Respondents 1"' ptrgereinlastez _ referred to as
accused 1 & 2) were tried-for)foliovi'ing:c'liarges:-

::__I, Special Judge,
Bangalore  'fl; 'i£rban'-   Rural Districts,
  hereby 'charge you, the above
named accused as--..t'oflows:-

 02.2 That': you), the above named accused
V  and 2  public servants, working as
  _ S-ab-inspector of Police [A.1) and Police
  colismizié [A.2) at Hebbugodi Police Station,

Bangalore Rural District, Bangalore. You
"Accused No.1 on 17.02.1998 demanded with

it  the complainant by name Sri.K.E.Ramesh of

3'\}, Jim  .



J .P. Nagar. Bangalore as an illegal
gratification of Rs.2 Lakh and later the 
amount was negotiated to a sumif  A'
Rs.25.000/- with the help of you  H
No.2 the said amount wad ,de_1_nan_d'ed'  2
accused No.1 as illegal gitatiiication  i to f
an official favour to j the coniplainantA"CW. if
i.e.. to file a 'B' "aha; ropo;-to  
No.34/98 registered againstthe ccrnplaixiiant

in your police»  ppnfsuanceiiiof the
said demand yon accased.lVo:.:1v:i.¢zgv"09.03.1998

at about A'1'.30 p;1n.-  vfront' of fiandrava Bar
Restatz-'.i'an:t "  '1'£o':.2 demanded
 - from the
    committed an

:voffencie'iivU_/.sec.7«,_o'f..._l'revention of Corruption

Act. *

' =3. Yotiiiccused No.2 being a public servant

A    accused No.1 as a constable
 ~  negotiated the bribe amount of Rs.1.00.000/-
 A. to:i2s_.2{5.é00/- on behalf of accused No.1 with

the coinplainant cw.1 Sri.K.E.Ramesh on

_p ~.l'ig,02.1998 and in furtherance of the same
*  oh 09.03.1993 at about 7.30 13.11:. you met

 the complainant K.E.Ran1esh and demanded

m.  1:»./v~eL«, ~



and accepted an amount of Rs.24,000/~ for

and on behalf of accused No.1 as illegé..I_i*._V
gratification knowing fully well   
amount was an illegal gratification   
by accused No.1 and thereby .'yoi1..:"l1avte".p V
facilitated accused No.1?   
offence U/sec.12 of Preventionof Cor;fi;.p»tion'::4'."--~ 
Act within the cognizance of this   

4. You accused No.-1*  beiangvpublic
servants as detailed abcént  working as
Public servants   corrupt
or illegag - §;¢anc;'_or§  otIier§'.ris.eV:iV}a.busing your
position " se1§rant»s obtained for
yours--eIw}.eVs;_a -- as pecuniary
  K.i«l.liamesh by sending
you 4'accnsetic«.bVNo_.2'.-. Gandarva Bar and

Restaurant  "tliereby you have committed

;'an offence' "U/'S3ec.13[1)(d) of Prevention of
A  C,erraptioni"""Act, 1988 and punishable
, - .,  cc/s..13(2)_ of the Act.

 accused No.2 on 09.03.1998 near

  Bar and Restaurant near South End

Circle, Bangalore while working as a Public

  "servant by corrupt or illegal means or by

N. bg..,._c,,..caA. 



otherwise abusing your position as a public

servant in order to facilitate accused No.1' 

receive illegal gratification from ___the<.7.

complainant. your obtained for and   is
of accused No.1 a sum oiiMRs.2«=§+;t"1O0::/Va"a.s

pecuniary advantage from" the 

and thereby you also cominitted a   
mis-conduct U/sec.123i(_}'}{d) of v~Prcveiititg§1...,af 

Corruption Act, 19é3._'?t' aud 2 "punishable
u/s.13(2) of the'"A.ct within.:'thei'cognizVai1ce of
this Court.  i l 3' V   V'

6.  hereby   be tried on
the above  charges before this court.

""" "  Signed by

' _  'i».{}§;--N.?HANEENDRA}
V '  _ "SPECIAL JUDGE,

 - _  BANGALORE RURAL

Date ;: 23.05.2901' " AND URBAN DISTRICTS.
 '  BANGALORE."

2.   icarned.4Sc:sVs'ions Judge acquitted respondents 1 8:

 ,_g_for offencels uudct_:§é-ctions 7 and 13(1}(d] r/w section 13(2)

_Viaud'also oi'  offence punishable under section 12 of the

«iofflcorruption Act, 1988 (for short, 'the Act').

g\)' ¢i\m~$N '\«~'3L1/x '



Therefore, the State represented by Police Inspector.
Karnataka Lokayukta, Bangalore Division. Bangalore, has

filed this appeal.

