Bangalore District Court
State By Police Inspector vs C.Thimmaiah on 23 February, 2017
IN THE COURT OF LXXVI ADDITIONAL CITY
CIVIL AND
SESSIONS COURT AND SPECIAL COURT,
BENGALURU.
(CCH-77)
PRESENT: Smt.SHRIDEVI S. ANGADI,
B.A., LL.M.,
LXXVI ADDL. CITY CIVIL &
SESSIONS JUDGE &
SPECIAL JUDGE, BENGALURU.
DATED: This the 23rd day of February,2017
Spl. C.C.No. 180/2012
COMPLAINANT State by Police Inspector,
Bengaluru City Division,
Karnataka Lokayukta,
Bangalore.
(Rep by Spl.Public
Prosecutor)
--Vs
ACCUSED 1. C.Thimmaiah,
S/o.Late
Kempthimmaiah,
Age: 59 years,
Block Education Officer,
Office of the Block
Education Officer,
Bengaluru South
2 Spl.C.C.No.180/2012
Range-1, Shankarapura,
Bengaluru-04.
Permanent R/o:
No.2453/7, "Shreyas", 7th
"B" Main Road,
R.P.C.Layout,
Vijayanagara,
Bengaluru-40.
2. N.Ramakrishnaiah,
S/o.Narayanappa,
Age: 54 years,
Co-ordinator,
Office of the Block
Education Officer,
Bengaluru South Range-
1, Shankarapura,
Bengaluru-04.
Presently R/at No.37,
Prashanth Nilaya,
Harinagara Cross,
Muneswara Block,
Konanakunte,
Bengaluru-62.
Permanent R/o:
Kasaragattidapalya,
Shivagange Post,
Nelamangala Taluk,
Bengaluru South District.
A1 : (By Sri. Venkataramanan
Naik - Advocate.)
A2 : (By Sri.I.S.Pramod
Chandra , Advocate.)
3 Spl.C.C.No.180/2012
1. Nature of Offences Offences punishable under
Sec.7, 13(1)(d)
R/w.Sec.13(2) Prevention of
Corruption Act, 1988
2. Date of 15.03.2012
Commission
of offences
3. Date of First 15.03.2012
Information Report
4. Date of arrest of 15.03.2012
accused
5.Date of 01.10.2014
Commencement of
recording of evidence
6. Date of 05.12.2016
Closing of evidence
7. Date of 23.02.2017
Pronouncement of
Judgment
8. Result of the case The accused No.1 & 2
are acquitted under
section 235(1) of Cr.P.C.
of the offences
punishable under Ss.7,
13(1) (d) r/w.13(2) of
Prevention of Corruption
Act, 1988.
4 Spl.C.C.No.180/2012
JUDGMENT
The accused No.1 and 2 are charge sheeted for the alleged offences punishable under Sections 7, 13(1)(d) r/w Sec.13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.
2. The prosecution case is that:
On 15.03.2012, Sri.Nagaraj (P.W.1) has made a written complaint with the Lokayuktha Police alleging that while he was working as a Head Master of Government Higher Primary School, Byalalu, Bengaluru South Zone-1, the accused No.1 was working as Block Education Officer and accused No.2 was working as Education Coordinator, in the office of the BEO. The accused No.2 and his team had conducted school inspection on 19.10.2011. The BEO has not signed the said file. In this regard, he met the accused No.1 & 2 and requested them to sign the file. He was told by the accused No.1 & 2 that the file pertaining to school is not in order. Accused No.2 has stated that the things would not 5 Spl.C.C.No.180/2012 be completed only on talk, if something were to be given to A1, the work could be done. Again he met A1 whereupon he told that the Inspection Report has not come to his chamber and directed him to speak with accused No.2. Being annoyed by this act, the complainant has approached the Lokayuktha Police, whereupon he was provided with Voice Recorder to record the conversation with the accused. Thereafter, he met accused No.2, who demanded Rs.5,000/- as bribe. The conversation with the accused No.2 is recorded. For 2 to 3 times, he tried to record the conversation of accused No.1, but could not record it, as accused No.1 did not speak with him. As per the instructions of the Lokayuktha Inspector, on 09.03.2012 once again he met the accused No.1. He was told by accused No.1 that he will verify the records and instructed accused No.2 about the amount by giving hand signal. On 15.03.2012, he met Police Inspector, Lokayuktha and lodged the complaint. On the basis of the complaint, Crime No.21/2012 was registered 6 Spl.C.C.No.180/2012 for the offence punishable under Ss. 7, 13(1) (d) r/w.13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act.
