Karnataka High Court
State By Police Inspector vs G V Vinay Kumar on 16 September, 2008
Author: K.Sreedhar Rao
Bench: K.Sreedhar Rao
EN TEE HISH COURT 0? KRRNRTAKR, BANGALORE_ DATES THIS THE 16th DAY OF SEPTEMBER, :éé§ '. BEFORE THE §QN'BLE MRnJUSTICE KISRaaSHAR R§Q"vf." Cz1.A. No.3QO Q§;2§§§ 1.
STATE BY PoL:c:a;N$yéCT§Rj*. LOKAYUKTA P0L:¢E~ .- '* '<"
CHITRE§QRGRyr ...RPPELLRNT :Bf=sr:; 3 G R§3ENDRA REDDY ~ADv.)
3.'s v'§;NAY KUMAR "«:.§:v:sIoN ASSISTANT GF?§CE 09 Tag ASENIQR ASST DIRECTQR 0? n'_ HGR?lCULTURE ZELAL yamcaayawa "vcH:TRAD§R$A TALUK ~cH1TRAmuRGA ... RESPQNSENT {By Sfi : N S VE§UG$PAL --RDV. } ?HIS CRL.R. IS FILES UfS.3?8{i} & (3) CR.§.C BY THE STATE P.P. EGR THE STATE PREYING THRT Cg//, TEES HQN'BL€ CQURT zéay 33 ?LEASE£} T£> sR§g€_ LEAVE T9 FELE AN APPEAL AGAINST THE Ju§§EMEM$ . DT 15.7.2034 paasas BY THE PRL. S§SSIQ§3m 2 SUDGE, CHITRADURGR IN SPECEAE CASE {P§R)»§O{ 4f2GG2 ACQUITTING ?HE APPELLANT ~ ASCUSEBVEQR THE GFEENCE u/3.7 AND U/S. 13f15sqy_Rg%*:3{2§»*,V 09 PC RQT, 1988.
?HE APPELLANT W STATE 9RAy$_?H£?_§HE A§Qyfi E ORBER MAY BE SET ASIDE. ' " . '.'z 2 "W This appea:*:om1a§'ofi far hesfififi this day} the court delivergd the Following:
:JUB§M$NT;g '"
It is the fiasé of the_pr0secutiom that the accused was 'w0rk;ég""'a3 a EDA in the Rortigulfiure'y Dépa:tment at Chitradurga. _Eqfi,i{c$fipia@nant§ was entitled to get subsidy émgufit sf §sf$fi,6?Gf* fram the department, the ' _accusea,ae§éfided Rs.1OQOf- as bribe :0 issue u V@h3qge '~ielating ta subaidy; P.W.l was ' @e1uc€amt to give tha bribe, henca complained thé matter t0 the Lok Ayukta P@1ice. A trap i5 '"a§raa ed. P.w. 2 is a shade witness. ?.W.§ ia Q {5} the seizure Hmhazar witness. Bait maney 3 Cg/%% marked at M.O.l consisting of 16 not@§ d§ ifiif éenominatien. Bait maney' was $méaré@ 'wi:h_' phinopthalin pewder. The bait m§p5was'giwéfiHto;A ?.W.l with specific instrfictions tc pg? fig xaeé accused only an demgnd.
2. ?.W.l and 2;aZ;Qs %fidf§the: Staff go ta the offi§e," P;WIfi:;§§§, é %§éJ asked ta proceed a¢e%d_%h@'%?§E:th$f%fi§Q§ed. The L.O.
9.w.4 Vang "'*<::En§.;g'¢_;e:':'f:1.':::;::s airait out side tiae office; :§.Wfi*;CcGm§ani&d by P.W.2 meets the accused 'and "makes }demand for payment of . subsidy*amau§t, The accused demands the bribe. VK ?{W,1_§ay3 the tainted maney. P.W.1 comes ana gifies t§é,i$$tructed signal. The 1.0. canes * and cohdaéts coiour teSt by asking the accu3ed ;*:é'«fiip" his fingerS in the sadium. cazbomate T s©l§ti0n prepared at tma sgat. The selutiwn fining pink zgxwz the cfigy Gf fimgerg. Eait money from tha p®SS€SSiOR of the accused is F 12 M1 seized mafia: a mahazar. ?he 1.0. 2 ie:
we cheque on, 22.$.2Q@lT and ancashed. it. WVTEG entire trap is held after :eceipi"fafifi;"
émcashmant of the subsidy by ?.W.i,"w?h§"i.0. has conduated the invesiiqationuifi'afi,un¢aRny, manner. The 1.0. haa moi iriafi to ceiigii t%e original of the cheque fief tried :3 fififi cufi from the treasury and Concarneg bank regarding a.» ffie emcashmemt of ~the7 ehé@uég}°?he menu p:9ducti$a_bf'éh$ Qiiginaiwéhaque is helfi to '.6'{aF'§3<*-'W... ' be fatal §&®w'fi@rV,h3"p:asacution case by the trial CQuf:;_%ltheuGh; formaliy the theory cf ~.d@madd Sad accepfiance Qf bribe 13 egtabiishéd 'fibfJ"ih@_V€¥i§€UC€ sf E.W}3 and seizuze of tainted ménéy from the accused by the evidence [cf § fif2,§;W.é émd the i.G. it becomes vezy jfiifficult {Q believe tha theory' that the '*am§uni received cauld ha a consideration fa: u",dai§g an official favout is: issuing the cheque iawards subsidy. Since the said cheque was i$sued and coilectad by ?.W.l much fit aarlier to the trap. In that vi@w, thw-t:ial caurt has passed an order of acqui::$l,V:"
rm} dc not find that the reasQms_g;V§n by :béQ_7 trail couri fa: acquittal is ge$vers% 36 ca; 1 far interference in a 9e§;Q Rccbrdinjlfi the .. ._ ' ' J1' appeal is dismissed.
Sd/_ Judge Gps*