Karnataka High Court
State By Lokayuktha Police vs H H Srinivasa Murthy on 8 July, 2022
Author: V. Srishananda
Bench: V. Srishananda
1 Crl.A.No.611/2012
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 8TH DAY OF JULY, 2022
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V. SRISHANANDA
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.611/2012
BETWEEN
STATE BY LOKAYUKTHA POLICE
TUMKUR
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI B S PRASAD, ADVOCATE)
AND
H H SRINIVASA MURTHY
S/O HANUMANTHAIAH,
AGED ABOUT 39 YRS
VILLAGE ACCOUNTANT
KANDIKERE CIRCLE
C.N.HALLI TALUK
TUMKUR DISTRICT
...RESPONDENT
(BY SRI VIJAY KRISHNA BHAT .M, ADVOCATE)
THIS CRL.A. IS FILED U/S.378(1) & (3) OF CR.P.C
PRAYING TO GRANT LEAVE TO FILE AN APPEAL AGAINST THE
JUDGEMENT AND ORDER OF ACQUITTAL DATED 29/11/2011
PASSED BY THE II ADDL. DIST. & SESSIONS JUDGE, TUMKUR IN
SPL. CASE No.36/2006 - ACQUITTING THE RESPONDENT/
ACCUSED FOR THE OFFENCES P/U/S.7, 13(1)(d) R/W.SEC.13(2)
OF THE PREVENTION OF CORRUPTION ACT, 1988.
THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR FURTHER ARGUMENTS
THIS DAY, THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:-
2 Crl.A.No.611/2012
JUDGMENT
The present appeal is filed by the State challenging the validity of the judgment passed in Spl.Case No.36/2006 dated 29.11.2011 passed by the II Addl District and Sessions Judge, Tumakuru wherein, respondent - accused has been acquitted for the offences punishable under Section 7, 13 (1) (d) r/w Section 13 (2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.
2. Brief facts of the case are as under:
A complaint came to be lodged with Lokayuktha Police, Tumakuru on 02.02.2005 by Nagaraja S/o Ningaiah. The gist of the complaint averments reveal that mother of the complainant by name Ningamma possessed the agricultural land of her father in Kandikere village, bearing Sy.Nos.298/5P1, 255/13, 298/4 and 262/5, totally measuring 2 1/2 acres. The same was settled in favour of the mother of the complainant in a panchayath. In respect of transfer of revenue entries, an application was filed on 13.12.2004 in Taluk office, Chikkanayakanahalli. The application was forwarded to the village Accountant of Urulu village. The said application was being processed by Srinivas (respondent).
Since mother of the complainant was suffering from old age 3 Crl.A.No.611/2012 ailments, he contacted the respondent - accused and enquired about the pending application. The respondent - accused stated that the documents furnished along with the application are not proper and therefore, sought for illegal gratification of Rs.1,500/- to ignore the deficiency in the application and mutate the revenue entries. When the complainant informed him that he was unable to pay Rs.1,500/-, accused bargained the said sum to Rs.1000/-. He further tried to negotiate, which was stand down by the accused. However, he was not interested in paying the said sum and with reluctance, he paid Rs.200/- as advance and thereafter intimated the incident to the police on 01.02.2005 along with one Sannaiah. Thereafter, the tape recorder was given to the complainant for recording the conversation between him and accused about the intended work and the demand of the illegal gratification and thereafter, the complainant approached the accused and had a conversation recorded and gave the complaint on 02.02.2005.
3. On being satisfied about the genuineness of the complaint averments, Lokayuktha Police registered the case based on the complaint given by the complainant in 4 Crl.A.No.611/2012 Cr.No.3/2005 for the offences punishable under Section 7, 13 (1) (d) r/w Section 13 (2) of the prevention of corruption Act, 1988.
4. Further there to, the Lokayuktha Inspector arranged for the intended trap by securing two witnesses who are the Government servants and explained them about the contents of the complaint and demonstrated chemical reaction of phenolphthalein powder with Sodium Carbonate solution. After smearing the phenolphthalein powder to the amount of Rs.800/- which were taken from the complainant. The serial numbers of the currency notes were also noted and an entrustment mahazar was drafted. Complainant and shadow witnesses were advised to go to the accused and on demand, hand over the tainted currency to the hands of the accused and give a pre-designated signal. Thereafter, the trap party went to the office of the accused. However, since the accused was not available, the trap failed on 02.02.2005 and therefore, the trap party returned and took shelter in a private house.
5 Crl.A.No.611/2012
5. Again on the next day i.e., on 03.02.2005, the trap party visited the office of the accused. Complainant and shadow witness went inside the office of the accused and since there was a rush in the office of the accused, accused directed them to hand over the tainted currency to the Village Accountant in Kandikere village. After the said information received by the trap party, entire trap party proceeded to Kandikere village and tried to contact the Village Accountant in Kandikere village by name Nagaraju. Again the trap party returned to the office of the accused and waited for handing over the tainted currency on demand. At about 8.00 pm., when the accused came out from his office, the complainant handed over the tainted currency and the trap party was given the pre-designated signal, immediately trap party raided the accused and at that juncture, the accused thrown the tainted currency which was received by him. The said currency was thrown inside compound of the police station situated next to the office of the accused. The currency notes were picked up from that place and reluctant test was conducted. Since colour test stood positive, the accused was arrested and a draft mahazar was drawn and the proceedings 6 Crl.A.No.611/2012 that took place from morning till evening. Explanation of the accused was sought and accused was produced before the Special Court. Thereafter, Investigating Agency completed the investigation, filed the charge sheet against the accused for the aforesaid offences.
6. Presence of the accused was secured and charges were framed. Since, the accused pleaded not guilty, prosecution examined in all nine witnesses to prove the case against the accused as PWs.1 to 9. Prosecution also relied on thirteen documents in support of its case which were exhibited and marked as Exs.P.1 to P.13. Material objects ten in numbers were also relied on by the prosecution marked as MOs.1 to 10. While cross-examining PW.1, defence got marked the portion of the statement given by PW.1 before the Investigating Agency as Ex.D1.
7. Thereafter, the Trial Court recorded the accused statement as contemplated under Section 313 Cr.P.C. Accused has denied all the incriminating materials that were put to him at the time of recording the accused statement. Accused did not furnish any written submission as is 7 Crl.A.No.611/2012 contemplated under Section 313 (5) of Cr.P.C. Thereafter, learned Trial Judge heard the parties in detail and acquitted the accused for the aforesaid offences.
8. Being aggrieved by the said judgment, the State has preferred the present appeal on the following grounds:
"That the judgment and order of acquittal passed by the learned Special Judge is contrary to law and the evidence on record. Hence, the same is liable to be set aside.
The evidence on record is not properly appreciated by the learned Special Judge in its proper perspective which has resulted in miscarriage of justice.
It is submitted that the learned Spl. Judge acquitted the respondent/accused on the ground that there was no corroboration to the evidence of shadow witness, since the complainant has not supported the case of the prosecution regarding demand and acceptance of bribe amount.
That the PW.1 is the shadow witness, who speaks about conducting of entrustment panchanama and going to the office of the accused along with the complainant and there the accused demanding and accepting the bribe amount from the complainant and the same was recovered. PW2 is the panch witness for entrustment of trap panchanama. PW5 Asst. Engineer who drawn the sketch of the spot, PW6 is the village accountant who has signed the 8 Crl.A.No.611/2012 arrest memo, PW7 is the sanctioning authority, PW8 is the complainant who has not supported the case of the prosecution and treated as hostile, PW9 is the investigating officer. No doubt the complainant has not supported for the case of the prosecution. The evidence of shadow witness and other witnesses clearly establishes that the respondent accused has demanded and accepted Rs.800/- from the complainant to do the official work. No major contradictions or omissions were brought out by the prosecution to disbelieve their testimony.
It is submitted that, when the prosecution has proved beyond reasonable doubt that the accused demand and accepted the bribe amount from the complainant, the learned Spl. Judge ought to have drawn the presumption under Sec. 20 of the Prevention of Corruption Act and ought to have convicted the respondent accused.
Thus, viewed from any angle, the order of acquittal passed by the learned Special Judge is even otherwise illegal, improper and deserves to be set aside."
9. Reiterating the grounds urged in the appeal, Sri B.S. Prasad, learned counsel for the appellant vehemently contended that the learned Trial Judge has not properly appreciated the material evidence on record and passed the impugned judgment and acquitted the accused which is 9 Crl.A.No.611/2012 incorrect and sought for allowing the appeal. They have also pointed out that minor discrepancies in the case of the prosecution is blown out of proportion by the learned Trial Judge to doubt the case of the prosecution and sought for allowing the appeal.
10. In support of the documents, learned counsel for the appellant has relied on following judgments:
(i) Phula Singh v. State of Himachal Pradesh reported in (2014) 4 SCC 9, wherein at para nos.11 and 12, it is held as under:
11. The accused has a duty to furnish an explanation in his statement under Section 313 CrPC regarding any incriminating material that has been produced against him. If the accused has been given the freedom to remain silent during the investigation as well as before the court, then the accused may choose to maintain silence or even remain in complete denial when his statement under Section 313, Cr.PC is being recorded. However, in such an event, the court would be entitled to draw an inference, including such adverse inference against the accused as may be permissible in accordance with law.
10 Crl.A.No.611/2012
12. In the instant case, we fail to understand as to under what circumstances the appellant could maintain complete silence particularly, in view of the fact that he did not deny his visit to the house of the complainant or that his shirt was found hanging on the peg in the wall and that his hands turned pink on being washed with sodium carbonate water. We do not find any force in the submission advanced by Shri D.K. Garg that it was not a fit case where the High Court ought to have reversed the well-reasoned judgment of acquittal as it was based on evidence on record.
(ii) M. Narsinga Rao v. State of A.P., reported in (2001) 1 SCC 691, wherein at para No.14, it is held as under:
14. When the sub-section deals with legal presumption it is to be understood as in terrorem i.e. in tone of a command that it has to be presumed that the accused accepted the gratification as a motive or reward for doing or forbearing to do any official act etc., if the condition envisaged in the former part of the section is satisfied. The only condition for drawing such a legal presumption under Section 20 is that during trial it should be proved that the accused has accepted or agreed to accept any gratification.11 Crl.A.No.611/2012
The section does not say that the said condition should be satisfied through direct evidence. Its only requirement is that it must be proved that the accused has accepted or agreed to accept gratification. Direct evidence is one of the modes through which a fact can be proved. But that is not the only mode envisaged in the Evidence Act.
(iii) Dhanvantrai Balwantrai Desai v. State of Maharashtra, reported in 1963 Supp (1) SCR 485, wherein at para Nos.10 and 12, it is held as under:
10. Thus the receipt of Rs 1000 was admitted by the appellant. This was admittedly not the appellant's "legal remuneration". The first question, therefore, is whether a presumption under sub-section 1 of Section 4 of the Prevention of Corruption Act arises in this case. That provision runs thus:
"Where in any trial of an offence punishable under Section 161 or Section 165 of the Indian Penal Code it is proved that an accused person has accepted or obtained, or has agreed to accept or attempted to obtain, for himself or for any other person, any gratification (other than legal remuneration) or any valuable thing from any person, it shall be presumed unless the contrary is proved that he accepted or obtained, or agreed to 12 Crl.A.No.611/2012 accept or attempted to obtain, that gratification or that valuable thing, as the case may be, as a motive or reward such as is mentioned in the said Section 161, or, as the case may be, without consideration or for a consideration which he knows to be inadequate."
It was contended that the use of the word "gratification" in sub-section (1) of Section 4 emphasises that the mere receipt of any money does not justify the raising of a presumption thereunder and that something more than the mere receipt of money has to be proved. A similar argument was raised before this Court in C.I. Emden v. State of Uttar Pradesh [AIR 1960 SC 548] . Dealing with it this Court has pointed out that what the prosecution has to prove is that the accused person has received "gratification other than legal remuneration" and that when it is shown that he has received a certain sum of money which was not a legal remuneration, then the condition prescribed by this section is satisfied. This Court then proceeded to observe:
"If the word 'gratification' is construed to mean money paid by way of a bribe then it would be futile or superfluous to prescribe for the raising of the presumption. Technically it may no doubt be suggested that the object which the statutory 13 Crl.A.No.611/2012 presumption serves on this construction is that the court may then presume that the money was paid by way of a bribe as a motive or reward as required by Section 161 of the Code. In our opinion this could not have been the intention of the legislature in prescribing the statutory presumption under Section 4(1)."
This Court further said that there is yet another consideration which supports the construction placed by it. In this connection a reference was made to Section 165 of the Code and it was observed:
"It cannot be suggested that the relevant clause in Section 4(1) which deals with the acceptance of any valuable thing should be interpreted to impose upon the prosecution an obligation to prove not only that the valuable thing has been received by the accused but that it has been received by him without consideration or for a consideration which he knows to be inadequate. The plain meaning of this clause undoubtedly requires the presumption to be raised whenever it is shown that the valuable thing has been received by the accused without anything more. If that is the true position in respect of the construction of this part of Section 4(1) it would be unreasonable to hold that the word 'gratification' in the same clause imports the 14 Crl.A.No.611/2012 necessity to prove not only the payment of money but the incriminating character of the said payment. It is true that the legislature might have used the word 'money' or 'consideration' as has been done by the relevant section of the English statute;...."
That being the legal position it must be held that the requirements of sub-section (1) of Section 4 have been fulfilled in the present case and the presumption thereunder must be raised.