3. C.W.17- N.G.Shivashankar, Police Inspector, Lokayuktha has secured C.W.2- Hanumantharayappa, an employee of Karnataka Tourism Department and C.W.3-Jagadish, an employee of Mines and Geology Department to act as panchas for the Trap. The bait amount of Rs.5,000/- marked at M.Os.1 & 2 was smeared with Phenolphthalein powder and given to the complainant with an instruction to pay the same to the accused only on demand. C.W.3-Jagadish was instructed to act as shadow witness and to observe the transaction. The Entrustment Mahazar was prepared as per Ex.P3.
4. On 15.03.2012, at about 4-05 p.m., C.W.17
- Lokayuktha Inspector and his staff along with complainant, and two panch witnesses proceeded towards the office of the BEO., Shankarapura. The complainant went inside the Office of the BEO.
7 Spl.C.C.No.180/2012C.W.3- Jagadish has followed the complainant. The accused No.1 & 2 were trapped while demanding and accepting the bribe amount of Rs.5,000/- from the complainant. Out of tainted currency notes of Rs.5,000/- which had been smeared with Phenolphthalein powder, Rs.2,500/- was recovered from accused No.2 and the balance amount of Rs.2,500/- was recovered from the table drawer of accused No.1. Before that, both the hand fingers of accused No.2 were made to dip in the Sodium Carbonate Solution. The hand wash solution of accused No.2 becomes light pink colour. The table drawer of accused No.1 was rubbed with the cotton and the said cotton was dipped in the Sodium Carbonate Solution, which turned to light pink colour. C.W.17 has seized the concerned file from the office of the BEO. The accused No.1 & 2 gave their statement in writing as per Ex.P6 & P7 respectively. Trap Mahazar was prepared as per Ex.P4. After obtaining the sanction order from the Competent Authority to prosecute the accused No.2, the Charge Sheet is filed. Since the accused No.1 8 Spl.C.C.No.180/2012 has retired from service, no sanction is necessary and hence not obtained.
5. My Predecessor in Office took the cognizance of the offence. In pursuance of the summons, accused appeared before the Court. The accused No.1 & 2 are on bail. The accused have engaged the services of an Advocate to defend them. After hearing, the charge was framed for the offence punishable under Sections 7, 13(1) (d) r/w.13 (2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act. The Charge was read over and explained to the accused. The accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.
6. During the trial, the prosecution has examined in all 5 witnesses as P.Ws.1 to 5 and got marked 21 Exhibits as Ex.P1 to Ex.P21 and 15 Material Objects. The accused No.1 & 2 were examined under section 313 of Cr.P.C. for the purpose of enabling them to explain the circumstances existing against them. The accused denied all the incriminating evidence available 9 Spl.C.C.No.180/2012 against them. The accused No.1 & 2 have filed written statement under section 313 (5) of Cr.P.C. and produced documents. The accused have not chosen to lead any defense evidence. I have heard the arguments.
7. After hearing the arguments and on perusal of the records, the points that arise for my consideration are:
1. Whether the prosecution proves beyond all reasonable doubt that the accused No.1 & 2 being the public servants, working as BEO and Education Coordinator respectively on 15.03.2012 at about 4-40 p.m., have demanded and accepted illegal gratification of Rs.2,500/- each from the complainant- Nagaraj for showing an official favour in the matter of finalizing the Inspection Report of the School of the complainant and thereby committed an offence punishable under section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988?
2. Whether the prosecution proves beyond all reasonable doubt that the 10 Spl.C.C.No.180/2012 accused No.1 & 2 being the public servants, working as BEO and Education Coordinator respectively on 15.03.2012 at about 4-40 p.m., by abusing their position as public servants and by corrupt or illegal means and without public interest obtained Rs.2,500/- each from the complainant - Nagaraj as pecuniary advantage and thereby committed Criminal mis-conduct punishable under section 13(1)(d) r/w. section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act 1988?
3. What order?
8. My answer to the above points are as under:
POINT No.1: IN THE NEGATIVE POINT No.2: IN THE NEGATIVE POINT No.3: AS PER FINAL ORDER. for the following:
REASONS
9. POINT No.1 AND 2: For the sake of convenience and to avoid repetition of facts, I have taken both the points together for consideration.