3. The case put forth by prosecution.   

above charges may be stated thI:J;£:"4?  . A 

During the year 

working as an Accountantirin M.}e..__ 'CoVa1;e"s.Tof' sjlrzdia"

Limited. PW3 resigned from---hispv-job.pAon.'O2".»£!2..i§98. The
management of M/s.Coates"--o_f represented
by Law Officers .hadi'Iodge:dV.:firs.tV! inforiination in Crime
  had committed criminal
breach' of ':.:_:1.'iiisappropriated the funds of
M/s.Coat'e.s.Vcf  The above crirne was being

investigated  accused No.1, who at the relevant time

.A was  as the Sub-Inspector of Hebbagodi Police

 Station :'iV"aqd~:;'accused No.2 was working as a Police

Corgstabievof the same police station. jg .



members of raiding party apprehended accused No.2 and
recovered tainted currency notes from right side of
pocket of jeans pant of accused No.2 and brought him to
Office of Assistant Commissioner of Police at Jayanagar

and conducted phenolphthalein test by dippingifingersiiéfp

both hands of accused No.2 into it.   

solution contained in two separa"teMbov:ls'.._ 'I'i:e:_'1iortion of

right side pocket of jeans pant »_ac'c_nsed.bi§,o.'2 'also,

dipped into sodium carbonastiersolntion  in 

separate bowl and t1ge,resuitant.:'solution  to pink

colour indicating presence of

5.   Police Station and
collected iinvestig_atfi._onirecords pertaining to registration

 against _____ NPW3. After completion of other

» ;for;nalities:"of__ investigation, PWIO obtained sanction to

H ._accused 1 8: 2 and submitted a charge sheet

--V against accused No.1 and 2.  
 Z  Z T\3. 'fix-1x...-9/\-\»" « "A '



 

6. During trial. PW1 to PW11 were examined and

documents as per Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.28 so also M.0s.l"~to~..12

were marked on behalf of prosecution. The of' _

accused is one of total denial.

7. The learned trial Judge on app;-eci.ati.On_.of 

has acquitted accused 1 8: 2: afofestated offences.  

8. I have heard Sri S.G..:Rajendra.  Vlllearnedlll

counsel for appellant Sfi"'d.L!.Ke.mpe§OWda; learned
counsel for accused  counsel for
accnsed No.2  not  leaihed counsel for

both parties hazre through evidence.

9. The"i«--.._i'o}1oV'wing_V i paints that would arise for

 , ' detcafuiinatiou 'ar€..=f__... .

   'Whether the prosecution has proved that
it  31.02.1998 accused No.1 being Sub-

Vlnspector of Hebbagodi Police Station.
demanded from PW3-K.E.Ramesh, illegal
lllgratification of Rs.1,00,000/-, which was

W.  p



later reduced to Rs.25,000/- with the
connivance of accused No.2 to show official
favour viz PW3 to file a final 'B'-report 
the case registered against PW3'? is if

2. Whether the prosecution has provedf"that--'..::  

in furtherance of such demand"  V on

09.03.1993 at about 730 ~p,m--g, _a4'c'j'c'7a:'s.fe;--;1v.'_i'.V  p
No.2 on behalf of accused I\?_o.1' in».f1'oIit  

G-andharva Bar & VRestau.ra_ni: nesreifioiuth  3

End Circle, Bangai--ore, dernalidefl. 
accepted illegal grat:infieatio11_. of -
and therebgff _ 'i.co::nniitted~r _ offences
punishable under i__12 of the
Prevention 'Act, 'M588?

 Whethcw.-r.,ihe"'pro'se'cution has proved that
iaccusedalw abusing their positions as
public  obtained for themselves

 _:'pecuniai'yv___advantage by receiving a sum of

 I§s,2-4,000/~ as illegai gratification at the

 '  piace stated in paragraph 2 of the

 thereby committed an offence
'gander section 13(1)(d)(ii) punishable under

if section 13(2) of the Act? 

 



4. Whether the learned trial Judge has
properly appreciated the evidence V oi; 9' c . 
record? ' H' 9'

5. Whether the impugned judgn1ent«--<:'4%t'i1si  xvi"

interference?

6. What order"

10. My findings on the  reasons
thereon are as follovtirazi-xiii" _  2

The Prosecutionézasitreiiedon'evidence of PW3
to prove   neingaccused No.2 as a
conduit 1:   gratification of
 later reduced to Rs.25.000/-
on bargain   to show official favour to PW3

bypifiiing 'Va: _  'B.'-report in Crime No.34/1998

  '~againetWI'W3 for offences punishable under

  :§se¢£io§is..;;cS'-8:~t465 {PC as per Ex.P.4.

11".. «fiiad lodged first information at about 2.30

 .Ap;.m..z on 09.03.1998 as per Ex.P.16. PW3 has deposed;



wt.

13

during the year 1997 he was working as an Accountant
in M/s.Coates of India Limited; he resigned from his job

on 02.02.1998; Thereafter on the first inforniation

lodged by Anil Puri, Vice-President of of

India Limited a case was registered in  
for offences punishable under seetions  it
against PW3. PW3 has deposed«;_' 

information, _Vice--President..,.r'ef M."/s,Coat'e_:s  Iijndia" V

Limited and Mr.Venka,tarama-.--~fiirec'tor of Financie of said
company had come toR'h'is* andflzoerced PW3 to pay

the money misappropri"at'et§:by  v'i'h:eVV"evidence of PW3

regardvinévregistraitiionjofcaseagainst him for aforestated
offences by has not been controverted.