12. Mr Chari contends that upon the view taken by the High Court it would mean that an accused person is required to discharge more or less the same burden for proving his innocence which the prosecution has to discharge for proving the guilt of an accused person. He referred us to the decision in Otto Georgr Gfeller v. King [AIR 1943 PC 211] and contended that whether a presumption arises from the common course of human affairs or from a statute there is no difference as to the manner in which that presumption could be rebutted. In the decision referred to above the Privy Council, when dealing with a case from Nigeria, held that if an explanation was given which the jury think might reasonably be true and which is consistent with innocence, although they were not convinced of its 15 Crl.A.No.611/2012 truth, the accused person would be entitled to acquittal inasmuch as the prosecution would have failed to discharge the duty cast upon it of satisfying the jury beyond reasonable doubt of the guilt of the accused. That, however, was a case where the question before the jury was whether a presumption of the kind which in India may be raised under Section 114 of the Evidence Act could be raised from the fact of possession of goods recently stolen, that the possessor of the goods was either a thief or receiver of stolen property. In the case before us, however, the presumption arises not under Section 114 of the Evidence Act but under Section 4(1) of the Prevention of Corruption Act. It is well to bear in mind that whereas under Section 114 of the Evidence Act it is open to the court to draw or not to draw a presumption as to the existence of one fact from the proof of another fact and it is not obligatory upon the court to draw such presumption, under sub-section (1) of Section 4, however, if a certain fact is proved, that is, where any gratification (other than legal gratification) or any valuable thing is proved to have been received by an accused person the court is required to draw a presumption that the person received that thing as a motive of reward such as is mentioned in Section 161 IPC. Therefore, the court has no choice in the 16 Crl.A.No.611/2012 matter, once it is established that the accused person has received a sum of money which was not due to him as a legal remuneration. Of course, it is open to that person to show that though that money was not due to him as a legal remuneration it was legally due to him in some other manner or that he had received it under a transaction or an arrangement which was lawful. The burden resting on the accused person in such a case would not be as light as it is where a presumption is raised under Section 114 of the Evidence Act and cannot be held to be discharged merely by reason of the fact that the explanation offered by the accused is reasonable and probable. It must further be shown that the explanation is a true one. The words "unless the contrary is proved" which occur in this provision make it clear that the presumption has to be rebutted by "proof" and not by a bare explanation which is merely plausible. A fact is said to be proved when its existence is directly established or when upon the material before it the court finds its existence to be so probable that a reasonable man would act on the supposition that it exists. Unless, therefore, the explanation is supported by proof, the presumption created by the provision cannot be said to be rebutted.
(iv) V.D. Jhingan v. State of U.P., reported in (1966) 3 SCR 736, wherein at para 4, it is held as under: 17 Crl.A.No.611/2012
4. The next question arising in this case is as to what is the burden of proof placed upon the accused person against whom the presumption is drawn under Section 4(1) of the Prevention of Corruption Act. It is well-established that where the burden of an issue lies upon the accused, he is not required to discharge that burden by leading evidence to prove his case beyond a reasonable doubt. That is, of course, the test prescribed in deciding whether the prosecution has discharged its onus to prove the guilt of the accused; but the same test cannot be applied to an accused person who seeks to discharge the burden placed upon him under Section 4(1) of the Prevention of Corruption Act. It is sufficient if the accused person succeeds in proving a preponderance of probability in favour of his case; it is not necessary for the accused person to prove his case beyond a reasonable doubt or in default to incur a verdict of guilty. The onus of proof lying upon the accused person is to prove his case by a preponderance of probability. As soon as he succeeds in doing so, the burden is shifted to the prosecution which still has to discharge its original onus that never shifts i.e. that of establishing on the whole case the guilt of the accused beyond a reasonable doubt. It was observed by Viscount Sankey in Woolmington v.
Director of Public Prosecutions [1935 AC 462] that 18 Crl.A.No.611/2012 "no matter what the charge or where the trial, the principle that the prosecution must prove the guilt of the prisoner is part of the common law of England and no attempt to whittle it down can be entertained". This principle is a fundamental part of the english common law and the same position prevails in the Criminal law of India. That does not mean that if the statute places the burden of proof on an accused person, he is not required to establish his plea; but the degree and character of proof which the accused is expected to furnish in support of his plea, cannot be equated with the degree and character of proof expected from the prosecution which is required to prove its case. In Rex v. Carr-Briant [1943 1 KB 607] a somewhat similar question arose before the English court of appeal. In that case, the appellant was charged with the offence of corruptly making a gift or loan to a person in the employ of the War Department as an inducement to show, or as a reward for showing favour to him. The charge was laid under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1916, and in respect of such a charge, Section 2 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1916, had provided that a consideration shall be deemed to be given corruptly unless the contrary is proved. The question which arose before the Court was: what is the accused required to prove if he wants to 19 Crl.A.No.611/2012 claim the benefit of the exception? At the trial, the Judge had directed the jury that the onus of proving his innocence lay on the accused and that the burden of proof resting on him to negative corruption was as heavy as that ordinarily resting on the prosecution. The Court of Criminal Appeal held that this direction did not correctly represent the true position in law. It was held by the court of appeal that where, either by statute or at Common law, some matter is presumed against an accused person "unless the contrary is proved", the jury should be directed that the burden of proof on the accused is less than that required at the hands of the prosecution in proving the case beyond a reasonable doubt, and that this burden may be discharged by evidence satisfying the jury of the probability of that which the accused is called on to establish. The ratio of this case was referred to with approval by this Court in Harbhajan Singh v. State of Punjab [ Criminal Appeal No. 53 of 1961
-- decided on March 2, 1965] . We are accordingly of the opinion that the burden of proof lying upon the accused under Section 4(1) of the Prevention of Corruption Act will be satisfied if the accused person establishes his case by a preponderance of probability and it is not necessary that he should establish his case by the test of proof beyond a reasonable doubt. In other words, the onus on an 20 Crl.A.No.611/2012 accused person may well be compared to the onus on a party in civil proceedings, and just as in civil proceedings, the court trying an issue makes its decision by adopting the test of probabilities, so must a Criminal Court hold that the plea made by the accused is proved if a preponderance of probability is established by the evidence led by him.
11. Per contra, Sri Vijay Krishna Bhat, learned counsel appearing for the respondent, contended that the entire case of the prosecution is ingenious and concoction in some how implicating the accused - respondent in the case and sought for dismissal of the appeal.
12. He further argued that the accused never demanded the illegal gratification nor accepted the illegal gratification. The tainted currency was thrusted into the accused hands by the complainant at the end of the work when accused had clearly refused to accept any money from the complainant on earlier occasions, when the complainant tried to hand over money to the hands of the accused. It is also argued that the trap party was unsuccessful on 02.02.2015, at the end of the working hours on 03.02.2015 at 21 Crl.A.No.611/2012 about 8.00 pm., the trap party remanded to show of the trap and illegally arrested the appellant and falsely implicated him in the case, is rightly appreciated by the learned Trial Judge in the impugned judgment and acquitted the accused and therefore, sought for dismissal of the appeal.
13. In view of the rival contentions of the parties, this Court perused material on record meticulously. On such perusal of the materials on record, following points would arise for consideration:
1. Whether the prosecution has successfully established all ingredients to attract the offence punishable under the provisions of Section 7, 13 (1) (d), r/w Section 13 (2) of the Prevention Of Corruption Act, 1988?
2. Whether the impugned judgment is suffering from legal infirmity and perversity and thus calls for interference?
14. In order to prove the case of the prosecution, before the Trial Court, nine witnesses have been examined on behalf of the prosecution as PWs.1 to 9. Among them, PW.1 22 Crl.A.No.611/2012 is the shadow witness and he has deposed about the contents of the entrustment mahazar and the trap mahazar. He has also deposed that seven currency notes of 100 rupees denomination and two currency notes of 50 rupees denomination was smeared with phenolphthalein powder and its serial numbers were noted in a separate sheet of paper and incorporated in the entrustment mahazar. Further deposed that on 02.02.2005, they were unable to trap the accused, as accused was not present in the office. He further deposed about the chronological events that took place on 03.02.2005 and the trap that took place around 8.00 pm., in front of the office of the accused. In his cross-examination, he admits that he has given statement before the Investigating Agency as per Ex.D.1.
Ex.D.1 reads as under:
"vÀĪÀÄPÀÆgÀÄ ¯ÉÆÃPÁAiÀÄÄPÀÛ oÁuÉ ªÉÆ.£ÀA.3/2005 ºÉýPÉ:-
²æà ¹.J£ï. £ÁUÀAiÀÄå, ©£ï. ¯ÉÃmï £ÀgÀ¹AºÀAiÀÄå, 46 ªÀµÀð, ºÀjd£À, ¥ÀæxÀªÀÄ zÀeÉð ¸ÀºÁAiÀÄPÀgÀÄ, ¥ÁæzÉòPÀ ¸ÁjUÉ C¢üPÁjUÀ¼À PÀbÉÃj, vÀĪÀÄPÀÆgÀÄ, ªÁ¸À: lÆqÁ ¯ÉÃOmï, ¹gÁ UÉÃmï, vÀĪÀÄPÀÆgÀÄ, ¸ÀéAvÀ ¸ÀܼÀ:- aîUÁ£À ºÀ½î, PÉÆgÀlUÉgÉ vÁ®ÆèPÀÄ, vÀĪÀÄPÀÆgÀÄ f¯Éè.23 Crl.A.No.611/2012
¢£ÁAPÀ 04.02.2005 £Á£ÀÄ ªÉÄîÌAqÀ «¼Á¸ÀzÀ°è PÀvÀðªÀå ¤ªÀð»¸ÀÄwÛzÀÄÝ ¢£ÁAPÀ 02.02.2005 gÀAzÀÄ JA¢£ÀAvÉ PÀvÀðªÀåPÉÌ ºÁdgÁzÉ£ÀÄ. £ÀªÀÄä ªÉÄî¢üPÁjUÀ¼ÀÄ ¸ÀªÀÄAiÀÄ ¨É½UÉÎ 11-15 UÀAmÉAiÀÄ°è £À£ÀߣÀÄß PÀgÉzÀÄ vÀĪÀÄPÀÆgÀÄ ¯ÉÆÃPÁAiÀÄÄPÀÛ oÁuÉAiÀÄ ¥ÉÆðøï E£ïì ¥ÉPÀÖgï gÀªÀgÀ ªÀÄÄAzÉ ºÁdgÁV ªÀgÀ¢ ªÀiÁrPÉƼÀÄîªÀAvÉ w½¹zÀgÀÄ. CªÀgÀ DzÉñÀzÀAvÉ £Á£ÀÄ ¨É½UÉÎ ¸ÀªÀÄAiÀÄ ¸ÀĪÀiÁgÀÄ 11-40gÀ°è vÀĪÀÄPÀÆgÀÄ ¯ÉÆÃPÁAiÀÄÄPÀÛ oÁuÉAiÀÄ ¥ÉÆðøï E£ïì ¥ÉPÀÖgïgÀªÀgÀ ªÀÄÄAzÉ ºÁdgÁV ªÀgÀ¢ ªÀiÁrPÉÆAqÉ£ÀÄ. CzÉà ¸ÀªÀÄAiÀÄPÉÌ ²æà £ÁgÁAiÀÄt ¸Áé«Ä, PÀ£ÀßqÀ ¨sÁµÀ ¨sÉÆÃzsÀPÀgÀÄ, ¸ÀPÁðj ¥ÀzÀ« ¥ÀƪÀð PÁ¯ÉÃdÄ, vÀĪÀÄPÀÆgÀÄ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ ²æà ¸ÀzÁ²ªÀ¥Àà, ¥ÀæxÀªÀÄ zÀeÉð ¸ÀºÁAiÀÄPÀgÀÄ, ¥ÀzÀ« ¥ÀƪÀð ²PÀët G¥À ¤zÉÃð±ÀPÀgÀ PÀZÉÃj vÀĪÀÄPÀÆgÀÄ EªÀgÀÆ ¸ÀºÀ ºÁdgÁV ªÀgÀ¢ ªÀiÁrPÉÆAqÀgÀÄ. ¥ÉÆðøï E£ïì¥ÉPÀÖgï gÀªÀgÀÄ vÀªÀÄä PÉÆoÀrAiÀÄ°è ºÁdjzÀÝ ²æà £ÁUÀgÁdÄ, ©£ï ¤AUÀAiÀÄå, PÀA¢PÉgÉ UÁæªÀÄ, aPÀÌ£ÁAiÀÄPÀ£À ºÀ½î EªÀgÀ£ÀÄß ¥ÀjZÀ¬Ä¹ CªÀgÄÀ ¤ÃrgÀĪÀ zÀÆj£À ªÉÄÃ¯É vÀĪÀÄPÀÆgÀÄ ¯ÉÆÃPÁAiÀÄÄPÀÛ oÁuÉ ªÉÆ.£ÀA.3/2005 PÀ®A 7, 13(1)(r) eÉÆvÉUÉ 13(2) ¦.¹ DPïÖ 1988 gÀ°è ¥ÀæPÀgÀt zÁR®Ä ªÀiÁrgÀĪÀÅzÁV w½¹ ¸ÀzÀj ¥ÀæPÀgÀtzÀ ¥ÀæxÀªÀÄ ªÀvÀðªÀiÁ£À ªÀgÀ¢AiÀÄ £ÀPÀ®£ÀÄß £ÀªÀÄäUÀ½UÉ N¢PÉƼÀî®Ä PÉÆlÖgÀÄ. ¸ÀzÀj zÀÆgÀ£ÀÄß N¢PÉƼÀî¯ÁV ¸ÀzÀj zÀÆj£À ¸ÁgÁA±ÀªÉãÉAzÀgÉ "¦gÁå¢AiÀĪÀgÀ vÁvÀ CAzÀgÉ vÁ¬ÄAiÀÄ vÀAzÉ CAd£À¥Àà JA§ÄªÀªÀjUÉ UÀAqÀÄ ªÀÄPÀ̽®èzÀ ¥ÀæAiÀÄÄPÀÛ vÀ£ÀVgÀĪÀ ¸ÀĪÀiÁgÀÄ JgÀqÀƪÀgÉ JPÀgÉ d«ÄãÀ£ÀÄß vÀ£Àß £Á®ÄÌ d£À ºÉtÄÚ ªÀÄPÀ̽UÉ «¨sÁUÀ ªÀiÁrzÀÄÝ ¦gÁå¢AiÀÄ vÁ¬ÄAiÀÄ£ÀÄß½zÀÄ EvÀgÉ ªÀÄÆgÀÄ d£À ºÉtÄÚ ªÀÄPÀ̼ÀÄ ¸ÁPÀµÀÄÖ ¹ÜwªÀAvÀgÁVgÀĪÀÅzÀjAzÀ ¸ÀzÀj d«ÄãÀ£ÀÄß ¦gÁå¢AiÀÄ vÁ¬Ä 24 Crl.A.No.611/2012 ¤AUÀªÀÄä£ÀªÀgÀ ºÉ¸ÀjUÉ §gÉzÀÄPÉÆnÖzÀÄÝ ¸ÀzÀj d«Ää£À SÁvÉ §zÀ¯ÁªÀuÉAiÀÄ£ÀÄß ¥ÀAZÁ¬ÄÛ ¥ÁjÃPÀvï jÃvÁå ªÀiÁrPÉÆqÀ®Ä PÉÆÃj aPÀÌ£ÁAiÀÄPÀ£ÀºÀ½î vÁ®ÆèPÀÄ PÀZÉÃjUÉ ¢£ÁAPÀ 30.11.2004 gÀAzÀÄ ¸À°è¹zÀ Cfð ªÀÄÄA¢£À PÀæªÀÄPÁÌV PÀA¢PÉgÉ UÁæªÀÄ ¯ÉQÌUÀjUÉ §A¢zÀÄ, UÁæªÀÄ ¯ÉQÌUÀ ²æäªÁ¸ïgÀªÀgÀÄ SÁvÁ §zÀ¯ÁªÀuÉ ªÀiÁrPÉÆqÀ®Ä MAzÀƪÀgÉ ¸Á«gÀ gÀÆUÀ¼À ®AZÀzÀ ºÀtPÁÌV MvÁ۬Ĺ, PÉÆ£ÉUÉ MAzÀÄ ¸Á«gÀgÀÆUÀ½UÉ ¤UÀ¢ü¥Àr¹ 200.00 gÀÆUÀ¼À£ÀÄß ªÀÄÄAUÀqÀªÁV ¥ÀqÉzÀÄ ¨ÁQ ºÀtªÀ£ÀÄß ¨ÉÃUÀ vÀAzÀÄPÉÆqÀĪÀAvÉ MvÁ۬ĹzÀÄÝ ¦gÁå¢UÉ ®AZÀzÀ ºÀt PÉÆqÀ®Ä ªÀÄ£À¹ì®èzÀÝjAzÀ PÁ£ÀÆ£ÀÄ PÀæªÀÄ PÉÊUÉƼÀî®Ä PÉÆÃj zÀÆgÀÄ ¤ÃrgÀÄvÁÛgÉ." ¸ÀzÀj zÀÆj£À §UÉÎ ¦gÁå¢AiÀÄ£ÀÄß ªÀÄvÉÆÛªÉÄä PÉý RavÀ¥Àr¹PÉÆAqÀ £Á£ÀÄ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ EvÀgÉ ¸ÀPÁðj ¸ÁQëzÁgÀgÀÄUÀ¼ÀÄ vÀ¤SÁ¢üPÁjUÀ¼À ¸ÀÆZÀ£ÉAiÀÄAvÉ F ¥ÀæPÀgÀtzÀ°è ¥ÀAZÀ¸ÁQëUÀ¼ÁV ¸ÀºÀPÀj¸À®Ä M¦àPÉÆAqɪÀÅ.