11 Spl.C.C.No.180/201210. C.W.1- Nagaraj is examined as P.W.1. P.W.1 is the complainant. P.W.1 has deposed that on 19.10.2011, his school was inspected. Accused No.1 has delayed in subscribing the signature on the Inspection Report. About 4 - 5 times, he met the accused No.1 in his office and requested him to sign the Inspection Report. He was told by accused No.1, that if accused No.2 were to prepare the report, he would sign. When he approached accused No.2, he told him that if report were to be prepared by accused No.1, he would forward the same. By that time, reports of all the other schools were ready and signed by accused No.1. Accused No.2 told him that there is some financial irregularities from his side. P.W.1 has further deposed that 4 - 5 days after the inspection of his school, accused No.2 demanded Rs.20,000/- as bribe. After bargain, demand amount was scaled down to Rs.5,000/-. On 15.03.2012, he lodged complaint before Lokayuktha Police Station as per Ex.P1. C.W.17 has secured presence of C.W.2 & 3 and drawn Entrustment 12 Spl.C.C.No.180/2012 Mahazar as per Ex.P3. P.W.1 has further deposed that along with two panch witnesses, C.W.17 and his staff and himself went to the office of accused No.1 & 2. They parked the vehicle nearby the office of BEO. He along with C.W.2 went to the office of accused No.1. He met accused No.2. At that time, C.W.2 was with him. Accused No.2 asked him whether he brought the amount. He answered in the affirmative. Accused No.2 asked him to sit in his office and went to the chamber of accused No.1. Immediately, accused No.2 came out of the chamber of accused No.1 and asked him to give the amount. When he was about to lift the tainted currency notes, accused No.2 took those notes from the left side pocket of his shirt. After counting it, accused No.2 kept Rs.2,500/- for himself and placed the balance amount of Rs.2,500/- in his left side shirt pocket. Accused No.2 took him to the chamber of accused No.1. Accused No.1 gave signal to accused No.2 to receive money. On the instructions of accused No.2, he gave balance amount of Rs.2,500/- by removing it from his left side shirt 13 Spl.C.C.No.180/2012 pocket. Accused No.2 placed those tainted currency notes of Rs.2,500/- in the table drawer of accused No.1. He came out of the office of accused No.1 and gave signal by wiping right side of the head and cheek. Immediately, C.W.17 and his staff entered the office of accused No.1 & 2. C.W.17 disclosed his identity. C.W.17 contacted the Deputy Director of Public Instructions and Commissioner of Education over phone. C.W.17 took currency notes from the shirt pocket of the accused No.2. Both hand fingers of accused No.2 were made to dip in the Sodium Carbonate Solution. The right hand fingers wash turned to pink colour. He did not observe whether the left hand fingers wash turned to any colour. On the instructions of Lokayuktha Police, accused No.2 took out tainted currency notes from the table drawer of accused No.1. Thereafter, accused No.1 & 2 were brought to the Lokayuktha Police Station, wherein, Trap Mahazar was drawn as per Ex.P4.
11. Since P.W.1 has not fully supported the prosecution case, he was treated as partly hostile 14 Spl.C.C.No.180/2012 and learned Special Public Prosecutor cross examined this witness.
12. During the course of cross-examination made on behalf of accused No.1 & 2, P.W.1 has categorically admitted that on 19.10.2011, the accused No.1 and his team consisting of 5 members had conducted school inspection and pointed out some financial irregularities and latches on his part in maintaining the Registers.
13. P.W.2-Smt.Padmavathi K is the Sanctioning Authority who accorded the sanction for prosecuting the accused No.2. The Sanction Order dated 19.06.2012 is marked as Ex.P5. On the basis of draft sanction order sent by ADGP, Lokayuktha, she issued the Sanction Order as per Ex.P5. From the evidence of P.W.2, it is clear that without application of mind and without appreciating the documents, she has mechanically accorded the sanction. Therefore, Ex.P5 is not a valid and proper Sanction Order.
15 Spl.C.C.No.180/201214. P.W.3- H.B.Jagadish is the shadow witness. Evidence of P.W.3 - Shadow witness discloses that he has not gone inside the chamber of the accused along with P.W.1. He stood near by the chamber of the accused No.1. He was not able to overhear the conversation between the accused and P.W.1 and also not able to see the payment of bait money by P.W.1.