__PW3ii1as' depos'edV:~"ithe higher ups of M/s.Coates of

  Limited and----«other officials had threatened PW3

 L' members and tried to take away car and

other of PW3 to recover amount misappropriated

 by ...Be that as it may, a case was registered against

  After the arrest of PW3, the jurisdictional police

N.  f/M/'Jr



had caused some problems to him. Thereafter,  had

filed a habeas corpus petition. On an application'

the instance of accused No.1, PW3 was given  '

custody from 13.02.1993 to 17.o2.,..1,99s._--'o"n" '2iQV..o'2.1_99s, "

PW3 was released on bail by imposing eseveral'~cond:.tions.

one amongst the conditions beingtthat   

his attendance between 10  10.38: av.jm.Bon every
Sunday in Hebbagodiv §oi'1cAe'«_fiStationp'pfiux'isdictional police
station). PW3 has deposed;   he had gone
to I-Iebbagodi?..iI"oi_}?i~t::'e   attendance; PW3
was told     accused No.1 was on
5P°¢i&'§;Hdnt:y;.:.t;s  _ca'nnot mark his attendance
and aslrdedl  onithe next day; as instructed by

accused  tfisited Hebbagodi Police Station on

"'«--..the'i..j'ib11owit;g dtljf""i.c.. on 23.02.1993. At that time.

  present in the Police Station; accused

No..p\l"Vaskeds:'?iP'5V3 to pay him Rs.1,00,000/-- as bribe and

"._'th3.t he would file a 'B'-report in his case; PW3 expressed

A f_' inability to pay such huge amount; PW3 told accused

W) k ¢'i'L~  .



house of PW3. sensing the trouble accused 1 & 2 along

with other police left the house of PW3.

PW3 has deposed; on 08.03.1998, accus_ed"Ne_.2: _

gone to the house of PW3 and asked  'contact  

accused N0.1; PW3 was told that:__if  

sum of Rs.1,00,000/- at; .a stretch,  figpay 

Rs.25,000/- and pay the rerneinixzg baian§e~§rté:; selling
his cars; accused No.l4"to1dj'l'W3"  he ufould come
and collect the money frozn  o'r..;acc_'u_sed No.2 would

come and cqlleaztfithe:=.'ma3ney"~fro:i1e.B193; accused No.1

told  .I?iandin'vg'--._ouer---..;11e;jney to accused No.2
amounts '-to :4"e3:rVer: money to accused No.1;

accused N'e_._'1" told_l5€5'f3..t'I1at accused No.2 would collect

 the, from. on 09.03.1998 in Hotel Airlines.

2. A'~._  % at 'Bangalore.

12. evidence of PW3. we find that he has

'ggiven ~~ different and contradictory versions regarding

A fl};-1iace~A_.and time on which date bribe was demanded and

in .   *



aiso purpose for which the bribe was demanded by

accused No.1. In the first information lodged by4.__as

per Ex.I-'.16, it is stated that PW3 was in  _

from 13.02.1998 to 17.02.1993 and on_-1?.ii2..1'#98. --. 

was produced before jurisdictional  

harassed by accused 1  PW'3_"h'as statedi'_tha'f; 

17.02.1998 when he was in pc1ice_ custedy,'V'he':'had been

mentally tortured by'   

PW3 h§$::«;1eposed':.  on bail on
20.02.1999;    23i.'92V.T1'99s. when we had
gone to..PoIice    attendance, accused
No.1 hAad--  pay a sum of Rs.1,00,000/-
as bribe  that  JNo.1 would file a 'B'-report in

thefliciase reg1iste1'edA::1gainst PW3. PW3 has deposed; on

1  9W3 had visited Hebbagodi police

 .statioVi1__naai'"I: his attendance, accused No.1 not only

deina.r.:.det1"""bribe of Rs.1.00.000/- from PW3 but also

it   visited" the house of PW3 along with accused No.2, one

1 "'._VSiddegowda and driver Poojar; accused 1 & 2 asked the

   

9/\_>.

 ,._,,«»,.;....c»£...-



sister and uncle of PW3 to pay the bribe otherwise they

would implicate all the family members of PW3 andsend

them to jail. Accused 1 & 2 had threatenedV.¢_§"P1j!l'l3'V.

they would bring a corporation vehicle    

household articles of PW3. has deposed_; 

accused No.2 asked PW3 about the   

PW3 to contact accused No.vl1:.,:V:a.t_thatV'time, vacc£:;se'd $0.1 'V

is alleged to have  'told  "if hea"can.z1§ot pay
Rs.1,00.000/-. at a str'cttch',*  Rs.25,000/~
immediately an_d"p__ay  after selling his

cars; on  accused 3350;} lisiaileged to have told

PW3 that  and collect bribe

from in   Jayanagar at Bangalore.

13. ,,._§:&:Wei'~find  evidence of PW3. he has not stated

   & 2 had demanded bribe from him on

 ¢l.§'1'1"V..the other hand. PW3 has deposed; on

23.0'2.l998,"'"' accused No.1 had demanded a sum of

:jRs.vc1_..00','€)l)0/--- as bribe to file a 'B'~report in the case

 a._'r*e:gis;ered against PW3. PW3 has deposed; on

w. 



01.03.1998, accused No.1 had again demanded a sum of

Rs.1,00,000/- from PW3 and had also directed«jPW3"'to

discuss the matter with accused No.2.