£ÀAvÀgÀ vÀ¤SÁ¢üPÁjUÀ¼À ¸ÀÆZÀ£ÉAiÀÄAvÉ ¦ügÁåzÀÄzÁgÀgÀÄ DgÉÆæ £ËPÀgÀjUÉ PÉÆqÀ®Ä vÀA¢gÀĪÀ ®AZÀzÀ ºÀtªÀ£ÀÄß ºÁdgÀÄ ¥Àr¹zÀÄÝ vÀ¤SÁ¢üPÁjUÀ¼À ¸ÀÆZÀ£ÉAiÀÄAvÉ ¥ÀAZÀ ¸ÁQë ¸ÀzÁ²ªÀ¥Àà£ÀªÀgÀÄ ¸ÀzÀj ºÀtªÀ£ÀÄß ¥Àj²Ã°¹ £ÉÆÃr CªÀÅUÀ¼ÀÄ 100- 00 gÀÆ ªÀÄÄR¨É¯ÉAiÀÄ 7£ÉÆÃlÄUÀ¼ÀÄ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ 50-00 gÀÆ ªÀÄÄR¨É¯ÉAiÀÄ 2 £ÉÆÃlÄUÀ½zÀÄÝ MlÄÖ 800-00 gÀÆ EgÀĪÀÅzÁV w½¹ CªÀÅUÀ¼À £ÀA§gÀÄUÀ¼ÀÄ F jÃw JAzÀÄ £ÀªÀÄÆzÀÄ ªÀiÁr¹zÀgÀÄ.
1. 100-00 gÀÆ ªÀÄÄR ¨É¯ÉAiÀÄ MAzÀÄ £ÉÆÃn£À £ÀA§gÀÄ 2 ºÉZïJ553117,
2. 100-00 gÀÆ ªÀÄÄR ¨É¯ÉAiÀÄ MAzÀÄ £ÉÆÃn£À £ÀA§gÀÄ 6 J¸ïJ£ï 183436
3. 100-00 gÀÆ ªÀÄÄR ¨É¯ÉAiÀÄ MAzÀÄ £ÉÆÃn£À £ÀA§gÀÄ 5 J¥sïE 337617 25 Crl.A.No.611/2012
4. 100-00 gÀÆ ªÀÄÄR ¨É¯ÉAiÀÄ MAzÀÄ £ÉÆÃn£À £ÀA§gÀÄ 1 qÀ§Äèöå qÀ§Äèöå309711
5. 100-00gÀÆ ªÀÄÄR ¨É¯ÉAiÀÄ MAzÀÄ £ÉÆÃn£À £ÀA§gÀÄ 0 J¯ïJ 691271
6. 100-00 gÀÆ ªÀÄÄR¨É¯ÉAiÀÄ MAzÀÄ £ÉÆÃn£À £ÀA¨gÀÄ 0 ¹ qÀ§Æèöå 691323
7. 100-00 gÀÆ ªÀÄÄR¨É¯ÉAiÀÄ £ÉÆÃn£À £ÀA§gÀÄ 5 ºÀZïE 591153, ªÀÄvÀÄÛ
8. 50-00gÀÆ ªÀÄÄR ¨É¯ÉAiÀÄ MAzÀÄ £ÉÆÃnÃ¸ï £ÀA§gÀÄ 6 ¦¦ 044812
9. 50-00 gÀÆ ªÀÄÄR ¨É¯ÉAiÀÄ MAzÀÄ £ÉÆÃnÃ¸ï £ÀA§gÀÄ 1 J¯ï« 367614 JAzÀÄ £ÀªÀÄÆzÀÄ ªÀiÁr¹zÀgÄÀ .
£ÀAvÀgÀ vÀ¤SÁ¢üPÁjUÀ¼À ¸ÀÆZÀ£ÉAiÀÄAvÉ ¹§âA¢ ¢°Ã¥ï ¹AUï, ºÉZï.¹.gÀªÀgÀÄ ¸ÀzÀj £ÉÆÃlÄUÀ¼À JgÀqÆ À §¢UÀÆ ¥É£Á¥ÀÛ°Ã£ï ¥ÀÄrAiÀÄ£ÀÄß vɼÀĪÁV ¯Éæ¹zÀgÀÄ. £ÀAvÀgÀ ¥ÀAZÀ¸ÁQë ¸ÀzÁ²ªÀ¥àÀ£ÀªÀgÄÀ vÀ¤SÁ¢üPÁjUÀ¼À ¸ÀÆZÀ£ÉAiÀÄAvÉ ¸ÀzÀj £ÉÆÃlÄUÀ¼À£ÄÀ ß vÀªÄÀ ä PÉÊUÉ vÉUÉzÀÄPÉÆAqÀÄ JgÀqÀÆ PÉÊUÀ½AzÀ Jt¹, ¥ÀÄ£ÀB mÉç¯ï ªÉÄðlÖgÄÀ .
£ÀAvÀgÀ vÀ¤SÁ¢üPÁjUÀ¼À ¸ÀÆZÀ£ÉAiÀÄAvÉ ¹§âA¢AiÀĪÀgÄÀ MAzÀÄ UÁf£À §lÖ°£À°è ¸ÉÆÃrAiÀÄA PÁ¨ÉÆÃð£ÉÃmï ¥ÀÄrAiÀÄ£ÀÄß ¤r£À°è ¨Égɹ zÁæªÀtªÀ£ÀÄß vÀAiÀiÁj¹zÀÄÝ ¸ÀzÀj zÁæªÀt §tÚ«®èzÁVvÀÄÛ. ¸ÀzÀj zÁæªÀtzÀ ¸Àé®à ¨sÁUÀªÀ£ÀÄß vÉUÉzÀÄ MAzÀÄ ±ÀÄzÀÞªÁzÀ ¹Ã¸ÉUÉ ºÁQ ªÀÄÄZÀѼÀ ªÀÄÄaÑ, ªÀÄÄZÀѼÀzÀ ¨sÁUÀPÉÌ §mÉÖ ¸ÀÄwÛ zÁgÀ¢AzÀ PÀnÖ, zÁgÀzÀ UÀAn£À ¨sÁUÀPÉÌ CgÀUÀÄ ºÁQ EAVèõï£À "¹" JA§ CPÀëgÀ¢AzÀ ¹Ã®Ä ªÀiÁr, «ªÀgÀ £ÀªÀÄÆ¢¹zÀ aÃnUÉ ¥ÀAZÀgÀÄUÀ½AzÀ ¸À» ¥ÀqÉzÄÀ , vÀ¤SÁ¢üPÁjUÀ¼ÄÀ ¸À» ªÀiÁr ¸ÀzÀj aÃnAiÀÄ£ÀÄß ¸ÀzÀj ¹Ã¸ÉUÉ ªÀ¸ÀÄÛ ¸ÀASÉå 1 JAzÀÄ £ÀªÀÄÆzÀÄ ªÀiÁrzÀgÀÄ.
£ÀAvÀgÀ UÁf£À §lÖ°£À°è G½¢zÀÝ zÁæªÀtzÀ°è vÀ¤SÁ¢üPÁjUÀ¼À ¸ÀÆZÀ£ÉAiÀÄAvÉ ¥sÉ£Á¥sÀÛ°Ã£ï ¥ÀÄr ¸ÀªÀjzÀÝ ®AZÀzÀ ºÀtªÀ£ÀÄß Jt¹zÀÝ 26 Crl.A.No.611/2012 ¥ÀAZÀ ¸ÁQë ¸ÀzÁ²ªÀ¥Àà£ÀªÀgÄÀ vÀªÄÀ ä JgÀqÀÆ PÉÊUÀ¼À£ÀÄß C¢Ý vÉƼÉzÀÄPÉƼÀî¯ÁV ¸ÀzÀj §tÚ«gÀ¢zÀÝ zÁæªÀt UÀįÁ© §tÚPÉÌ wgÀÄVzÀÄÝ, ¸ÀzÀj zÁæªÀtªÀ£ÀÄß ªÀÄvÉÆÛAzÀÄ ¹Ã¸ÉUÉ vÀÄA© ªÀÄÄZÀѼÀ ªÀÄÄaÑ ªÀ¸ÀÄÛ 1 gÀAvÉ ¹Ã®Ä ªÀiÁr CzÀ£ÀÄß ªÀ¸ÀÄÛ ¸ÀASÉå 2 JAzÀÄ £ÀªÄÀ ÆzÀÄ ªÀiÁrzÀgÀÄ.