15. P.W.3 has turned hostile. He has not supported the prosecution case. The learned Special public prosecutor cross examined P.W.3 at length, but nothing useful was elicited during the course of cross examination. P.W.3 stated to have given statement before C.W.17as per Ex.P8. But P.W.3 has denied of giving such statement before C.W.17.
16. The next evidence relied on by the prosecution is P.W.4- Smt.Geetha. She is the chance witness. Earlier P.W.4 was working as a teacher in Government Higher Primary School at Chinkurchi. At that time, accused No.1 was working 16 Spl.C.C.No.180/2012 as BEO, Bengaluru South. On 15.03.2012, she had been to the office of the accused No.1 for obtaining Relieving Order, in order to join as First Division Assistant in City Civil Court, Bengaluru. According to the prosecution, P.W.4 has seen the accused No.2 placing the bait money in the table drawer of accused No.1. But her evidence discloses that a teacher from Byalalu School had come to the chamber of accused No.1 and forcibly placed cash on his table, the accused No.1 has refused to receive the said amount.
17. P.W.4 has turned hostile. She has not supported the prosecution case. The learned Special public prosecutor cross examined P.W.4 at length, but nothing useful was elicited during the course of cross-examination. P.W.4 stated to have given statement before C.W.17 as per Ex.P12. But P.W.4 has denied of giving such a statement.
18. P.W.5-Shiva Shankar is the Investigating Officer. P.W.5 has deposed that he registered the 17 Spl.C.C.No.180/2012 complaint in Crime No.21/2012, after securing the presence of C.W.2 & C.W.3 drawn Pre-Trap- Mahazar as per Ex.P3. P.W.5 has also deposed about the recovery of the tainted currency notes from accused No.1 & 2, positive result of hand wash of accused No.2, drawing of Trap Mahazar as per Ex.P4 and conducting further investigation in the case.
19. It is well settled that the demand of illegal gratification by the accused and acceptance of the same is sine-qua-non for constituting the offence under section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act,1988. The prosecution is required to prove that there was demand and acceptance to bring home the guilt of the accused. The prosecution is also required to prove that the work of the complainant was pending with the accused as on the date of the trap. The burden to prove the accusation for the offence punishable under Ss.7, 13(1)(d) r/w.13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 with regard to demand and acceptance of illegal gratification by 18 Spl.C.C.No.180/2012 the accused from the complainant to do an official favour lies on the prosecution.
20. The materials on record reveal that before 15.03.2012, the complainant approached the Lokayuktha Police twice. Three months earlier to the date of trap, he first approached the Lokayuktha Police. Twenty days after his first visit, once again he visited the Lokayuktha Police. During the second visit, the Lokayuktha Police in order to get concrete material for registering the case gave voice recorder to the complainant to record the conversation with accused No.1 & 2. Accordingly, the complainant has recorded the conversation with the accused No.2. But he could not record the voice of the accused No.1, though he tried for 2- 3 times.
21. It is well settled that giving voice recorder to record conversation with regard to demand of bribe does not constitute preliminary enquiry, rather it amounts to collecting the evidence against in person accused of. The Investigating Officer 19 Spl.C.C.No.180/2012 should act as impartial and independent investigating agency. When the complainant approached the Lokayuktha Police for the first time, the Investigating Officer did not make enquiry with him, as to what would be the consequences of non- submission of the Annual Inspection Report by the accused and how the complainant is going to be affected, if the accused caused delay in processing the Inspection Report. When there is no material to register the complaint, the Investigating Officer should have insisted better material for registering the complaint. He should not have associated himself and assisted the complainant by giving Voice Recorder to record the conversation. This indicates undue interest shown by the Investigating Officer in the investigation of the case. Therefore, it becomes doubtful to believe the credibility and integrity of the investigation and the Final Report. In view of the above serious illegalities, the investigation gets vitiated.