PW3 has deposed; on os.o3.g199s.'i'ac£§aséa V'z~.ro,;j '~ 2

came to his house and asked:'».hin_1'eabou.t 

demanded by them ear1ier;.accused*No.2V also Laskegd   *

to contact accused No.1;  the it day, PW3
contacted accused  ..to1d'~that ii' he cannot
pay entire Rs.g1,0O,0'()V_()]g._atfl  he can pay
Rs.25,000/-  after selling his

car: accused  i"to1d':I§\1f3vAecthatwaccused No.2 would

couecfithe  on 09.03.1998 in Hotel

Airlines,  'Bangalore.

  we""fi.n_d_MF"W3 has not given consistent and

 »ci'edib1ev'«evidence regarding date and place and the

iiipurhpose   accused No.1 had demanded bribe

--V froni  evidence given by PW3 that accused No.1

gdenianded bribe from PW3 on various dates does not

N dfaisaca.



20

find corroboration from the contents of first information
lodged by PW3. PW3 has admitted that he had contacted
an Advocate to seek legal advice before  _

information.

15. I notice from the contents' of 

after concluding the content,_s'~of  in.forrna_:tion,": the " V

following sentence:- "on 'i':n"':':~l'le rnorningiiaccused '
No.1 telephoned to nfe that accused

No.2 would collect'  Airlines.

Jayanagarz,    if  '7 33,113.. was
appear that there was a
clear   'accused 1 8: 2 and PW3 as
to the if3"la'_'ce_  PW3 should pay bribe

am03g1nti'to accused No.2.

  16:;   "juncture, it is relevant to state, the

contentslotf vilfirst information that accused No.1 had

 contacted PW3 and told him that accused No.2 would

 receive bribe between 6 p.m. and 7 p.m., in Airlines

'Y\}_.  4" 5,4. x M4'-""~Q'.»\r



21
Hotel at Jayanagar during morning of 09.03.1998 looks
improbable. PW3 had lodged first information with
Lokayukta police at 2.30 p.m. on 09.03.1998.

being an educated person was aware that

Police had to make certain arrangements"-.0103;   

accused. It is obvious that l?W3" !1ad._  
Advocate before lodging first  as  
Therefore, the very manner?  "had": set 
criminal law into motion   already
stated, PW3 has given versions in proof of

demand of br_ifbe_ by""acci.;sed«.:jSo.V1.ewiiiihese divergent

versio:asi'cann'o_t  the circumstances, the
evidence of  sufficient to prove that on

17.0V2_._1999"." _V'ac.c"ased V"°No.1 had demanded illegal

"V"«.._Agrati"fic_a:tic.n oi "'%.1,00,000/-- from PW3 and on

 ziegotiation,"  was reduced to Rs.25,000/- to show

  to PW3 by filing a final '13' report in Crime

 No.94~,/$019908, registered against PW3 for offences

A v~:if'p11Vnishable under sections 408 : 465 IPC. The evidence



22

of PW3 is not free from reasonable doubt. The evidence
of PW3 that accused No.2 had been involved by accused

No.1 in the matter of demand and collection of 

Rs.1.00.000/- from PW3 and after negoti_ati--on  i'_w'as"i  i 

reduced to Rs.25,000/- is also 
doubt. PW3 has deposed that accused Nop..:11;  
bribe from PW3 to show officiaifavour  'B"- it
report. In the next breath  2  demanded
bribe from pwa by tbrbbtbbiflngi' bribe is not
paid, accused    all the family
members  against PW3 and
all  be sent to jail. PW3
has adinitt'ed  had visited the office of

Lokayukta  09';0:i3'.1i§$:J8. PW3 had taken currency

  i;i!Isi.a"s.nm of"'3Rs.24,000/-. The Police Inspector of

  ~ha:.d"_'_not instructed PW3 to bring currency

notes in 'has: of Rs.24,000/-. There is nothing on

'<._record~ Vito indicate that PW3 had been informed in

A "it that he should bring a sum of Rs.24,00(_;)/---- at the

f\9- C: ilx/L~"5/"""C£"'



23

time of filing first information. This would give an

impression that PW3 had contacted Lokayukta pa:-lyice,

much before be lodged first information at on

09.03.1998.

17. Now adverting to the eventsliithat took; 

office of Lokayukta. the  

prosecution in proof of prep,ara,tions  to"

trap the accused and instructiens- given  to PW3
and shadow witnessiesi has not been
seriously con"trovertegl'.Vil?§ver1   do not find any
discrepancies'  

18. The nexxtparti of relates to demand of
bribe madeby aclcused  at"'"about 7 p.m.. in Airlines
I-Iojteigat  hangaiore. As already stated. the

content'sr_of. "first4"t'i:nformation that accused No.1 had

 i"ee.ntacted_;i>W3_iduriiig morning of 09.03.1993 and he had

 that 'accused No.2 would meet PW3 between 6

 *7"=.p.m. on the same day and would cofiect bribe

':'\J p  x-407.'.



24

amount from PW3 are inserted after the first information

was concluded.