£ÀAvÀgÀ ªÉÄÃ¯É ªÀiÁrzÀ ¥ÀæAiÉÆÃUÀªÀ£ÄÀ ß J®èjUÀÆ «ªÀj¹zÀ vÀ¤SÁ¢üPÁjUÀ¼ÀÄ F ¢£À ¥sÉ£Á¥sÛÀ°Ã£ï ¥ÀÄrAiÀÄ£ÀÄß ¸ÀªÀjgÀĪÀ ®AZÀzÀ £ÉÆÃlÄUÀ¼À£ÀÄß ¦gÁåzÀÄzÁgÀjAzÀ DgÉÆævÀ ¸ÀPÀðj £ËPÀgÀgÀÄ ¹éÃPÀj¹zÀgÉ CªÀgÀ PÉÊ ¨ÉgÀ¼ÀÄUÀ¼À£ÀÄß EzÉà jÃw ¸ÉÆÃrAiÀÄA PÁ¨ÉÆð£ÉÃmï zÁæªÀtzÀ°è vÉƼɹzÁUÀ zÁæªÀt §tÚ §zÀ¯ÁV DgÉÆævÀgÄÀ ®AZÀzÀ ºÀt ¹éÃPÀj¹gÀĪÀÅzÀÄ zÀÈqsÀ¥ÀqÀÄvÀÛzÉAzÀÄ J®èjUÀÆ ªÀÄ£ÀªÀjPÉ ªÀiÁrPÉÆlÖgÄÀ . £ÀAvÀgÀ ¦gÁå¢AiÀÄ eÉÆvÉ £ÉgÀ¼ÄÀ ¸ÁQëAiÀiÁV ºÉÆÃUÀ®Ä £À£ÀߣÀÄß £ÉêÀÄPÀ ªÀiÁr £À£ÀUÉ F ¢£À ¦gÁå¢AiÀÄ eÉÆvÉAiÀÄ°è DgÉÆævÀgÀ §½UÉ ºÉÆÃV C°è £ÀqÉAiÀÄĪÀ «zÀåªÀiÁ£ÀUÀ¼À£ÄÀ ß £ÉÆÃr, ªÀÄÄAzÉ PÉýzÁUÀ w½¸ÀĪÀAvÉ w¼ÀĪÀ½PÉ ¤ÃrzÀgÀÄ. £ÀAvÀgÀ mÉç¯ï ªÉÄðnÖzÀÝ ºÀtªÀ£ÄÀ ß ¦gÁå¢AiÀÄ ªÀ±ÀPÉÌ PÉÆlÄÖ ¸ÀzÀj ºÀtªÀ£ÄÀ ß ±Àgn À £À ªÉÄîÄUÀqÉAiÀÄ eÉé£À°è ElÄÖPÉÆArgÀ¨ÉÃPÉAzÀÆ, C£ÀUÀvåÀ ªÁV ¸ÀzÀj ºÀtªÀ£ÄÀ ß ªÀÄÄlÖ¨ÁgÀzÉAzÀÆ, ¨ÉÃgÉ AiÀiÁªÀÅzÀPÀÆÌ CzÀ£ÀÄß G¥ÀAiÉÆÃV¸À¨ÁgÀzÉAzÀÄ, F ¢£À DgÉÆævÀgÀÄ ¤ªÀÄä PÉ®¸ÀªÀ£ÀÄß ªÀiÁrPÉÆqÀ®Ä ®AZÀzÀ ºÀtPÁÌV MvÁ۬ĹzÀgÉ ªÀiÁvÀæ ¸ÀzÀj ºÀtªÀ£ÀÄß PÉÆqÀ¨ÉÃPÉAzÀÆ, DgÉÆævÀgÄÀ ®AZÀzÀ ºÀtªÀ£ÀÄß ¹éÃPÀj¸ÀzÀ £ÀAvÀgÀ CªÀgÀ PÀbÉÃj¬ÄAzÀ ºÉÆgÀUÉ §AzÀÄ mÁæöå¥ï vÀAqÀzÀªÀjUÉ PÁtĪÀAvÉ JgÀqÀÆ PÉÊUÀ½AzÀ vÀ¯ÉUÆ À zÀ®£ÀÄß ¨ÁZÀĪÀAvÉ ¸ÀªÀjPÉƼÀÄîªÀ ªÀÄÆ®PÀ ¤UÀ¢üvÀ ¹UÀß¯ï ¤ÃqÀ¨ÉÃPÉAzÀÄ vÀ¤SÁ¢üÃPÁjUÀ¼ÀÄ w¼ÀĪÀ½PÉ ¤ÃrzÀgÀÄ.
£ÀAvÀgÀ UÀÄgÀÄw¸À¯ÁzÀ ªÀ¸ÄÀ Û ¸ÀASÉå 1 ªÀÄvÀÄÛ 2 ºÁUÀÆ ¦ü£Á¥sÀÛ°Ã£ï ¥ÀÄrAiÀÄ ¨Ál°AiÀÄ£ÀÄß vÀ¤SÁ¢üÃPÁjUÀ¼ÀÄ PÀbÉÃjAiÀÄ C¯ÉäÃgÁzÀ°èlÄÖ ¨sÀzÀæ¥Àr¹zÀgÀÄ. £ÀAvÀgÀ vÀAqÀzÀ J®ègÆ À ¸ÉÆÃ¥ÀÄ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ 27 Crl.A.No.611/2012 ¤Ãj¤AzÀ vÀªÀÄä vÀªÀÄä PÉÊUÀ¼À£ÀÄß vÀM¼ÉzÄÀ PÉƪÀÄqÀÄ DgÉÆævÀgÀ£ÀÄß mÁæöå¥ï ªÀiÁqÀĪÀ ¸À®ÄªÁV ºÉÆgÀqÀ®Ä ¹zÀÝgÁzɪÅÀ . F ¥ÁæAiÉÆÃVPÀ ªÀĺÀdgÀÄ PÁ®zÀ°è PÉ®ªÀÅ ¥ÀæªÀÄÄR WÀl£ÉUÀ¼À ¥sÆ É ÃmÉÆà vÉUɹzÀgÄÀ ºÁUÀÆ «rAiÉÆà awæÃPÀgÀt ªÀiÁr¹zÀgÀÄ. C®èzÉ DgÉÆævÀgÄÀ ®AZÀzÀ PÉðzÀÝ §UÉÎ mÉÃ¥ï gÉPÁqÀðgï£À°è gÉPÁqïð DVzÀÝ ¸ÀA¨sÁµÀuÉUÀ¼À£ÄÀ ß ¥ÀAZÀ ¸ÁQëUÀ½UÉ (CAzÀgÉ £À£ÀUÉ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ E¤ß§âjUÉ) PÉý¹zÀgÄÀ . F §UÉÎ MAzÀÄ ªÀĺÀdgÀ£ÀÄß vÀĪÀÄPÀÆgÀÄ ¯ÉÆÃPÁAiÀÄÄPÀÛ oÁuÉAiÀÄ°è ¢£ÁAPÀ 02-02-2005 gÀAzÀÄ ¸ÀªÀÄAiÀÄ ªÀÄzsÁåºÀß 12-05 UÀAmɬÄAzÀ 2-05 UÀAmÉAiÀĪÀgÉUÉ ¨ÉgÀ¼ÀZÄÀ Ñ ªÀiÁr¹zÀgÀÄ.
ªÀĺÀdgï ªÀÄÄVzÀ £ÀAvÀgÀ vÀ¤SÁ¢üPÁjUÀ¼ÄÀ ¦ügÁå¢AiÀÄ£ÀÄß, £À£ÀߣÀÄß ºÁUÀÆ EvÀgÉ ¥ÀAZÀgÄÀ UÀ¼À£ÄÀ ß ºÁUÀÆ ¹§âA¢UÀ¼À£ÀÄß ¸ÀPÁðj ªÁºÀ£ÀzÀ°è PÀgÉzÀÄPÉÆAqÀÄ vÀĪÀÄPÀÆgÀ£ÄÀ ß ªÀÄzsÁåºÀß 3-00 UÀAmÉUÉ ©lÄÖ ºÉÆgÀlÄ ºÀĽAiÀiÁgÀ£ÀÄß ¸ÀAeÉ 5-00 UÀAmÉUÉ ºÀĽAiÀiÁgÀ£ÄÀ ß vÀ®Ä¦ DgÉÆævÀgÀ PÀbÉÃjUÉ ¸Àé®à zÀÆgÀzÀ°è fÃ¥À£ÄÀ ß ¤°è¹ £ÉgÀ¼ÀÄ ¸ÁQëAiÀÄ£ÀÄß ªÀÄvÀÄÛ ¦ügÁå¢AiÀÄ£ÀÄß fæ¤AzÀ E½¹ vÀĪÀÄPÀÆgÀÄ ¯ÉÆÃPÁAiÀÄÄPÀÛ oÁuÉAiÀÄ°è ªÀĺÀdgÀÄ PÁ®zÀ°è ¤ÃrzÀÝ ¸À®ºÉ ¸ÀÆZÀ£ÉUÀ¼À£ÀÄß ªÀÄvÉÆÛªÉÄä £É£À¦¹ DgÉÆævÀgÀ PÀbÉÃjUÉ PÀ¼ÄÀ »¹PÉÆlÖgÄÀ . ºÁUÀÆ ªÀÄvÉÆۧ⠥ÀAZÀgÀÄ ºÁUÀÆ ¹§âA¢AiÉÆA¢UÉ C®è°è ªÀÄgÉAiÀiÁV ¤AvÀÄ £Á£ÀÄ PÉÆqÀĪÀ ¤UÀ¢üvÀ ¹UÀ߯ïUÉ PÁAiÀÄvÉÆqÀVzÀgÀÄ.
fæ¤AzÀ E½zÀ £Á£ÀÄ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ ¦gÁåzÀÄzÁgÀgÄÀ DgÉÆævÀgÀ PÀbÉÃjUÉ ºÉÆÃVzÀÄÝ gÁwæ 8-00 UÀAmÉAiÀĪÀgÉUÉ PÁAiÀÄÝgÀÆ DgÉÆævÀgÄÀ §gÉzÉà EzÀÄÝzÀjAzÀ ¦ügÁå¢ £À£Æ É ßA¢UÉ vÀ¤SÁ¢üPÁjUÀ¼À §½ §AzÀÄ DgÉÆævÀgÀÄ PÀbÉÃjAiÀÄ°è E®èªÉAzÀÄ w½¹zÀÄÝ, vÀ¤SÁ¢üPÁjUÀ¼ÀÄ vÀAqÀzÀªÀgÀ£ÀÄß PÀgÉzÀÄPÉÆAqÀÄ DgÉÆævÀgÄÀ ªÁ¸À«gÀĪÀ ºÉƸÀºÀ½îUÉ ºÉÆÃV «ZÁgÀ ªÀiÁqÀ¯ÁV DgÉÆævÀgÄÀ C°èAiÀÄÆ zÉÆgÉAiÀÄzÉà EzÀÝ ¥ÀæAiÀÄÄPÀÛ MAzÀÄ ªÀgÀ¢AiÀÄ£ÀÄß WÀ£À £ÁåAiÀiÁ®AiÀÄPÉÌ ¹§âA¢ ªÀÄÆ®PÀ ¸À°è¹ 28 Crl.A.No.611/2012 vÀAzÀªÀgÉÆA¢UÉ aPÀÌ£ÁAiÀÄPÀ£À ºÀ½îUÉ §AzÀÄ C°è£À SÁ¸ÀV ªÀÄ£ÉAiÉÆAzÀgÀ°è ªÉÆPÁÌA ªÀiÁrzÀÄÝ, ¢£ÁAPÀ 03-02-2005 gÀAzÀÄ ¨É½UÉÎ 08-30 UÀAmÉUÉ vÀAqÀzÀªÀgÀ£ÄÀ ß PÀgÉzÄÀ PÉÆAqÀÄ ºÀĽAiÀiÁjUÉ §AzÀÄ DgÉÆævÀgÀ PÀbÉÃjUÉ ¸Àé®à zÀÆgÀzÀ°è ªÀÄgÉAiÀiÁV ¸ÀPÁðj ªÁºÀ£ÀªÀ£ÀÄß ¤°è¹, ¦gÁå¢ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ £À£ÀUÉ ªÀÄvÉÆÛªÄÉ ä ¸ÀÆZÀ£ÉUÀ¼À£ÄÀ ß ¤Ãr £ÀªÀÄäUÀ¼À£ÀÄß DgÉÆævÀgÀ PÀbÉÃjUÉ PÀ¼ÀÄ»¹ vÁªÀÅ G½zÀ ¥ÀAZÀgÀÄ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ ¹§âA¢AiÀĪÀgÉÆA¢UÉ C®è°è ªÀÄgÉAiÀiÁV ¤AvÀÄ ¦ügÁå¢ ¤ÃqÀ°gÀĪÀ ¹UÀ߯ï UÁV ¤jÃQë¸ÀvÉÆqÀVzÀgÀÄ. DUÀ ¸ÀªÄÀ AiÀÄ ¸ÀĪÀiÁgÀÄ 10-00 UÀAmÉAiÀiÁVvÀÄÛ.