20 Spl.C.C.No.180/201222. It is well settled that electronic record like CD, VCD, Pen-drive, etc., which contains the statement which is sought to be given as secondary evidence has to be accompanied by a certificate as specified in section 65- B(4)of the Indian Evidence Act. In the absence of such certificate, secondary evidence of electronic record can not be admitted in evidence. In the present case, MO No.5, MO No.6, MO No.13 & MO.15 are the CD, which contains conversation which is sought to be given as secondary evidence are not accompanied by a certificate as specified in section 65-B(4) of the Indian Evidence Act. In the absence of such certificate, these Material Objects can not be admitted in evidence. Further, the Investigating Officer has not collected the sample voice of the accused and sent it to Forensic Science Laboratory for scientific investigation. On this ground also, MO No. 5, 6, 13 & 15 can not be admitted in evidence.
23. The complainant being the interested witness has deposed regarding demand and 21 Spl.C.C.No.180/2012 acceptance of bribe by the accused. There could be no doubt that evidence of the complainant should be corroborated in material particulars. P.W.3 an independent witness has not played his role as instructed and in the manner as required under law. The evidence of P.W.3 - shadow witness discloses that he stood near by the chamber of accused No.1 and not gone inside the chamber of accused No.1 along with P.W.1.He was unable to over hear the conversation between the accused and P.W.1 and also not able to see the payment of bait money by P.W.1. P.W.3 has not witnessed the transaction between the complainant and the accused No.1 & 2. P.W.4, a chance witness has also not supported the prosecution case. According to her, a teacher from Byalalu School has forcibly placed some cash on the table of accused No.1 and he refused to accept the same. The Investigating Officer has not collected the hand wash of the accused No.1, obviously, for the reason that the accused No.1 did not handle the tainted currency notes - M.O.No.2. Absolutely, there is no 22 Spl.C.C.No.180/2012 independent corroboration to prove the theory of demand and acceptance of bribe by the accused. The prosecution has miserably failed to prove essential ingredients of Ss. 7, 13(1)(d) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.
24. It is well settled that mere recovery of tainted money and positive result of Phenolphthalein test is not sufficient to establish the guilt of the accused, unless there is a corroboration of testimony of complainant regarding demand and acceptance of bribe by the accused.
25. The materials on record disclose that on 19.10.2011, the Inspection team consisting of 5 members including the accused No.1 & 2 had conducted the Annual Inspection of the school of the complainant. The Inspection Team has pointed out some financial irregularities and latches on the part of the complainant with regard to misappropriation of school funds and directed the complainant to remit the difference amount of 23 Spl.C.C.No.180/2012 Rs.23,090/-. The complainant has not offered proper and satisfactory explanation to the Inspection team about the financial irregularities pointed out by them. There are no guidelines issued by the Government about the time limit prescribed for processing the Inspection Report. The Investigating Officer has not collected guidelines issued by the Government regarding procedure prescribed for processing the Inspection Report and produced before the Court. It is not forthcoming from the evidence collected by the prosecution about the hurdle that would have been caused to the complainant, if Inspection Report is not processed by the accused. What is the further course of action, if Inspection Report is not processed or signed by the members of the Inspection Team is also not forthcoming. The Investigating Officer did not make enquiry with the complainant before registering the complaint as to what would be the consequences of non-submission of the Annual Inspection Report by the accused. The Investigating Officer has also not collected any 24 Spl.C.C.No.180/2012 evidence to show the reason for the complainant to choose only the accused No.1 & 2, though inspection was conducted by 5 members. It is evident from the record that the complainant was a man of dubious character, he had misappropriated the school funds, he has faced departmental enquiry in the hands of accused No.1 in connection with the suicide attempt made by a teacher and he was warned by the DDPI, on an earlier occasion he suffered suspension order for misappropriation of school funds and he was indulging in dereliction of duty. It appears that only to overcome the financial irregularities and latches pointed out by the Inspection team, to avoid remittance of difference amount of Rs.23,090/- and to wreck vengeance against the accused No.1 & 2, the complainant has foisted a false case against the accused No.1 & 2.
26 . The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of C.Sukumaran -Vs- State of Kerala (2015) 11 SCC 314 held that:
25 Spl.C.C.No.180/2012"Demand of illegal gratification by the accused and acceptance of the same is sine qua non for constituting the offence under section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act,1988. The burden to prove the accusation for the offence punishable under S.13(1)(d) with regard to the acceptance of illegal gratification from the complainant lies on the prosecution. ''
27. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of N.Sunkanna -Vs- State of Andhra Pradesh (2016)1 SCC 713 held that :
"Prevention of Corruption Act,1988- Ss.7 and 13(1)(d) r/w.13(2)- Illegal gratification-
Demand not proved- Inapplicability of presumption under S.20- Held, it is only on proof of acceptance of illegal gratification that presumption can be drawn under S.20 of the Act that such gratification was received for doing or forbearing to do any official act- Unless there is proof of demand of 26 Spl.C.C.No.180/2012 illegal gratification, proof of acceptance will not follow."