19. PW3 in his evidence has deposed:  

accused No.1 told PW3 that accjLised'«No;'.2  Vccillect.' it

bribe from PW3 on 09.03.19.9E§  I-ilioteiu

Jayanagar at Bangalore.  nei:t._brea4;hV§'*--.vV15'W3': hast"?

deposed on 09.03.1998.' in  accused» 'i\Io.1 had
contacted ?W3 over Iihone'  that accused
No.2 would collect  7i:;x it-'Iotel Airlines at

Jayanagalf   it ~  i
20.   is ieilevant to state that PW3
has not V' deposed A..ith:at._:accused No.1 had told him that

accused N4o'.2:Vwottld"meet PW3 between 6 13.111. and 7 p.m.

  At(j....'Ccoliect..« brihe"""'from PW3. This omission assumes

  view of clear insertion made in the first

informa.tic;c..

 'A  VVPW10 has deposed; in the first information lodged

 by~Pw3, PW3 has not stated that "on 09.03.1993. in the

; 5'
M . i . fv



25

morning. accused No.1 telephoned PW3 and told. PW3

that accused No.2 would come and collect bribepvalmount

from PW3 between 6 p.zn. and 7 p.rn. in Airlines'   _
Jayanagar." The evidence of  that " 'acctzaetl   
contacted him over phone both onf}

09.03.1998 and told him that.accu§ed"'No.2,vroi:1ld.collect  .

bribe amount from PW3 in   Jayanagar
locks improbable. Th'e;_fa.mil1&   have not
been examined' to proj;re__  1 tvas persistent

demand of bribe accusiecfflo; 
22. In tlxis"_«.bacl§gron;a_d;~~_ _w"e"'._l:a_ve to consider the

 Same"é.ay..{. ' ' 

evidence of 1 toVVI5i'ii:3. 'regarding demand of
bribe by accused 4__No,2VV'in""lV§.ir1{neo Hotel at Jayanagar at
7.30 p.m."  09.03.1998 and also demand and receipt of

'No.2 from PW3 in front of Gandhaxva

 Bar 8tt"'1_2el:"=s_ta1i'1'aV1_1t_.  South End Circle,pBangalore on

N ,  C'/\..--'\&r£\ 2



Circle. At that time the Police Inspector of Lokayukta

received a pager message from some other 

police to the effect that complainant and  _

were near a hotel by name Gar1dharva--"a"t"'-- ii"

Circle. Thereafter all of them reached Hotel 

by then some other police' officials of' Loltayuktahad 

already caught hold of accusedi1'J.o.2;"thereafter PW10
took all of them to_._.":i«-Jay:an5ag:ar.__'»l5o¥.ice Station viz
chambers of Assistant _Cornmissf:,on'e'r'oi.' Police to record

the traP      

25.  iias"'ém;ggo--r§e§£1y" 'stated that PW3 identified
accused  of A.C.P. in Jayanagar
Police Stati_on    direction of Lokayukta Police,

PWl._§removed"  currency notes from right side

  of accused No.2. PW1 has categorically

fphenolphthalein test was conducted in the

cha'mbe.;;' of. at J ayanagar Police Station.

  



2,9

consumed some beer, after 5 minutes he left the ___hotel

along with PW3; by the time ?W2 and other raiding:

came out of the hotel, accused No.2 and  .

were proceeding in an autorickshnw:  "'

accompany them in the said dntoriclfishayv.'  Accz1s'e:d'

No.2 and PW3 were proceeding__towna=ds Soutl1'i'  >

PW2 and other members of   there
near the Airlines  didflnot return;
the police inspector of  Jayanagar
Police   other members
of  that Lokayukta
police had  South End
Circle and aslied   Jfigo over to Jayanagar
police stgtion.  PW2 and other police

officisls   reached Jayanagar Police Station.

 After    police officials of Lokayukta

it 'g!bVro:;ght  Aaccused No.2 to Jayanagar Police

 :'l'he'v..officials of Lokayukta police conducted

ilhenolphthalein test by washing the ri t hand of

rm.  -'\__ .;>.~.~-4;



31

receive bribe from PW3 in Airlines Hotel at Jayanagar.
PW3 had been specifically instructed by PWIO that PW3

should pay bribe amount to accused No.2 if  is

demanded by accused. Though accused 

demanded bribe amount. PW3 did not pay    

accused No.2. PW3 has not offered any 7ex1;ilariationi'for-.&

not giving bribe to accused No.2  

Jayanagar. PW3 had enquiredfiaccused  regarding 'B' " V

report to be filed in his case..--Accused No.2 is aileged to
have taken PW3 in  South End

Circle and accuse__d No.2'   have demanded

bribe   on  foot path in front of
 which admittedly was over

crowded with_VpubEici.'*.Therefore, the evidence of PW1 8:

  tainted""c'urrency notes were recovered from

 _i_p'os:sc.ssion:.'6£:accused No.2 in the chamber of A.C.P. at

.lay_anagar'iie:'iI_'olice Station does not suffer from any

 discrepaigcfir notwithstanding the fact that PW1 8: PW2

A C: 'were. treated as hostile witnesses.

 

]'\}.