£ÀAvÀgÀ £Á£ÀÄ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ ¦gÁå¢ £ÁUÀgÁdÄgÀªÀgÄÀ £ÉÃgÀªÁV DgÉÆævÀgÀ PÀbÉÃjUÉ £ÉÆÃqÀ¯ÁV DgÉÆævÀgÄÀ PÀbÉÃjAiÀÄ°è EgÀ°®è. PÀbÉÃjAiÀÄ°è «ZÁj¹zÁUÀ J¯ÉÆèà ºÉÆgÀUÉ ºÉÆÃVzÁÝgÉ, §gÀÄvÁÛgÉ JAzÀÄ w½vÀÄ §AvÀÄ. £ÀAvÀgÀ ¦gÁå¢zÁgÀgÄÀ £À£Æ É ßA¢UÉ ºÉÆgÀUÉ §AzÀÄ ¹§âA¢ dUÀ¢Ã±ï, ¦.¹.EªÀjUÉ «µÀAiÀÄ w½¹ CªÀgÀ ªÀÄÆ®PÀ ¸ÀzÀj «µÀAiÀĪÀ£ÀÄß vÀ¤SÁ¢üPÁjUÀ½UÉ w½¹zÀÄÝ vÀ¤SÁ¢üPÁjUÀ¼ÄÀ DgÉÆævÀgÀÄ §gÀĪÀªÀgÉ«UÀÆ C°èAiÉÄà PÁAiÀÄĪÀAvÉ «µÀAiÀÄ gÀªÁ¤¹zÀgÄÀ . CzÀgÀAvÉ £ÁªÀÅUÀ¼ÄÀ DgÉÆævÀgÀ PÀbÉÃj DªÀgÀtzÀ°è DgÉÆævÀgÀ §gÀÄ«PÉUÁV PÁAiÀÄÄwÛzÉݪÀÅ. ¸ÀAeÉ ¸ÀĪÀiÁgÀÄ 5.30 UÀAmÉUÉ M§â ªÀåQÛ PÀbÉÃjAiÉƼÀPÉÌ ºÉÆÃVzÀÝ£ÀÄß £ÉÆÃr §AzÀgÀÄ. ¦ügÁåzÀÄzÁgÀgÀÄ DvÀ £À£ßÀ £ÀÄß PÀÄjvÀÄ "§AzÀgÀÄ" JAzÀÄ ºÉý PÀbÉÃjAiÉƼÀPÉÌ ºÉÆÃzÀgÀÄ. £Á£ÀÆ CªÀgÀ£ÄÀ ß »A¨Á°¹zÉ£ÀÄ. PÀbÉÃjAiÀÄ M¼ÀUÉ ºÉÆÃzÀ ¦ügÁå¢AiÀĪÀgÀÄ PÀÄaðAiÀÄ°è PÀĽvÀÄPÉÆArzÀÝ M§â ªÀåQÛUÉ £ÀªÀĸÁÌgÀ ¸Ágï JAzÀÄ ºÉýzÀgÄÀ , £ÀAvÀgÀ "£À£Àß gÉPÁqïìð K£ÀÄ ªÀiÁr¢j"
JAzÀÄ PÉýzÀgÀÄ. CzÀPÉÌ D ªÀåQÛ "±ÉÃPÀÄzÁgÀgÀ ºÀwÛgÀ EzÉ, ¤Ã£ÀÄ ºÉÆÃV ±ÉÃPÀÄzÁgÀgÀ£ÀÄß PÁtÄ" JAzÀÄ ºÉý PÀtì£ßÉ AiÀÄ°è J°è? JAzÀÄ PÉýzÀgÀÄ. DUÀ ¦ügÁåzÀÄzÁgÀgÀÄ vÀ£Àß ±ÀgÀn£À eÉç£ÀÄß ªÀÄÄnÖ vÉÆÃj¹ E°èzÉ JAzÀÄ ¸ÀAeÉÕ ªÀiÁrzÀgÀÄ. CzÀPÉÌ D ªÀåQÛ ªÉÄ®èUÉ "£ÁUÀgÁd¤UÉ PÉÆqÀÄ" JAzÀÄ ºÉý ¸ÀAeÉÕ ªÀiÁrzÀgÀÄ. DUÀ £À£ÀUÉ D ªÀåQÛAiÉÄà DgÉÆævÀgÉAzÀÄ 29 Crl.A.No.611/2012 w½¬ÄvÀÄ. CzÀPÉÌ ¦ügÁå¢ DAiÀÄÄÛ ¸Ágï" JAzÀÄ ºÉý DgÉÆævÀgÀ PÀbÉÃj¬ÄAzÀ ºÉÆgÀUÉ ºÉÆgÀUÉ §AzÀgÄÀ . £Á£ÀÆ CªÀgÀ£ÀÄß »A¨Á°¹zÀgÀÄ. PÀbÉÃjAiÀÄ ºÉÆgÀUÉ §AzÀ ¦ügÁå¢ ¸ÀÄvÀÛ®Æ £ÉÆÃr vÀ¤SÁ¢üPÁjUÀ¼ÀÄ ¤AwzÀÝ°èUÉ ºÉÆÃzÀgÀÄ. £Á£ÀÆ CªÀgÀ£ÀÄß »AzÉAiÉÄà ºÉÆÃzÉ£ÄÀ . ¦ügÁå¢ PÀbÉÃjAiÀÄ vÀÄA¨Á d£ÀgÀÄ EzÀÄÝzÀjAzÀ DgÉÆævÀgÀÄ ®AZÀzÀ ºÀtªÀ£ÀÄß vÁªÉà ¥ÀqÉAiÀÄzÉ vÀªÀÄä ¸ÀºÁAiÀÄPÀ £ÁUÀgÁdÄgÀªÀgÀ §½ PÉÆqÀĪÀAvÉ w½¹zÀgÉAzÀÄ w½¹zÀgÀÄ. DUÀ vÀ¤SÁ¢üPÁjUÀ¼ÄÀ mÁæ¥ï vÀAqÀzÀªÀgÀ£É߯Áè PÀgÉzÀÄPÉÆAqÀÄ fæ£À°è PÀÆj¹PÉÆAqÀÄ £ÁUÀgÁdÄ ªÁ¸À«gÀĪÀ PÀA¢PÉgÉ UÁæªÀÄPÉÌ ºÉÆÃV Hj£À ºÉÆgÀªÀ®AiÀÄzÀ°è fÃ¥À£ÄÀ ß ¤°è¹ £À£ÀߣÀÄß ªÀÄvÀÄÛ ¦ügÁå¢AiÀÄ£ÀÄß fæ¤AzÀ E½¹ ªÀÄvÉÆÛªÄÉ ä ¸À®ºÉ ¸ÀÆZÀ£ÉUÀ¼À£ÀÄß £É£À¦¹ DgÉÆævÀ ²æäªÁ¸ïgÀªÀgÀ ¸ÀºÁAiÀÄPÀ £ÁUÀgÁdÄgÀªÀgÀ ªÀÄ£ÉUÉ PÀ¼ÀÄ»¹PÉÆlÖgÀÄ. fæ¤AzÀ PɼÀUÉ E½zÀ £Á£ÀÄ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ ¦üÃgÁåzÀÄzÁgÀgÀÄ £ÉÃgÀªÁV £ÁUÀgÁdÄgÀªÀgÀ ªÀÄ£ÉUÉ ºÉÆÃV «ZÁj¸À¯ÁV £ÁUÀgÁdÄgÀªÀgÀÄ ªÀÄ£ÉAiÀÄ°è EgÀ°®è. ºÀĽAiÀiÁjUÉ ºÉÆÃVzÁÝgÉAzÀÄ w½zÀħAvÀÄ. ¦ügÁåzÀÄzÁgÀgÀÄ £À£ÉÆßA¢UÉ £ÉÃgÀªÁV ªÁ¥À¸ï vÀ¤SÁ¢üPÁjUÀ¼ÀÄ EzÀÝ°èUÉ §AzÀÄ «µÀAiÀĪÀ£ÀÄß w½¹zÀgÀÄ. £ÀAvÀgÀ vÀ¤SÁ¢üPÁjUÀ¼ÄÀ ªÀÄvÉÛ J®ègÀ£ÀÆß PÀgÉzÀÄPÉÆAqÀÄ ªÁ¥À¸ï ºÀĽAiÀiÁjUÉ §AzÀÄ ªÀÄvÉÛ £À£ÀߣÀÄß ªÀÄvÀÄÛ ¦ügÁå¢AiÀÄ£ÀÄß DgÉÆævÀgÀ PÀbÉÃjUÉ PÀ¼ÄÀ »¹PÉÆlÖgÀÄ. DUÀ ¸ÀªÀÄAiÀÄ ¸ÀĪÀiÁgÀÄ ¸ÀAeÉ 7-45 UÀAmÉAiÀiÁVvÀÄÛ. £ÁªÀÅUÀ¼ÄÀ DgÉÆævÀgÀ PÀbÉÃjAiÀÄ M¼ÀUÀqÉ ºÉÆÃzÁUÀ PÀbÉÃjAiÀÄ°è E£ÀÆß 3-4 d£ÀgÀÄ EzÀÝgÀÄ. DgÉÆævÀgÄÀ CªÀgÀÄUÀ½UÉ ¸ÀÆPÀÛ ¸ÀªÀiÁzsÁ£À ºÉý PÀ¼ÄÀ »¸ÀÄwÛzÝÀ gÄÀ . ¸ÀĪÀiÁgÀÄ 10 ¤«ÄµÀUÀ¼À £ÀAvÀgÀ DgÉÆævÀgÄÀ PÀbÉÃjAiÀÄ ºÉÆgÀUÉ §AzÀÄ ©ÃUÀ ºÁQ vÀ£ÉÆßA¢VzÀÝ ªÀÄvÉÆۧ⠪ÀåQÛAiÉÆA¢UÉ ªÀiÁvÀ£ÁrPÉÆAqÀÄ PÀbÉÃjAiÀÄ ªÀÄÄA¨sÁUÀzÀ°è ¤AvÀÄPÉÆArzÀÝgÄÀ . £Á£ÀÄ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ ¦ügÁå¢ CªÀgÀ §½AiÀÄ°è ¤AwzÉݪÀÅ. MAzÉgÀqÀÄ ¤«ÄµÀUÀ¼À°è DgÉÆævÀgÀÄ vÀ£ÉÆßA¢UÉ ªÀiÁvÀ£ÁqÀÄwÛzÀÝ ªÀåQÛUÉ K£ÉÆà ºÉý PÀ¼ÄÀ »¹zÀgÄÀ . £ÀAvÀgÀ ¦ügÁå¢ DgÉÆævÀgÀ §½UÉ ºÉÆÃV ¸Ágï £ÁUÀgÁdÄ ¹UÀ°®è K£ÀÄ ªÀiÁqÀ° JAzÀÄ 30 Crl.A.No.611/2012 PÉýzÀgÀÄ. DUÀ DgÉÆævÀgÀÄ PÉÆr°è JAzÀÄ ºÉý ¦ügÁå¢ PÉÆlÖ ®AZÀzÀ ºÀtªÀ£ÀÄß §®UÉÊ£À°è ¥ÀqÉzÀÄ, ºÁUÉAiÉÄà PÉÊ£À°è »rzÀÄ ¦gÁå¢AiÉÆA¢UÉ ªÀiÁvÀ£ÁqÀ®Ä ¤AvÀgÀÄ. DUÀ ¦ügÁåzÄÀ zÁgÀgÄÀ ºÁUÉAiÉÄà ªÀiÁvÀ£ÁqÀÄvÁÛ 3- 4 ¨Áj eÉÆÃj PÉ«Ää vÀ£Àß JgÀqÀÆ PÉÊUÀ½AzÀ vÀ¯ÉUÆ À zÀ®£ÀÄß ¨ÁZÀĪÀAvÉ ¸ÀªÀjPÉÆAqÀÄ ¤UÀ¢üvÀ ¹UÀß¯ï ¤ÃrzÀgÄÀ . DUÀ ¸ÀªÄÀ AiÀÄ ¸ÀĪÀiÁgÀÄ 7-55 UÀAmÉAiÀiÁVvÀÄÛ.
PÀÆqÀ¯Éà vÀ¤SÁ¢üPÁjUÀ¼ÄÀ ºÁUÀÆ mÁæöå¥ï vÀAqÀzÀ EvÀgÀ ¸ÀzÀ¸ÀågÀÄ £Á£ÀÄ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ ¦gÁåzÀÄzÁgÀgÄÀ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ DgÉÆævÀgÀÄ ¤AwzÀÝ°èUÉ zsÁ«¹ §AzÀgÀÄ. CªÀgÀÄUÀ¼ÄÀ §gÀĪÀzÀ£ÄÀ ß UÀªÄÀ ¤¹zÀ DgÉÆævÀ ²æäªÁ¸ï gÀªÀgÀÄ vÀªÀÄä PÉÊ°zÀÝ ®AZÀzÀ ºÀtªÀ£ÄÀ ß vÁªÀÅ ¤AwzÀÝ ¸ÀܼÀ¢AzÀ ¸Àé®à zÀÆgÀzÀ°ègÀĪÀ ¥ÉÆðøï oÁuÉAiÀÄ PÁA¥ËAqï ¥ÀPÀÌPÉÌ J¸ÉzÀÄ ºÁUÉAiÉÄà ¤AvÀgÀÄ. £ÁªÀÅ ¤AwzÀÝ°èUÉ §AzÀ vÀ¤SÁ¢üPÁjUÀ½UÉ ¦ügÁå¢AiÀĪÀgÀÄ DgÉÆævÀgÀ£ÀÄß vÉÆÃj¹ EªÀgÉà ²æäªÁ¸ï, UÁæªÀÄ ¯ÉQÌUÀgÀÄ, F ¢£À vÀ¤ßAzÀ 800-00 gÀÆ. ®AZÀzÀ ºÀtªÀ£ÄÀ ß ¥ÀqÉzÀgÉAzÀÄ w½¹zÀgÄÀ .
vÀ¤SÁ¢üPÁjUÀ¼ÀÄ vÀªÀÄä UÀÄgÀÄw£À ¥Àvæz
À À ªÀÄÆ®PÀ DgÉÆævÀjUÉ
¥ÀjZÀ¬Ä¹PÉÆAqÀÄ, vÀAqÀzÀªÀgÀ£É߯Áè ¥ÀjZÀ¬Ä¹, DgÉÆævÀgÀ ºÉ¸ÀgÀÄ
«¼Á¸À PÉüÀ¯ÁV DgÉÆævÀgÀÄ vÀªÄÀ ä ºÉ¸ÀgÄÀ ºÉZï.ºÉZï.²æäªÁ¸À ªÀÄÆwð ©£ï ºÀ£ÀĪÀÄAvÀAiÀÄå, 31 ªÀµÀð, §tfUÀ d£ÁAUÀ, UÁæªÀÄ ¯ÉQÌUÀgÀÄ, PÀA¢PÉgÉ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ §gÀPÀ£Á¼ÀÄ UÁæªÄÀ , ºÀĽAiÀiÁgÀÄ ºÉÆç½, aPÀÌ£ÁAiÀÄPÀ£À ºÀ½î vÁ®ÆèPÀÄ JAzÀÄ w½¹zÀgÄÀ . vÀ¤SÁ¢üPÁjUÀ¼ÀÄ CªÀjUÉ PÉù£À «µÀAiÀÄ w½¹ zÀ¸ÀÛVj ªÀiÁrgÀĪÀÅzÁV ªÀiËTPÀªÁV w½¹, F §UÉÎ w¼ÀĪÀ½UÉ ¥ÀvÀæªÀ£ÀÄß JA.£ÀAdÄAqÉÃUËqÀ, UÁæªÄÀ ¯ÉQÌUÀgÀÄ, ºÀĽAiÀiÁgÀÄ EªÀjUÉ eÁj ªÀiÁr ¹éÃPÀÈw ¥ÀqÉ¢zÀÄÝ, DgÉÆævÀjUÉ vÀ¤SÉAiÀÄ°è ¸ÀºÀPÀj¸ÀĪÀAvÉ ¸ÀÆa¹zÀÄÝ CzÀPÉÌ DgÉÆævÀgÄÀ ¸ÀªÄÀ äw¹zÀgÀÄ.
