Bangalore District Court
The State Of Karnataka vs M.V.Chikkanna on 9 November, 2017
IN THE COURT OF LXXVII ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL AND
SESSIONS COURT AND SPECIAL COURT UNDER
PREVENTION OF CORRUPTION ACT, BENGALURU.
(CCH-78)
PRESENT: SRI MALLIKARJUNAGOUD,
B.A.L. LL.B.,
LXXVII ADDL. CITY CIVIL &
SESSIONS JUDGE &
SPECIAL JUDGE, BENGALURU.
DATED: 9TH NOVEMBER, 2017
Spl. C.C.No.51/2013
*****
COMPLAINANT: The State of Karnataka,
Rep by Inspector of Police,
Karnataka Lokayuktha Police,
Bengaluru City Wing, Bengaluru.
(Rep by Sri S.P.Hubballi, Public
Prosecutor)
V/s
ACCUSED: M.V.Chikkanna, Aged 57 years,
S/o Venkataswamy,
Senior Health Inspector,
BBMP, Maruthi Seva Nagara,
Ward No.28, Sarvajna Nagara,
Bengaluru,
R/o No.9, Maheshwaramma Gudi Beedi,
J.C.Nagara, Bengaluru.
(Rep by Sri. N.K.Damodar, Adv.)
2 Spl. C.C. No.51/2013
1. Nature of Offence: Offence punishable under
Sec.7, 13(1)(d)R/w Sec.13(2) of
Prevention of Corruption Act 1988.
2. Date of Commission 14-05-2012
of offence:
3. Date of First Information 14-05-2012
Report:
4. Date of Arrest: 15-05-2012
5. Date of Commencement 22-10-2016
Of recording of evidence:
6. Date of Closing of evidence: 17-06-2017
7. Date of Pronouncement of 09-11-2017
Judgment.
8. Result of the case: Accused is convicted.
^^^^^
JUDGMENT
In this case Police Inspector, Karnataka Lokayuktha, Bengaluru City Division, has filed charge sheet against the accused for the offences punishable under Sec.7 and 13(1)(d) r/w Sec.13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.
2. The charges leveled against the accused are that: the complainant-CW.1-K.M.Arunkumar was running a bakery, sweet manufacturing and sale in the name and style as New Ganesha Bhavan in shop No.35 situated on Maruthi Seva Nagara main road, 3 Spl. C.C. No.51/2013 Banasawadi, Bengaluru. For obtaining trade licence for manufacturing and sale of the bakery and sweets in his shop, he has submitted his application before BBMP office Pulikeshinagara, Bengaluru, for the year 2012-13. This accused was working as health inspector in the said office. On 25-04-2012 the complainant had been to the said BBMP office and consulted this accused in connection with his trade licence, at that time, this accused demanded illegal gratification of Rs.35,000- 00 for doing official favour to the complainant in obtaining trade license. After bargain, it was reduced to Rs.29,000-00. On 09-05- 2012 the complainant paid a sum of Rs.5,000-00, again on 10-05- 2012 he paid Rs.10,000-00. Fed-up with the illegal demand of bribe amount by the accused, he consulted his friend Bhimanna and he told him to consult the Lokayuktha Police. On his advice, on 14-05-2012 he had been to Lokayuktha office and filed his written complaint. After registering the case, Lokayuktha police and panch witnesses came near the shop of the complainant and waited up to 06-00 PM. On that day accused did not come, on enquiry by the complainant over his phone, he told him that he will come on next day. On 15-05-2012 in the afternoon this accused appeared in the shop of the complainant and demanded the balance illegal gratification amount, at that time, the complainant paid a sum of Rs.13,500-00 to the accused and he 4 Spl. C.C. No.51/2013 has accepted the same and kept in his right side pant pocket. This accused being a public servant was not suppose to demand or accept any illegal gratification for doing any official favour and he was not suppose to misuse his official position. Since he has demanded and accepted the bribe amount from the complainant by misusing his official position for doing official favour to the complainant, hence the Bengaluru City Lokayuktha Police have investigated the matter and submitted charge sheet against the accused for the offences punishable under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) r/w 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.