29. PW3 has deposed that on 09.03.1998, he had

visited the office of Lokayukta and lodged»T""'first

information as per Ex.P.16. PWXO secure.r_.l.__JQ'

witnesses namely PW1~Anjanappa  V    M V' 

K.N.Venkataswamy and introdu¢ed"theti.a 

vice-versa. PW10 asked PW3 to Atop;-odiice  

and thereafter PW3 ptodiieed ."l)r.ihe--  of it

Rs.24.000/- [40 Ve1,1zrrenoy'--.."L_:'no'tes Aloft ,y'j{s.3.00/-
denomination and  to  of Rs.500/~

denomination'), .  _

30.  the .diso11:Ssioii.::i1z=ade supra. I have held that
instructions *giv'e1_i" aeeused No.1 to PW3 to meet

acc11_é§edeA.No.2V"i:z_Vi§ir1ii1es Hotel at Jayanagar between 6

   '?f'A'p.,m.. is an after thought and it is a clear

it  information.

7.__31.  has deposed he had been instructed by 1=w1o

A ffigodto Airlines Hotel at Jayanagar and pay the tainted

5/\),  ~--~9'\~*"~"£l~



33

currency notes (bribe) if it is demanded by accused No.2.
PW3 had also been instructed to flash a signal by

combing his hair if the bribe amount is demandedpand

accepted by PW3. PW2 was instructed to follow_~a

shadow witness. PW3 has deposed; the  

consisting of PW10, PW1.  '_  

officials reached near Airlines Jayanagar 

p.1n.; jeep was parked at at distancehihof abotit inseters"

away from Jayanagar  Conrpiea. After
reiterating earlier instr£1ctionsi;Vi'"f1sf)*esent PW2 8: PW3 to

Airlines hoteizj  father V-Lniiiayukta officials

foiiovgred   sjatflon  side of first table; PW10
8: remaining st.a.ff:were._:sitting near different tables; PW2

sat 'near  nentitabie of PW3; at about 6.30 p.m..

 acsiised No.2 alotigwith two persons approached PW3

   first table; accused No.2 sat next to PW3

  bribe from PW3; after taking tiffin, PW3

 and accused No.2 left the hotel at about 7.30 p.m.: PW10

A 5' ianidnothers followed them; after going out of the hotel,

rv '  ,«_,grL»\/\€'Lv~



identified accused No.2; as the said area was heavily

crowded, all of them were taken to the office of

Jayanagar. wherein both hands of accused 

washed in sodium carbonate solution;   = 

accused No.2 turned to pinkigin ._-colour' 

presence of phenolphthaleiln-;,__pleftthand wash: 

dirty colour; the resultant  {accused No.2
were preserved separately 'hottlesviii inarked as
M.0s.3 to 5; PW10  taintejivwuflency notes
from   No.2; panch
 of currency notes with
the    in a list and found that
numbers! talIied.i'se'ized said amount and sealed

them, in  cioverz  had also dipped pant pocket

  portion». ofA.acc'useti"No.2 in sodium carbonate solution

   p.  "turned to pink colour and showed the

pxesenceojfeiphenolphthalein; the resultant solution was

   preserved in a bottle as per M.0.6.



37

from PW3 on 9.3.98 at Hotel Airlines, Jayanagar,

Bangalore . "

34. Though me has denied suggestion thtitfiihei  

mentioned the same in the" first. 'i.nfor'ni1'ation--,.i'.V on

verification of first inforn1ationA;'«V:I:'--5jiiV;A'1'id  «.15 .3"

omission so also evidence of that.__d'1u:ing  of " V

09.03.3998, accused No.1 hadchontactedi  order phone
and told him that   'collect the bribe
from PW3 in"Air1.i_nes:_'  an omission
in the  that accused

No.2 enquired    "kia.dVVV_brought money and also

'demanded to Vhandioyerjinoney in Airlines Hotel. If that

were to be true'._  no obstruction to hand over

'to aclcused i\':'o.2. In fact, PW3 had been clearly

 'Vito pay bribe (tainted currency notes} if it is

  byviiaccused No.2. PW3 has not given any

rea"son.s  not giving bribe to accused No.2 after it was

it   denianded by accused No.2 in Airlines Hotel at

' ''"._d'a3r'anagar. In fact that was the arrangement between

d'\} , QA/'\.-L.»-Q/'  '



38

PW3 and accused No.1 as per the evidence of }?W3 and

contents of first information.

35. Thus, we find evidence of  that   «clue? = V. 

understanding between PW3   

accused No.2 would meet  and.V.eecused'd'  

receive bribe amount on  of aiiccueevd  from
PW3 to file a 'B' repoi~"g_._ is  accused
No.2 came onto!' Aitlixies followed them.
Accused  the bribe
    circumstances. the
evidence he had not given bribe to
accused'-.:l§'o.V2"'-- Hotel at Jayanagar and

even on the to South End Circle. Therefore,

e  __PW3 that accused No.2 demanded bribe

  _ini;..fi9ont of Gandharva Bar & Restaurant. within %

the viéioniof public looks highly incredible.