£ÀAvÀgÀ vÀ¤SÁ¢üPÁjUÀ¼ÄÀ ¹§âA¢¬ÄAzÀ JgÀqÄÀ ±ÀÄzÀݪÁzÀ UÁf£À §lÖ®ÄUÀ¼À°è ºÉƸÀzÁV ¸ÉÆÃrAiÀÄA PÁ¨ÉÆÃð¨Émï zÁæªÀtªÀ£ÀÄß 31 Crl.A.No.611/2012 vÀAiÀiÁgÀÄ ªÀiÁr¹ ¸ÀzÀj zÁæªÀtUÀ½AzÀ ¸Àé®à ¸Àé®à ¨sÁUÀªÀ£ÀÄß vÉUÉzÀÄ MAzÀÄ ¹Ã¸ÉUÉ ºÁQ CzÀgÀ ªÀÄÄZÀѼÀ ªÀÄÄaÑ ªÀ¸ÄÀ Û ¸ÀASÉå 1 gÀAvÉ ¹Ã®Ä ªÀiÁr ªÀ¸ÄÀ Û ¸ÀASÉå 3 JAzÀÄ UÀÄgÀÄw¹zÀgÀÄ.
£ÀAvÀgÀ vÀ¤SÁ¢üPÁjUÀ¼À ¸ÀÆZÀ£ÉAiÀÄAvÉ DgÉÆævÀ ²æäªÁ¸À ªÀÄÆwðAiÀĪÀgÀÄ §lÖ®ÄUÀ¼À°è G½¢zÀÝ ¸ÉÆÃrAiÀÄA zÁæªÀtUÀ¼À ¥ÉÊQ MAzÀÄ §lÖ°£À zÁæªÀtzÀ°è vÀªÄÀ ä §®UÉÊ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ JqÀUÊÉ ¨ÉgÀ¼ÀÄUÀ¼À£ÀÄß C¢Ý vÉƼÉzÀÄPÉÆArzÀÄÝ §®UÉÊ ¨ÉgÀ¼ÀÄUÀ¼À£ÄÀ ß vÉƼÉzÄÀ PÉÆArzÀÝ zÁæªÀt w½ UÀįÁ© §tÚPÉÌ wgÀÄVzÀÄÝ, JqÀUÊÉ ¨ÉgÀ¼ÄÀ UÀ¼À£ÄÀ ß vÉƼÉzÀ zÁæªÀtªÀ£ÀÄß AiÀiÁªÀÅzÉà §tÚ §zÀ¯ÁªÀuÉ DUÀ°®è. ¸ÀzÀj zÁæªÀtUÀ¼À£ÀÄß JgÀqÉgÀqÀÄ ¥ÀævÉåÃPÀ SÁ° ¹Ã¸ÉUÀ½UÉ vÀÄA© ©gÀmÉ ªÀÄÄaÑ ªÀ¸ÄÀ Û ¸ÀASÉå 3 gÀAvÉ ¹Ã®Ä ªÀiÁr §®UÉÊ ¨ÉgÀ¼ÀÄUÀ¼À£ÀÄß vÉƼÉzÀ zÁæªÀtUÀ¼À£ÄÀ ß ªÀ¸ÀÄÛ ¸ÀASÉå 4(J) ªÀÄvÀÄÛ 4(©) ªÀÄvÀÄÛ JqÀUÉÊ ¨ÉgÀ¼ÄÀ UÀ¼À£ÄÀ ß vÉƼÉzÀ zÁæªÀtUÀ¼À£ÀÄß ªÀ¸ÀÄÛ ¸ÀASÉå 5(J) ªÀÄvÀÄÛ 5(©) JAzÀÄ UÀÄgÀÄw¹zÀgÄÀ .
£ÀAvÀgÀ vÀ¤SÁ¢üPÁjUÀ¼ÄÀ DgÉÆævÀgÀ£ÄÀ ß PÀÄjvÀÄ F ¢£À ¦gÁ墬ÄAzÀ ¥ÀqÉzÀ ®AZÀzÀ ºÀtªÀ£ÄÀ ß ºÁgÀÄ¥Àr¸ÀĪÀAvÉ PÉüÀ¯ÁV DgÉÆævÀgÀÄ vÀ£Àß §½ AiÀiÁªÀÅzÉà ºÀt E®èªÉAvÀ®Æ vÁ£ÀÄ ¦gÁ墬ÄAzÀ AiÀiÁªÀÅzÉà ºÀtªÀ£ÀÄß ¹éÃPÀj¹®èªÉAzÀÆ £ÀÄr¢zÀÄÝ. DUÀ ¦ügÁå¢AiÀÄÄ vÀ¤SÁ¢üPÁjUÀ½UÉ F ¢£À DgÉÆævÀgÄÀ vÀ¤ßAzÀ ¹éÃPÀj¹zÀ ®AZÀzÀ ºÀtªÀ£ÀÄß ºÁUÉAiÉÄà PÉÊ£À°è »rzÀÄ ªÀiÁvÀ£ÁqÀÄwÛzÄÀ Ý, vÁ£ÀÄ PÉÆlÖ ¤UÀ¢üvÀ ¹UÀß®è£ÀÄß ¹éÃPÀj¹zÀ £ÀAvÀgÀ mÁæ¥ï vÀAqÀzÀªÀgÄÀ vÀªÀÄä §½UÉ §gÀĪÀÅzÀ£ÀÄß £ÉÆÃr ¥ÉÆðøï oÁuÉAiÀÄ PÁA¥ËAqï §½UÉ J¸É¢gÀĪÀÅzÁV ºÁUÀÆ ¸ÀzÀj WÀl£ÉAiÀÄ£ÀÄß £ÉgÀ¼ÀÄ ¸ÁQëzÁgÀgÄÀ CAzÀgÉ £Á£ÀÆ ¸ÀºÀ £ÉÆÃrgÀĪÀÅzÁV w½¹zÀgÀÄ. £ÀAvÀgÀ vÀ¤SÁ¢üPÁjUÀ¼ÄÀ J®ègÀ£ÀÆß PÀgÉzÀÄPÉÆAqÀÄ PÁA¥ËAqï §½UÉ §AzÀÄ £ÉÆÃqÀ¯ÁV C°è PÁA¥ËAqï §½ £ÉÆÃlÄUÀ¼ÀÄ ©¢ÝzÀÄÝ D zÀȱÀåªÀ£ÄÀ ß bÁAiÀiÁ avÀæ vÉUɹzÀgÀÄ £ÀAvÀgÀ vÀ¤SÁ¢üPÁjUÀ¼ÀÄ ¸ÀÆZÀ£ÉAiÀÄAvÉ ¥ÀAZÀ ¸ÁQë ¸ÀzÁ²ªÀ¥Àà£ÀªÀgÀÄ ¸ÀzÀj 32 Crl.A.No.611/2012 £ÉÆÃlÄUÀ¼À£ÀÄß vÀªÀÄä PÉÊUÉwÛPÉÆAqÀÄ ¥Àj²Ã°¹ ¸ÀzÀj ºÀt 100-00 gÀ 7£ÉÆÃlÄUÀ¼ÀÄ ºÁUÀÆ 50-00 gÀÆ£À JgÀqÀÄ £ÉÆÃlÄUÀ½zÀÄÝ MlÄÖ 800-00 gÀÆ EgÀĪÀÅzÁVAiÀÄÆ, CªÀÅUÀ¼À £ÀA§gÀÄUÀ¼ÄÀ F ¢£À ¯ÉÆÃPÁAiÀÄÄPÀÛ oÁuÉAiÀÄ°è ªÀ»¹PÉÆlÖ ºÀtzÀ £ÉÆÃlÄUÀ¼À £ÀA§gÀÄUÀ½UÉ vÁ¼ÉAiÀiÁUÀÄwÛgÀĪÀÅzÁV zÀÈrÃPÀj¹zÀgÄÀ . WÀl£É £ÀqÉzÀ ¸ÀܼÀªÅÀ §AiÀÄ®Ä ¥ÀæzÉñÀªÁVzÀÄÝ DgÉÆævÀgÀ PÀbÉÃjAiÀÄ §®§¢AiÀÄ ªÀÄÄA¨sÁUÀªÁVgÀÄvÀÛzÉ. DgÉÆævÀgÀ PÀbÉÃjAiÀÄ°è «zÀÄåvï ¸Ë®¨såÀ EgÀĪÀÅ¢®èªÁzÀÝjAzÀ ¥ÀAZÀ£ÁªÀiÁ PÁgÀåªÀ£ÀÄß DgÉÆævÀgÀ PÀbÉÃjAiÀÄ ¥ÀPÀÌzÀ°ègÀĪÀ ºÀĽAiÀiÁgÀÄ ¥ÉÆðøï oÁuÉAiÀÄ°è £ÀqɸÀ®Ä vÀ¤SÁ¢üPÁjUÀ¼ÄÀ wêÀiÁð¤¹zÀÄÝ, CzÉà ªÉÃ¼É C°èzÀÝ JA.£ÀAdÄAqÉÃUËqÀ, «.J., ºÀĽAiÀiÁgÀÄ EªÀgÀÄ DgÉÆævÀgÀÄ PÁgÀå ¤ªÀð»¸ÀÄwÛgÀĪÀ PÀbÉÃj PÀlÖqÀªÅÀ vÀ£ÀUÉ ªÀÄAdÆgÁVzÉÝAzÀÄ w½¹, vÁ£ÀÄ ¨ÉÃgÉ ¨ÁrUÉ ªÀÄ£ÉAiÀÄ°è ªÁ¸À ªÀiÁqÀÄwÛzÀÄÝ, PÀlÖqÀªÀ£ÀÄß DgÉÆævÀjUÉ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ vÀ£ÀUÉ PÀbÉÃjAiÀÄ£ÁßV ªÀiÁrPÉÆArgÀĪÀÅzÁV w½¹gÀÄvÁÛgÉ.
£ÀAvÀgÀ ¥ÀAZÀ£ÁªÀiÁ PÁgÀåªÀ£ÀÄß ºÀĽAiÀiÁgÀÄ ¥Éưøï oÁuÉUÉ ¸ÀܼÁAvÀj¹zÀ vÀ¤SÁ¢üPÁjUÀ¼ÀÄ ¥ÀAZÀ ¸ÁQë ¸ÀzÁ²ªÀ¥Àà£ÀªÀgÀÄ zÀÈrüÃPÀj¹zÀÝ ºÀtªÀ£ÀÄß MAzÀÄ SÁ° PÀªÀjUÉ ºÁQ PÀªÀj£À ¨Á¬Ä CAn¹, CgÀUÀÄ ºÁQ EAVèõï£À '¹' CPÀëgÀ¢AzÀ ¹Ã®Ä ªÀiÁr «ªÀgÀ £ÀªÀÄÆ¢¹ ¥ÀAZÀgÀÄUÀ¼À ¸À» ªÀiÁr vÀ¤SÁ¢üPÁjUÀ¼ÀÆ ¸À» ªÀiÁr ¸ÀzÀj ®PÉÆÃmÉAiÀÄ£ÀÄß ªÀ¸ÀÄÛ ¸ÀASÉå 6 JAzÀÄ UÀÄgÀÄw¹zÀgÀÄ.