In the said case, the Hon'ble Supreme Court was pleased to set aside the order of conviction and sentence as the primary facts for drawing legal presumption under section 20 of the Prevention of Corruption Act are wholly absent.
28. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of P.Sathyanarayana Murthy -Vs- District Inspector of Police, A.P.(2015) 10 SCC 152 held that:
" Mere acceptance of any amount allegedly by way of illegal gratification or recovery thereof, dehors the proof of demand, ipso facto, reiterated would not be sufficient to bring home the charge under Ss.7 and 13 of 1988 Act. "
In the said case, the Hon'ble Supreme court was pleased to reverse the conviction order.
29. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of 27 Spl.C.C.No.180/2012 Anvar P.V. -Vs- P.K.Basheer & others (2014) 10 SCC 473 held that:
" B. Evidence Act, 1872- S.65-B(4)- Secondary evidence of electronic record- Producing copy of statement pertaining to electronic record in evidence not being the original electronic record- Mandatory pre requirement- Held such statement has to be accompanied by a certificate as specified in S.65-B(4)-
Essential ingredients of such certificate, enumerated- Held such certificate must accompany electronic record like CD, VCD, ,Pen drive etc., which contains the statement which is sought to be given as secondary evidence, when the same is produced in evidence- In absence of such certificate, secondary evidence of electronic record can not be admitted in evidence. "
30. The Hon'ble Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka, in the case of Lakshmikantha S.G. -Vs- State by Karnataka Lokayuktha Criminal petition No.3750/2013 ( unreported Judgment) held that :
28 Spl.C.C.No.180/2012" Handing over of tape recorder to the complainant to record the conversation with regard to demand of bribe amounts to collecting the evidence against any person/accused and same vitiates the entire proceedings. "
31. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of State of Kerala & Another -Vs- C.P.Rao (2011)6 SCC 450 held that:
" A. The Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988-Ss. 7 13(2) and 13(1)(d)- Trap case for taking bribe - mere recovery of tainted money divorced from circumstances under which it is paid, is not sufficient to convict accused- When there is no corroboration of testimony of complainant regarding demand of bribe by accused, it has to be accepted that complainant's version is not corroborated and, therefore, evidence of complainant cannot be relied on."
32. The Hon'ble Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka in the case of R.Malini -Vs- State of Karnataka 2012(1) KCCR 414 held that:
29 Spl.C.C.No.180/2012"B. The Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988-Sections 7, 13(1)(d)- Mere possession of the amount by the accused can not be taken as receipt of the amount by the accused after demand made by him as the evidence of demand is totally lacking."
33. The Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka, in the case of State by Lokayuktha Police, Kolar -Vs- V. Venkatesh 2012 SCC Online Kar.4920 held that :
" Merely because the hand wash of the accused turn the chemical solution into pink colour, that itself will not be sufficient to hold that the prosecution has proved the demand and acceptance of the bribe amount by the accused, unless it is corroborated by the independent witness. "
34. I have carefully gone through the facts and ratio laid down in the above quoted decisions. I respectfully agree with the law laid down in the above quoted decisions. I have borne in mind the ratio laid down in the above quoted decisions while 30 Spl.C.C.No.180/2012 appreciating the evidence and on coming to the conclusion.
35. In the instant case, P.W.3 & P.W.4 the material witnesses have not supported the prosecution case and there is only uncorroborative evidence of the complainant. In the background of the dubious character of the complainant who found to be misappropriated the school funds, indulging in dereliction of duty, faced departmental enquiry in the hands of the accused No.1, the defense theory that in order to wreck vengeance and to overcome the financial irregularities and latches pointed out by the Inspection Team and to avoid remittance of the difference amount of Rs.23,090/-, the complainant hatched a plan to trap the accused appears to be more probable one. Under the circumstances, it is not safe to base the conviction of the accused on uncorroborated evidence of the complainant. The prosecution has miserably failed to prove alleged charges of demand and acceptance 31 Spl.C.C.No.180/2012 of bribe leveled against the accused. Hence, I answer the points No.1 & 2 in the Negative.