3. After registering the case, the Investigating Officer has investigated the matter and submitted the charge sheet. After submitting the charge sheet, the presence of the accused was secured before the court by issuing summons, he appeared before the court through his counsel, copy of the charge sheet was supplied to him under Section 207 of Cr.P.C., and he was enlarged on bail.
4. The Spl.PP opened his case by addressing his arguments. 5 Spl. C.C. No.51/2013
5. Heard the arguments of both the sides on hearing before charge. After hearing on HBC, after perusal of the charge sheet and the documents placed before the court, this court held that, there is a prima facie case against the accused for prosecuting him for the offences punishable under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) r/w 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.
6. The charges against accused for the offences punishable under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) r/w 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act are read over and explained to him in the language known to him for that, he pleaded not guilty and claims to be tried.
7. In all the Lokayuktha Police have cited as many as 21 witnesses in the charge sheet. Out of them the prosecution has examined CW.1-K.M.Arunkumar, the complainant is examined as PW.2, CW.2-N. Rajanna, the punch witness is examined as PW.3, CW.4-Dr. Suresh, Senior Health Inspector, BBMP, Bengaluru, who identified the voice of this accused recorded in the voice recorder is examined as PW.4, CW.20-Siddaiah, the Commissioner of BBMP who issued the sanction order to prosecute this accused for the offences alleged against him is examined as PW.1 and CW.23-S.G.Vadeyar, Police Inspector and CW.24-B.K.Manjaiah, Inspector, Lokayuktha 6 Spl. C.C. No.51/2013 Bengaluru City, the Investigation Officers are examined as PW.5 and PW.6, got marked 26 documents as Ex.P.1 to P.26 and got marked 14 material objects as M.O.1 to 14. Learned Public Prosecutor submitted that he has given up other witnesses and closed his side.
8. Statement of the accused Under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. is recorded; he denied the incriminating evidence against him. Enquired the accused about his defence evidence, for that he got examined himself as DW.1 and got marked 4-documents as Ex.D.1 to D.4 and closed his side.
9. Heard the arguments of learned Public Prosecutor and counsel for the accused.
10. After hearing the arguments, after perusal of the charge sheet and evidence of the prosecution witnesses, the following points arise for consideration of this court:-
1. Point No.1: Whether the prosecution proves that the sanction order issued by PW.1 to prosecute this accused for the offences punishable under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) r/w 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, is valid?7 Spl. C.C. No.51/2013
2. Point No.2: Whether the prosecution proves its case against the accused beyond all reasonable doubt that, the complainant CW.1-
K.M.Arunkumar has appeared before this accused for obtaining trade licence from BBMP, for the year 2012-13 in connection with his shop namely New Ganesha Bhavan sweets and bakery manufacturing and sale shop, at that time he has demanded illegal gratification of Rs.35,000-00 and after bargain, it was reduced to Rs.29,000-00, thereafter on 09-05-2012 he has received Rs.5,000-00, on 10-05-2012 he has received Rs.10,000-00 as part of that illegal gratification amount, thereafter on 15-05-
2012 he has demanded and accepted illegal gratification of Rs.13,500-00 from the complainant for doing his official favour to the complainant for obtaining trade licence to run his shop thereby he has committed the offence punishable under Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988?
3. Point No.3: Whether the prosecution proves its case against the accused beyond all reasonable doubt that, this accused being a public servant by illegal means abused his official position as a public servant, demanded and accepted illegal gratification of Rs.28,500-00 from the complainant against the public interest and committed criminal misconduct thereby he has committed the offence punishable under Section 13(1)(d) r/w 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988?