"U_ a;QU»_..£'*'/w~'<£7*~'



39

36. PW10-A.N.Swarny is the Investigating Officer. and

the leader of raiding party. PW10 has deposed; on receiipt

of first information, he made preparations  _

accused. PW10 gave instructions to to--- 'over 

bribe to accused No.2, onky if it  

No.2 and he had also instructed P'VW2tn foflowf 

accused No.2 to observe the transactions rnay take

place between PW3 andircctisegi.  _

37. PW10 hasiipjdeposedé   PW10 along
with PWs. 51'  _ in a government
jeep  in Jayanagar Complex.
They  'a" distance of 300 feet away
from airlines hotel;  earlier instructions to

 Pws' as sent them to Airlines Hotel; PW10 and

.A renfliaining-.4persons followed them; PW2 8: PW3 entered

 ;AVir1ines:'iVl3s,r'V$$t"Restaurant and PW10 and others followed

them;  sat near right side of first table; PW10 and

it   erexnaining staff were sitting near different tables; PW2

";:sat~'near the next table of PW3; at about 6.30 p.m., 3

f\; q_ Qvéx  [Bx xx»-<'€¢.\.



40

persons came and approached PW3 and sat on the first

table; out of those persons accused No.2 sat next. 

after taking tiffin they left the hotel at aboutv_:i.7'.3{'):' 

PW10 and remaining staff followed them':"accused 'No.2 '» 

and PW3 along with two other persons: 

autorickshaw and proceeded-..toward_s" South' 

PW10 and remaining staff   jeep; on
the way two other from autorickshaw:
then the autorickshaiw..:'proic.eedeti~vvvhtoryfards South End
Circle and  Bar; PW3 and
accused   autorickshaw.

38.  necessary to state that PW10

had_identifie_:d accused':No.2. It is not the evidence of

 V'  . athaet xPW3'HI1ati' already shown accused No.2 to PW10

    point of time. In fact, registration of case

 entiresirllivestigation commenced after 2.30 p.rn. on

 09.03."1'.998. In the circumstances. evidence of PWXO

A "ti 11:15: he was able to identify accused No.2 in Airlines

K} . "*-«-B"'"'"'€£'f-



Hotel at Jayanagar, and accused No.2 sat in front of PW3

looks improbable. PW10 has deposed: after 8:

accused No.2 left the hotel and boarded an  

and proceeded towards Southmh End W 

including PW}. PW2 and other  of

followed PW3 and accused No.2 inajeep,   ,

other persons, who had accompanied'. "and. accused
No.2 got down fromz:¢_._ar1to:-ticltsvhaw;"then autorickshaw
proceeded towards South  it was stopped
near    and accused No.2
atighted   was also watching
the    PW3 at a distance of 10
feet: axtalbout    gave a pre-detennined signaf to

PW10_ thereafter  'remaining staff rushed towards

  wherevv-lP.W3 and accused No.2 were standing:

 V 'vreznaining staff surrounded accused No.2 and

'orally  accused No.2 that he was under arrest:

 ther-ea'fterPW}0 disclosed his identity to accused No.2;

2 ~ ithen FW10 instructed CW20 and another person by name

 

R3 . "X Ac. -94- ~-''" ' '



42

Srinivas Shetty to lift the hands of accused No.2 by

holding his wrists: then PW10 asked accused

regarding tainted currency notes; accused;:.:l§o.'2'.i'p:'toi-ti. .

PW10 that said amount was in hisiright sigie'  " " it

then, PW10 told accused No.2 not to

notes from his pocket; PWIE} enquired name'; iandaddjress  1

of accused No.2 since that  a  place, as
there was no place  'proceedings, PW10
took all of then: to Ja.yanagigi-A :l'olice'i':V»S;tation which is
nearer to  ::i'iliTIOv»'iasked the Police
Inspector    provide one room for
condueetin§_' it   the Police Inspector
provided   to conduct further

proceedings;  w 

   Piflilflpviihas deposed; he recovered tainted currency

lnotes _ac.cused No.2 and conducted phenolphthalein

test" by~..':di'p-ping both hands of accused No.2 in sodium.

3  ..:?ca.':1)onate solution so also portion of right side pocket of

  of accused No.2 and the solution turned to pink

{V ~ (*J1g5t1.~»- ~£'.'/~'-'"' "£4"



40. At this juncture. it is necessary to recall the
evidence of PW1 8: PW2 that accused No.2 had"-..been

caught by Lokayukta police. When PW10   

the above said Lokayukta po1icemVofficiais"nsiththim. "~ 

looks probable that these  pclicé 
apprehended accused No.27in__.Vfro«ni:.  
Restaurant. The aforestatedivipersons njotfliexarnined
to prove that   received
bribe from  PW3'Ahas  presence of
these police  not deposed that
raiding   of three Inspectors
ulihalendar, Pangam and one
Dy.S.l;.',«    The presence of

aforestated" officersflgives credence to the evidence of

  gtihatpphe hadreceived a pager message. PW10 has

   "he has not examined any independent

witnesseseinviio were present in Airlines Hotel or any

 independent witnesses who were present near Gandharva

A   Restaurant. 7\:2, -xi.-p«v~€Lz«..