36. POINT No.3:- In the result, I proceed to pass the following:
ORDER The accused No.1 & 2 are acquitted under section 235(1) of Cr.P.C. of the offences punishable under Ss. 7, 13(1)(d) r/w.13(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and set at liberty.
Bail bond executed by
accused No.1 & 2 stands
cancelled.
M.O.1 & 2-Currency notes are
ordered to be confiscated to the
32 Spl.C.C.No.180/2012
State after expiry of appeal
period.
M.Os. 3 to 15 being
worthless are ordered to be
destroyed after the appeal
period is over.
(Dictated to the judgment writer, after transcription, corrected by me and then pronounced by me in the open court on this the 23rd day of February, 2017) (SHRIDEVI S. ANGADI) LXXVI Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge & Special Judge, Bengaluru- (CCH-77) ANNEXURE List of witnesses examined on behalf of the prosecution:
PW 1 : Nagaraja
PW 2 : Smt.K.Padmavathi
PW 3 : H.B.Jagadish
33 Spl.C.C.No.180/2012
PW 4 : Smt.Geetha
PW 5 : Shivashankar
List of documents marked on behalf of
prosecution:
Ex P 1 : Complaint
Ex P1(a) : Signature of PW 1
Ex P1(b) : Signature of PW 1
Ex P1(c) : Signature of PW 1
Ex P1(d) : Endorsement & Signature Ex P2 : Currency Details Sheet Ex P2(a) : Signatures of PW 3 Ex P2(b) : Signatures of PW 3 Ex P2(c) : Signatures of PW 5 Ex P3: Pre Trap Mahazar Ex P3(a) : Signatures of PW 1 Ex.P3 (b)to 3(g) Signatures of PW 2 Ex.3P(h) : Signatures of PW 5 Ex.P4 : Trap Mahazar Ex.p4(a) : Signature of PW.1 Ex P4(b) to 4(l) : Signature of PW 3 Ex P4(m) : Signature of PW 5 Ex.P5 : Sanction order 34 Spl.C.C.No.180/2012 Ex.P5(a) : Signature of PW 2 Ex.P6 : Explanation of A-1 Ex.P6(a) : Signature of PW.3 Ex.P6(b) : Signature of PW.5 Ex P7 : Explanation of A-2 Ex.P7(a) : Signature of PW.3 Ex.P7(b) : Signature of PW.5 Ex P8 : Portion of Statement of P.W.3 Ex P9 : Portion of Statement of P.W.1 Ex P10 : Digital Voice Recorder Transcription Sheet Dated 15.03.2012 Ex.P11: Voice Recording Transcription Sheets(Demand) Ex P12 : Portion of the Statement of P.W.4 Ex P13 : Transcription of conversation record in Spy and Digital Voice Recorder Ex P14 : Attendance Register Extract Ex P15 : C.C. of Inspection report of the year 2011-12 Ex P16 : Sample seal Ink L.A.C., Cr.No.21/2012 Ex. P17 : Sketch 35 Spl.C.C.No.180/2012 Ex P18 : Covering letter Exs P19 : Chemical Examination Report Ex P20 : Service particulars of A1 & A2 Ex.P21: Service particulars List of material objects marked on behalf of the prosecution:
MO 1 : Currency Notes Rs.2,500/- Article No.8 MO 2 : Currency notes Rs.2,500/- (Article No.9) MO 3 : Article No.1 MO 4 : Article No.2 MO 5 : Article No.3 MO 6 : Article No.4 MO 7: Article No.5 MO 8 : Article No.6 MO 9 : Article No.7 MO 10 : Article No.10 36 Spl.C.C.No.180/2012 MO 11 : Article No.11 MO 12 : Article No.12 MO 13 : Article No.13 MO 14 : Article No.14 MO 15 : Article No.15 List of witnesses examined on behalf of accused:
- Nil-
List of documents marked on behalf of accused:
- Nil-
(SHRIDEVI S. ANGADI) LXXVI Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge & Special Judge, Bengaluru- (CCH-77) 37 Spl.C.C.No.180/2012 (Judgment pronounced in the open Court vide separate judgment) ORDER (SHRIDEVI S. ANGADI) LXXVI Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge & Special Judge, Bengaluru- (CCH-77) 38 Spl.C.C.No.180/2012