£ÀAvÀgÀ vÀ¤SÁ¢üPÁjUÀ¼ÀÄ F ¥ÀæPÀgÀtzÀ £ÉgÀ¼ÀÄ ¸ÁQëAiÀiÁzÀ £À£ÀߣÀÄß PÀÄjvÀÄ F ¢£À ºÀĽAiÀiÁj£À°è ¸ÀPÁðj ªÁºÀ£À¢AzÀ E½zÀÄ, DgÉÆævÀgÀ PÀbÉÃjUÉ ºÉÆÃzÁV¤AzÀ £ÀqÉzÀ «µÀAiÀĪÀ£ÀÄß w½¸ÀĪÀAvÉ PÉüÀ¯ÁV £Á£ÀÄ £ÀqÉzÀ «µÀAiÀĪÀ£ÀÄß ZÁZÀÆ vÀ¥ÀàzÉ w½¹gÀÄvÉÛãÉ. £ÀAvÀgÀ F §UÉÎ ¦ügÁå¢AiÀÄ£ÀÄß PÉüÀ¯ÁV CªÀgÀÆ £ÀqÉzÀ «µÀAiÀĪÀ£ÀÄß ZÁZÀÆ vÀ¥ÀàzÉ w½¹gÀÄvÁÛgÉ.33 Crl.A.No.611/2012
£ÀAvÀgÀ vÀ¤SÁ¢üPÁjUÀ¼ÀÄ F PÉù£À DgÉÆævÀgÁzÀ ²æäªÁ¸ÀªÀÄÆwðAiÀĪÀgÀ£ÀÄß PÀÄjvÀÄ ¤ÃªÀÅ EzÀĪÀgÉ«UÀÆ £ÉgÀ¼ÀÄ ¸ÁQë (CAzÀgÉ £À£Àß) ªÀÄvÀÄÛ ¦ügÁå¢ ¤ÃrzÀ ºÉýPÉUÀ¼À£ÀÄß PÉýgÀÄwÛÃj. F §UÉÎ ¤ÃªÀÅ ºÉüÀĪÀÅzÉãÁzÀgÀÆ EzÀÝgÉ ºÉüÀ§ºÀÄzÀÄ JAzÀÄ PÉýzÁUÀ DgÉÆævÀgÀÄ vÀªÀÄä ¸Àé ºÀ¸ÁÛPÀëgÀzÀ°è '¸Áé«Ä, PÀA¢PÉgÉ ªÀÈvÀÛzÀ UÁæªÀÄ ¯ÉQÌUÀ£ÁzÀ ºÉZï.ºÉZï.²æäªÁ¸À ªÀÄÆwð DzÀ £Á£ÀÄ vÀªÀÄä°è ªÀÄ£À« ªÀiÁrPÉƼÀÄîªÀÅzÉãÉAzÀgÉ PÀA¢PÉgÉ UÁæªÀÄzÀ ªÁ¹AiÀiÁzÀ £ÁUÀgÁd JA§ÄªÀgÀÄ vÀ£Àß vÁ¬ÄAiÀÄ ºÉ¸ÀjUÉ SÁvÉ §zÀ¯ÁªÀuÉ PÉÆÃj Cfð ¸À°è¹zÀÄÝ D CfðAiÀÄ£ÀÄß ¥Àj²Ã°¹¯ÁV PÀAzÁAiÀÄ zÁR¯ÉUÆ À ªÀÄvÀÄÛ CªÀgÀÄUÀ¼ÀÄ ªÀiÁrPÉÆAqÀ ¥Á®Ä «¨sÁUÀ ¥ÀvÀæzÀ°è, ªÀA±À ªÀÈPÀë ¥ÀvÀæzÀ°è §gÀĪÀ ªÁgÀ¸ÀÄzÁgÀgÀ ¸À» E®è¢gÀĪÀÅzÀjAzÀ SÁvÉ ªÀiÁqÀ®Ä gÀºÀ«gÀĪÀÅ¢®èªÉAzÀÄ D CfðAiÀÄ£ÀÄß wgÀ¸ÀÌj¹zÀÄÝ ¸ÀjAiÀĵÉÖ. EªÀgÀ SÁvÉAiÀÄ£ÀÄß ªÀeÁ ªÀiÁrgÀĪÀ GzÉÝñÀ¢AzÀ F ¢£À £Á£ÀÄ ¢£ÁAPÀ 3-2-2005 gÀAzÀÄ ¸ÀAeÉ 5-00 UÀAmÉUÉ ºÀĽAiÀiÁgÀÄ PÀbÉÃjAiÀÄ°èzÁÝUÀ FPÉ §AzÀÄ ¸Áé«Ä £ÀªÀÄä SÁvÉAiÀÄ£ÀÄß K£ÁzÀgÀÆ ªÀiÁr ªÀiÁrPÉÆr JAzÀÄ ºÉýzÀ. CzÀPÉÌ £Á£ÀÄ E®è PÀA¢PÉgÉ ªÀÈvÀÛPÉÌ ¸ÀA§A¢ü¹zÀ zÁR¯ÉUÀ¼ÀÄ E°è EgÀĪÀÅ¢®è. PÀA¢PÉgÉUÉ ¨Á C°è £ÁUÀgÁdÄ EgÀÄvÁÛgÉ JAzÀÄ ºÉýzÀÄÝ ¸ÀjAiÀĵÉÖ. FvÀ ¥ÀÄ£ÀB gÁwæ 8-00 UÀAmÉAiÀÄ°è C°èAiÉÄà ¸ÀĽzÁqÀÄwÛgÀĪÀÅzÀÄ £À£ÀUÉ UÉÆvÁÛ¬ÄvÀÄ. ¥ÀÄ£ÀB §AzÀÄ ¸Áé«Ä K£ÁzÀgÀÆ ªÀiÁr C£ÀÄPÀÆ® ªÀiÁrPÉÆr ¸Áé«Ä JAzÀÄ £À£Àß PÉÊUÀ¼À£ÀÄß ªÀÄÄnÖzÀ £Á£ÀÄ CªÀ£À£ÀÄß ¥ÀÄ£ÀB zÀÆrzÉÉ. £ÀAvÀgÀ ¯ÉÆPÁAiÀÄÄPÀÛgÀÄ D ¸ÀªÀÄAiÀÄPÉÌ §AzÀgÀÄ. ªÀÄvÀÄÛ ¹ÃUɨÁVAiÀÄ ªÀÈvÀÛzÀ UÁæ.¯É.gÀªÀgÀÄ £ÀAdÄAqÉÃUËqÀgÀÆ ¸ÀºÀ C°èUÉ §AzÀgÀÄ. F »AzÉ 6 wAUÀ½¤AzÀ £Á£ÀÄ ¨ÉøÀvÀÄÛ ªÉÄïÁ¢üPÁjUÀ¼À ºÀwÛgÀ ªÀUÁðªÀuÉ ªÀiÁrPÉÆr JAzÀÄ vÀºÀ¹Ã¯ÁÝgï ºÀwÛgÀ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ r.¹. ºÀwÛgÀ ºÉÆÃVzÉÝ.34 Crl.A.No.611/2012
ªÉÄîÌAqÀ J¯Áè CA±ÀUÀ¼ÀÄ ¸ÀvÀå ¸ÀAUÀwAiÀiÁzÀªÀÅ £Á£ÀÄ ¤zÉÆÃð² ¸Áé«Ä" JA§ÄzÁV §gÉzÀÄPÉÆnÖzÀÄÝ vÀ¤SÁ¢üPÁjUÀ¼ÀÄ CzÀ£ÄÀ ß J®èjUÀÆ N¢ ºÉýzÀgÀÄ.
£ÀAvÀgÀ vÀ¤SÁ¢üPÁjUÀ¼ÀÄ F PÉù£À £ÉgÀ¼ÀÄ ¸ÁQëAiÀiÁzÀ £À£ÀߣÀÄß PÀÄjvÀÄ DgÉÆævÀgÀ «ªÀgÀuÉAiÀÄ §UÉÎ ¤ªÀÄä C©ü¥ÁæAiÀĪÉãÀÄ JAzÀÄ PÉýzÁUÀ £Á£ÀÄ DgÉÆævÀgÀ «ªÀgÀuÉAiÀÄ£ÀÄß ¥ÀÆtðªÁV C®èUÀ¼ÉzÀÄ F ¢£À DgÉÆævÀgÀÄ £À£Àß ¸ÀªÀÄPÀëªÀÄ ®AZÀzÀ ºÀtªÀ£ÀÄß vÀªÀÄä ¸ÀºÁAiÀÄPÀ £ÁUÀgÁdÄ«UÉ PÉÆqÀĪÀAvÉ ºÉýzÀÄÝ, £ÀAvÀgÀ ¦ügÁå¢ £ÁUÀgÁdĪÀ£ÀÄß ºÀÄrPÁr ¹UÀzÉà EzÀÝ «µÀAiÀĪÀ£ÀÄß ªÁ¥À¸ï §AzÀÄ w½¹zÁUÀ PÉÆr°è JAzÀÄ ¦ügÁ墬ÄAzÀ ®AZÀzÀ ºÀtªÀ£ÀÄß PÉý ¥ÀqÉzÀgÀÄ. ¦ügÁå¢ §AzÀÄ ¹UÀß¯ï ¤ÃrzÀ £ÀAvÀgÀ mÁæ¥ï vÀAqÀzÀªÀgÀÄ zsÁ«¹ §gÀĪÀÅzÀ£ÀÄß UÀªÀĤ¹ PÉÊAiÀÄ°è »r¢zÀÝ ®AZÀzÀ ºÀtªÀ£ÀÄß PɼÀUÉ J¸É¢zÀÄÝ ¤dªÉAzÀÄ £ÀÄrzÀÄ £Á£ÀÄ F ªÉÆzÀ®Ä ¤ÃrzÀÝ ºÉýPÉAiÀÄ£ÀÄß zÀÈrüÃPÀj¹zÉ£ÀÄ.
£ÀAvÀgÀ vÀ¤SÁ¢üPÁjUÀ¼ÀÄ ¦gÁå¢AiÀÄ£ÀÄß PÀÄjvÀÄ DgÉÆævÀgÀ «ªÀgÀuÉAiÀÄ §UÉÎ ¤ªÀÄä C©ü¥ÁæAiÀĪÉãÀÄ JAzÀÄ PÉýzÁUÀ ¦ügÁå¢AiÀĪÀgÀÄ DgÉÆævÀgÀ «ªÀgÀuÉAiÀÄ£ÀÄß ¥ÀÆtðªÁV C®èUÀ¼ÉzÀÄ DgÉÆævÀgÀÄ d«Ää£À SÁvÉ §zÀ¯ÁªÀuÉUÉ 1500-00 gÀÆ.UÀ¼À ®AZÀ PÉý PÉÆ£ÉUÉ 1000-00 gÀÆ.UÀ½UÉ ¤UÀ¢ü¥Àr¹ 200-00 gÀÆUÀ¼À£ÀÄß ªÀÄÄUÀAqÀªÁV ¥ÀqÉzÀÄ, F ¢£À £ÉgÀ¼ÀÄ ¸ÁQëAiÀÄ (CAzÀgÉ £À£Àß) ¸ÀªÀÄPÀëªÀÄ ®AZÀzÀ ºÀtªÀ£ÀÄß vÀªÀÄä ¸ÀºÁAiÀÄPÀ £ÁUÀgÁdÄ«UÉ PÉÆqÀ®Ä ºÉýzÀÄÝ (vÀ£Àß PÀbÉÃjAiÀÄ°è ¨ÉÃgÉ d£ÀgÀÄ EzÀÄÝzÀjAzÀ) £ÁUÀgÁdÄ zÉÆgÉAiÀÄzÉà EzÀÄÝzÀjAzÀ ¥ÀÄ£ÀB DgÉÆævÀjzÀÝ°èUÉ ºÉÆÃV £ÁUÀgÁdÄ ¹UÀ°®è K£ÀÄ ªÀiÁqÀ° CAvÀ PÉýzÁUÀ DgÉÆævÀgÀÄ PÉÆr°è JAzÀÄ £À¤ßAzÀ ®AZÀzÀ ºÀtªÀ£ÀÄß PÉý ¥ÀqÉ¢zÀÄÝ £Á£ÀÄ mÁæöå¥ï vÀAqÀzÀªÀjUÉ 35 Crl.A.No.611/2012 ¤UÀ¢üUÀ ¹UÀß¯ï ¤ÃrzÁUÀ zsÁ«¹ §AzÀ mÁæöå¥ï vÀAqÀzÀªÀgÀ£ÀÄß £ÉÆÃr PÉÊAiÀÄ°è »r¢zÀÝ ®AZÀzÀ ºÀtªÀ£ÀÄß PɼÀUÉ J¸É¢zÀÄÝ ¤dªÉAzÀÄ £ÀÄrzÀÄ vÁ£ÀÄ F ªÉÆzÀ®Ä ¤ÃrzÀÝ ºÉýPÉAiÀÄ£ÀÄß zÀÈrüÃPÀj¹zÀgÀÄ.
£ÀAvÀgÀ vÀ¤SÁ¢üPÁjUÀ¼ÀÄ DgÉÆævÀ ²æäªÁ¸À ªÀÄÆwðAiÀÄ£ÀÄß PÀÄjvÀÄ F PÉùUÉ ¸ÀA§AzsÀ¥ÀlÖ zÁR¯ÁwUÀ¼ÀÄ J°èªÉ? ºÁdgÀÄ¥Àr¹ JAzÀÄ ¸ÀÆa¹zÁUÀ DgÉÆævÀ ²æäªÁ¸À ªÀÄÆwðAiÀĪÀgÀÄ ¸ÀzÀj zÁR¯ÁwUÀ¼ÀÄ PÀA¢PÉgÉ PÀbÉÃjAiÀÄ°è EgÀÄvÀÛzÉAzÀÄ, PÀbÉÃjAiÀÄ ©ÃUÀzÀ PÉÊ ºÉƸÀºÀ½îAiÀÄ°ègÀĪÀ vÀ£Àß ªÀÄ£ÉAiÀÄ°ègÀÄvÀÛzÉAzÀÆ w½¹zÀÄÝ, vÀ¤SÁ¢üPÁjUÀ¼ÀÄ mÁæ¥ï ¥ÀAZÀ£ÁªÀiÁ £ÀAvÀgÀ DgÉÆævÀgÀÄ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ vÀAqÀzÀªÀgÉÆA¢UÉ DgÉÆævÀgÀ ªÀÄ£É EgÀĪÀ ºÉƸÀºÀ½î UÁæªÀÄPÉÌ ºÉÆÃV PÀA¢UÉgÉ PÀbÉÃjAiÀÄ ©ÃUÀzÀ PÉÊ ¥ÀqÉzÀÄ C°èAzÀ PÀA¢PÉgÉUÉ ºÉÆÃV PÀbÉÃjAiÀÄ°ègÀĪÀ F PÉùUÉ ¸ÀA§A¢ü¹zÀ zÁR¯ÁwUÀ¼À£ÀÄß ªÀ±À¥Àr¹PÉƼÀÄîªÀÅzÁV w½¹zÀgÀÄ.