45

41. The evidence of PW10 that he had recovered
tainted currency notes from possession of accused."'No.2
does not inspire "confidence because PW10 
three Inspectors and one Dy.S.P.   K 
accused No.2. V  l _ an   A 

42. PW10 has deposed: himself,  
travelled in a government jeep Alriines.Vyileteliyvsvituate ind"
Jayanagar complex to South l*3VndfiCircle_.pA Theygotp from
the jeep and they were standili-g distance from PW3
and accused No.2.   §ge_a§ia.' as to what was

transpiring   'V accused No.2. In the

 of  that he apprehended
accused--.1'lo.2V aftefreceiving pre-determined signal

fron;_l'W3l'eoks. artificiall. Thus to sum up;- the evidence

 ofA}.lO"'r-egarding demand and acceptance of

  bribery recovery of tainted currency notes is mutually

iizconsistent contradictory. The evidence of ?W3 8:

 PW  accused No.2 had been caught by some other

V' *  police looks probable. The Lokayukta police,

rU_ oQ.\_.m_ {,«.m~--U(4e '



46

who had caught accused No.2, even before PW10 could
reach the place of occurrence were not examinedlbefore

the Court. The evidence of PW3 even after _._o1'~.

bribe by accused No.2 in Airlines Hotel,   play. ., 

bribe to accused No.2 looks  

prosecution has not adduced any--satisfact<ir3r:'eirid;eiieeVN

to show that accused No.'1:"had ag§e'e.{=  receive
Rs.24,000/- from  iNo.2fllbetween
6.30 13.1111. and 7.30   Airlines Hotel
at Jajranagar.    accused No.2
demandedi'brib--ei'fro_ru  of Gandharva Bar &

Restaurant    which admittedly was a

T overcrowded' incredible. The evidence of

other _Vwitne'ss_es .tE1at;I-'W3 met accused No.2 in Airlines I

  sgto  'accused No.2 looks improbable. The

  e';i'i_den'ceV't other witnesses would demonstrate that

when  No.2 and PW3 were in Airlines Hotel at

 Jayanagar. there was sufficient opportunity for accused

A   receive bribe amount from PW3. It looks

5\} ,   €14"



47

improbable that accused No.2 had demanded bribe and
PW3 did not pay bribe to accused No.2, though PW3 uras
aware the trap was laid for such purpose. Accuseg-¥...V1V:!Vz:)::.2_V
had privacy to demand and accept bribe from  _
they were travelling in autorickshavsrtowards'».§oath::EnVdi  it 
Circle. In the circumstances, evideéncedof  
No.2 demanded and received bribe froni'PW3 
path near Gandharva Bar 8:  p.m.,
within the vision of  Therefore, the
evidence of PWs.l, 2,    and

acceptance of bribafby a,ccused"Nofi'froi§r1 PW3 at about

7.30  ' front' of Gandharva Bar 8:

Restauraht cannot be:;~acc--ept«ed.

'iii'-4:3.  :y$.G..l§ajendra**'Reddy, learned counsel appearing

ilfor my attention to section 20 of the

   once it is proved that accused No.2

 'had accepted bribe amount, unless contrary is proved it

  the presumed that accused No.2 had received bribe

-{Lap _..\_.A.....,.,@'''' '*'''Q'\'



48

as motive or reward for doing official favour as

mentioned in section '7 of the Act.

44. The learned counsel for Lokayukta  if
referred to section 20(2) of thejA;ct-to   
accused No.2 is charged for an  
section 12 of the Act. Therefere;~~._when it 'isff.sroi%e'd"'that
bribe amount of Rs..-2.z4,00g0-;'--»W recove.re.d§ from
possession of accused   ahevigresumed that he
had received 'V bribe    favour as
mentioned  '7   if  

45.  I have held that
prosecution has: .»prove that accused No.2

demanded  . _ freceived illegal gratification of

 «ass.945;9eo/an-o;fi"Pa*3~at about 7.30 p.m. on 09.03.1993

  Bar 8: Restaurant near South End

cin~.1e'.' Bangatore. In the circumstances, question of

'Vraising. iaresumption against accused No.2 in terms of

A fseicti'e.n 20 of the Act does not arise, consequently there

N L A 



49

was no burden cast on accused 1 8: 2 to rebut siich
presumption. The learned trial Judge considering:
background and the attendant circumstancea .
inconsistent evidence of PW3 regarding   
acceptance of bribe and purposei__for:-~ezhich_.:
demanded has held that prosec-sitioniihaéi  
that accused No.1 through   haaivdenianded
illegal gratification of to shorv Hvofficial
favour to PW3 by  case. The
learned trial  '*d.i.acrepancies and
improbable  to PW3 & I-'W10
and also  of iuvprosecution to adduce
evidenceivvieirafitnesses and other officials of

Lokayukfca. Vl?1i0V_Vh&d:--beeni'involved by PW 10 during trap.

"laas itlxat pros'ec1'ition has failed to prove that

.V'acu'u:a_ed No§2."den3anded and received illegal gratification

of from FW3 at about 7.30 p.xn. on

 O_»9.03.'1~3Sil3_ in front of Gandharva Bar 8: Restaurant near

  and Circle. K?' cxgjvx Q 4___/g_Q;l/(,\'



50

46. On re-appreciation of evidence, I do not find any

grounds to interfere with the impugned judgrne1i'3;:"c3_;i' .

acquittal. Therefore, I pass the following:-

ORDER

The appeal is dismissed. SNN