£ÀAvÀgÀ vÀ¤SÁ¢üPÁjUÀ¼ÀÄ ¥ÀæPÀgÀtzÀ ¥ÀƪÀð ¨sÁ« «ZÁgÀuÉ PÁ®zÀ°è ¦ügÁå¢ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ DgÉÆævÀgÀ £ÀqÀÄªÉ £ÀqÉzÀ ¸ÀA¨sÁµÀuÉAiÀÄ «ªÀgÀªÀ£ÀÄß M¼ÀUÀAqÀ PÁå¸Émï£ÀÄß D£ï ªÀiÁr ªÀÄvÉÆÛªÉÄä J®èjUÀÆ PÉý¹ ¸ÀzÀj PÁå¸Émï£ÀÄß n.-1 JAzÀÄ UÀÄgÀÄw¹zÀgÀÄ. £ÀAvÀgÀ ¥ÀæPÀgÀtPÉÌ ¸ÀA§A¢ü¹zÀ ¸ÀA¨sÁµÀuÉUÀ¼ÀÄ gÉPÁqïð DVgÀĪÀ ªÀÄvÉÆÛAzÀÄ PÁå¸Él£ÀÆß ¸ÉÃj¹ MlÄÖ JgÀqÀÆ PÁå¸ÉlÄÖUÀ¼À£ÀÄß MAzÀÄ SÁ° ®PÉÆÃmÉAiÀÄ°è ºÁQ ªÀ¸ÀÄÛ ¸ÀASÉå 6gÀ PÀæªÀÄ C£ÀĸÀj¹ ¹Ã®Ä ªÀiÁr ¸ÀzÀj ®PÉÆÃmÉAiÀÄ£ÀÄß ªÀ¸ÀÄÛ ¸ÀASÉå 7 JA§ÄzÁV UÀÄgÀÄw¹zÀgÀÄ.
£ÀAvÀgÀ ªÀ¸ÀÄÛUÀ¼À£ÀÄß ¹Ã®Ä ªÀiÁqÀ®Ä G¥ÀAiÉÆÃV¹zÀÝ EAVèõï£À '¹' CPÀëgÀzÀ ¹Ã®£ÀÄß vÀ¤SÁ¢üPÁjUÀ¼ÀÄ ¥ÀAZÀ ¸ÁQë £ÁgÁAiÀÄt ¸Áé«ÄAiÀĪÀgÀ ªÀ±ÀPÉÌ PÉÆlÄÖ CzÀ£ÀÄß 36 Crl.A.No.611/2012 ¸ÀÄgÀQëvÀªÁVlÄÖPÉÆArzÀÄÝ ªÀÄÄAzÉ WÀ£À £ÁåAiÀiÁ®AiÀĪÁUÀ°Ã, «ZÁgÀuÁ¢üPÁjAiÀĪÀgÉà DUÀ°Ã PÉýzÁUÀ ºÁdgÀÄ¥Àr¸ÀĪÀAvÉ w¼ÀĪÀ½PÉ ¤ÃrzÀgÀÄ.
ªÉÄîÌAqÀ PÁgÁåZÀgÀuÉAiÀÄ §UÉÎ MAzÀÄ «ªÀgÀªÁzÀ mÁæöå¥ï ¥ÀAZÀ£ÁªÉÄAiÀÄ£ÀÄß ¢£ÁAPÀ 3-3-2005 gÀAzÀÄ gÁwæ 8-30 UÀAmɬÄAzÀ 11-30 UÀAmÉAiÀĪÀgÉUÉ ºÀĽAiÀiÁgÀÄ ¥Éưøï oÁuÉAiÀÄ°è ¨ÉgÀ¼ÀZÀÄÑ ªÀiÁr¹zÀÄÝ F ¥ÀAZÀ£ÁªÉÄAiÀÄ ªÉÆzÀ® ¨sÁUÀªÀ£ÀÄß DgÉÆævÀgÀ PÀbÉÃjAiÀÄ ªÀÄÄA¨sÁUÀ¢AzÀ ¥ÁægÀA©ü¸À¯ÁVgÀÄvÀÛzÉ. ¥ÀAZÀ£ÁªÀiÁ PÁ®zÀ°è PÉ®ªÀÅ ¥ÀæªÀÄÄR WÀl£ÉUÀ¼À ¨sÁªÀ avÀæ vÉUɸÀ¯Á¬ÄvÀÄ. DzÀgÉ «rAiÉÆà PÁåªÉÄgÁzÀ ¨Áålj ¥ÀÆtð «ÃPï DVzÀÝjAzÀ «rAiÉÆà awæÃPÀgÀt £ÀqɸÀ®Ä ¸ÁzsÀåªÁUÀ°®è JAzÀÄ vÀ¤SÁ¢üPÁjUÀ¼ÀÄ w½¹zÀgÀÄ. ¥ÀAZÀ£ÁªÉÄAiÀÄ MAzÀÄ ¥ÀæwAiÀÄ£ÀÄß DgÉÆævÀ ²æäªÁ¸À ªÀÄÆwð AiÀĪÀjUÉ ¤Ãr ¸À» ¥ÀqÉAiÀįÁ¬ÄvÀÄ. DgÉÆævÀ ²æäªÁ¸À ªÀÄÆwðAiÀĪÀgÀ£ÀÄß £ÉÆÃrzÀgÉ UÀÄgÀÄw¸ÀÄvÉÛãÉ. EµÉÖà £À£Àß ºÉýPÉ.
N¢ ºÉý PÉüÀ¯ÁV ¸ÀjAiÀiÁVzÉ."
15. PW.2 is co-pancha. He also deposed in line of the entrustment mahazar and draft mahazar. In his cross- examination he denies the suggestion that Ex.P.1 was prepared earlier to, he visiting the office of the Lokayuktha. He denies having given the false evidence. 37 Crl.A.No.611/2012
16. PW.3 is the Kannada Lecturer in Government PU college. He was also present at the time of entrustment mahazar.
17. One Sannaiah is examined as PW4. He has not supported the case of the prosecution. He is the one who has accompanied the complainant to the Lokayuktha office. In his cross-examination no useful material is elicited by the prosecution.
18. K.G.Ravichandran Kumar is examined as PW5. He is the PWD engineer, who prepared the spot sketch vide Ex.P5. His evidence is formal in nature.
19. PW.6 is the Village Accountant, who served in Huliyaru Hobli, Seege Bagi Circle, between 1993 to 2006. He admits that portion of the guest house was given for conducting the office and he was using the said place as his office and he is acquainted with the accused who was Village Accountant of Kandikere village. Further deposed that on 02.02.2005, many people had assembled near his office and on enquiry he came to know that Lokayuktha police had trapped the accused. In his cross-examination, he admits 38 Crl.A.No.611/2012 that office keys are with him. He admits that there was no power supply at the time of alleged trap.
20. PW.7 is the sanctioning Authority. There is no serious dispute as to the sanction to prosecute and therefore, his evidence is formal in nature.
21. PW.8 is the witness to Ex.P7 panchanama, he has not supported the case of the prosecution.
22. PW.9 is the Lokayuktha Inspector and head of the raid party. He deposed about the receipt of the complaint, securing of the witnesses for the entrustment and trap mahazar, actual trap and filing of charge sheet. In his cross- examination, he denies the suggestion that the currency note bearing No.OCW691271 is not produced before the Court. MO.1 is obtained by him from Tahasildar on 04.08.2005. He denies that Tahasildar would have been examined by him. He admits that he has not collected any documents from the custody of the accused on the day of trap. He admits that PW.1 has stated before him vide Ex.D1. He denies the other suggestions. The above evidence on record is sought to be 39 Crl.A.No.611/2012 re-appreciated on behalf of the appellant for allowing the appeal.
23. As could be seen from the material evidence on record, there is no dispute that an application came to be filed by the mother of the complainant for mutating the revenue entries in respect of lands in Sy.Nos.298/5P1, 255/13, 298/4 and 262/5, totally measuring 2 1/2 acres. The said application was forwarded from Chikkanayakanahalli Taluk office to Kandikere Village Accountant. Since the application was not processed for long, on account of the old age ailments of the mother of the complainant, complainant approached the accused. However, the alleged demand by the accused in a sum of Rs.1500/- as the illegal gratification for ignoring the deficiencies in the application is not properly established by the prosecution. The illegal gratification amount was then bargained from sum of Rs.1500/- to 1000/-. It is the case of the complainant that he paid Rs.200/- as advance and he was reluctant to pay the balance amount of Rs.800/- and therefore, approached the Lokayuktha police. 40 Crl.A.No.611/2012
24. In order to bring home the guilt of the accused for the alleged offences punishable under Sections 7, 13 (1) (d) r/w Section 13 (2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, prosecution is bound to establish following ingredient as is held in the case of A. Subair Vs. State of Kerala reported in (2009) 6 SCC 587. They are;
(1) demand and acceptance of the illegal gratification by the accused; 2) colour test being stood positive; 3) work must be pending with the accused.
25. In the back drop of the above necessary ingredients, if the material on record is appreciated, for the reasons best known to the prosecution, the conversation said to have taken place between the accused and the complainant before the trap said to have been recorded in a micro cassette is not properly established by the prosecution. Admittedly, after taking the complaint on 02.02.2005, the trap party proceeded to the office of the accused and trap was unsuccessful on account of non availability of the accused. Immediately, the trap party returned from the working place of the accused and took shelter in a private house. What happened to the tainted currency and with whose possession 41 Crl.A.No.611/2012 it was there till 03.02.2005 is not forthcoming on record. In the normal course, the Investigating Officer is required to recollect the tainted currency from the custody of the complainant and draft a mahazar and keep the tainted currency with him. On the next day i.e, 03.02.2005 the Investigating Officer is required to re-entrust the tainted currency to the hands of the complainant and fresh entrustment mahazar is to be drafted. Such a procedure is not adopted by the Investigating Agency in the case on hand. May be, it is a procedural error, it is not prejudice the accused to a great extent. Nevertheless, taking shelter in a private house is unwarranted, especially keeping all the members of the raid party in the private house. Further, on 03.02.2005, they again went to the office of the accused. It is the evidence of PW.1, that the complainant approached the accused and accused gave a signal about the illegal gratification and when complainant wanted to hand over the tainted currency to the hands of the accused, the accused told that there are number of people in the office and therefore, the same to be handed over to Nagaraju in Huliyaru village. Accordingly, the trap party proceeded to Huliyaru village. 42 Crl.A.No.611/2012 They did not find Nagaraju, the Village Accountant in Huliyaru and therefore, the trap party again returned to Kandikere where the accused was working. It is the case of the prosecution that the accused came out around 8.00 p.m., along with one person and after locking the office, complainant approached and handed over the tainted currency and gave pre-designated signal to the raid party. Whereas, the witness PW.6 who is examined on behalf of the prosecution, in his cross-examination clearly admits that he has not seen the trap and he does not know who has intimated him about the trap and at the time of the alleged trap, there was no electricity power in the office of PW6. He also admits that the keys of the office was in his possession. Therefore, there is no cogent and convincing evidence on record to establish the demand and acceptance of the tainted currency by the accused on 03.02.2005 at about 8.00 p.m. If there was no electricity supply in the office of PW.6, wherein accused was also working, how could the raid party was cautioned with the pre-designated signal by the complainant and shadow witness, is a question that remains unanswered by the prosecution.
43 Crl.A.No.611/2012
26. Further, the case of the defence is that the accused never demanded the tainted currency and the tainted currency was thrusted into his hands, which immediately he thrown and the currency notes fell into the compound of the police station situated next to the office of the accused. Trap mahazar also shows that the tainted currency was seized from the compound, from the place where it fell and then produced before the Court. The material objects which was produced as MO.5 comprising of seven notes of Rs.100/- and two notes of Rs.50/- . However, one currency note was missing in MO.5. If at all, if the said currency note is not at all seized by the Investigating Agency, how could it find a place in the trap mahazar and the same is produced before the Court in the form of MO.5 is a question that again remains unanswered.
27. These deficiencies in the prosecution case has been rightly appreciated by the learned Trial Judge in the impugned judgment.
28. Further, since there was no proof of the demand on the day of trap and acceptance of the illegal gratification by the accused, mere colour test turning positive itself would 44 Crl.A.No.611/2012 not be sufficient enough to hold that the prosecution has established its case beyond reasonable doubt.
29. No doubt, though the application filed by the mother of the complainant was pending with the accused, but the same was not seized by the Investigating Agency from the custody of the accused as is admitted by PW.9 in his cross- examination. Then, when exactly that application was seized by the Investigating Agency and from whom, is a question that again remains unanswered. The deficiencies in the case of the prosecution makes the case of the prosecution doubtful.
30. No doubt, though prosecution enjoys the presumption about the culpability of the accused in a matter of this nature, but in order to keep the benefit of the said presumption, the prosecution at the first instance, has to discharge burden cast on it. In the case on hand, since the prosecution has failed to discharge the said burden, there is no question of rebuttal evidence to be placed by the defence.
31. There cannot be any dispute as to the principles of law enunciated in the decisions relied on by the learned counsel for the appellant cited supra.
45 Crl.A.No.611/2012
32. However, the facts of the present case are altogether different and in the absence of any cogent evidence placed by the prosecution to prove the demand and acceptance of the tainted currency and also not properly establishing the pending work by placing cogent evidence, this Court is of the considered opinion that the decisions relied on by the counsel for the appellant is of no avail in improving the case of the prosecution in allowing the appeal.
33. Further, it is the settled principles of law that when once a duly constituted Court records an order of acquittal against an accused, the innocence of the accused gets reinforced by an order of acquittal. Likewise, in a given set of facts, if two views are permissible, the one view which favours the accused must be preferred. It is equally celebrated principles of criminal jurisprudence that the prosecution has to travel a long distance between may be proved and the actual proof thereof. Applying these celebrated principles of criminal jurisprudence to the case on hand, since the prosecution has failed to establish the charges leveled against the accused by placing cogent and convincing evidence on record and the trial 46 Crl.A.No.611/2012 Court having passed an order of acquittal, noting the above deficiencies, this Court is of the considered opinion that any one of the grounds urged in the appeal is sufficient enough to annul the judgment of the trial Court in allowing the appeal. Accordingly, point Nos.1 and 2 are answered in the negative and pass the following.
ORDER Appeal is dismissed.
Bail bond if any, stands discharged.
Sd/-
JUDGE MR