4. Point No.4: Whether the prosecution proves its case against the accused beyond all reasonable doubt that, a sum of Rs. 13,500-00 received by this accused from the complainant on 15-05-2012 is a bribe amount and it is not 8 Spl. C.C. No.51/2013 a trade license fee payable by him to the BBMP?
5. Point No.5: What Order?
11. My answers for the above point is in the followings because of my below discussed reasons.
POINT No.1: IN THE AFFIRMATIVE.
POINT No.2: PARTLY IN THE AFFIRMATIVE.
POINT No.3: PARTLY IN THE AFFIRMATIVE.
POINT No.4: IN THE AFFIRMATIVE.
POINT NO.5: AS PER FINAL ORDER.
REASONS
12. POINT No.1: Here after considering the submissions of both sides along with the charge sheet, documents placed before the court and the evidence of PW.1, now the point remains for consideration of this court is whether the sanction order issued by PW.1 to prosecute this accused for the offences punishable under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) r/w 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, is valid or not is the fact to be considered by the court. That Section 19 of the Prevention of Corruption Act says that "Previous sanction is necessary for prosecuting the public servant". The very object 9 Spl. C.C. No.51/2013 of said section is to see that, no public servant shall be illegally prosecuted for the offences punishable under the provision of Prevention of Corruption Act. The very object of the Legislatures is to see that the allegations by public against the public servant are common and they may file false complaint with an intention to harass, so to avoid such false complaint and illegal prosecution sanction of competent authority is must.
13. In connection with the same, the Legislatures have ordered for establishing of Special Courts to conduct trial, special wing for the offences punishable under the Prevention of Corruption Act. For obtaining sanction, the Investigating Officer has to furnish the copies of complaint, FIR, pre trap and trap mahazar, statement of witnesses and FSL report etc. Here in this case PW.1-Siddaiah, the then Commissioner of BBMP Bengaluru, has issued the sanction order marked at Ex.P.1 to prosecute this accused for the offences punishable under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) r/w 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act. In that order PW.1 has specifically stated as to what are the documents he has verified and what are the factors he has considered for accruing the sanction. By looking into the said order, it indicates that, PW.1 has verified all the material documents placed 10 Spl. C.C. No.51/2013 before him for issuance of a valid sanction. The materials placed by the Lokayuktha Police before him make out a prima facie case against the accused for having committed the offences punishable under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) r/w 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, so he has specifically stated that he issued that order after satisfying with all the records produced by the Lokayuktha Police. The sanctioning authority is not suppose to hold any preliminary enquiry into the matter before issuing sanction order. Under such circumstances, this court held that the sanction order issued by PW.1 marked at Ex.P.1 is valid. Nothing has been elicited in his cross- examination by the counsel for the accused to disbelieve his evidence given before the court on oath in examination in chief. However, he put a suggestion stating that he has issued illegal sanction order without applying his mind. Mere such suggestion will not dispense with proof with regard to the oral and documentary evidence placed by PW.1 before the court. In view of all these reasons, this court held that the sanction order issued by PW.1 marked at Ex.P.1 is valid. Hence this court answered point No.1 in the Affirmative. 11 Spl. C.C. No.51/2013
14. POINT No.2 TO 4:
For giving findings of this court on point No.2 to 4 common discussion of the oral and documentary evidence placed by the prosecution before the court are necessary. So all these points are taken up for common discussion.
15. Here it is the case of the prosecution that, this complainant is the proprietor of a bakery and sweet manufacturing and sale in a shop by name New Ganesha Bhavan, in shop No.35 situated on Maruthi Seva Nagara main road, Banasawadi, Bengaluru Town. As per the complaint marked at Ex.P.2, in the month of Feb.2012, he has submitted his application before BBMP Pulikeshinagara, Bengaluru, for issuance of trade licence. On 25-04-2012 he had been to BBMP office situated at Pulikeshinagara to enquire regarding his trade licence. At that time, he met with one attender by name Srinivas and enquired him about his trade licence. Said Srinivas told him that, this accused Chikkanna who is working as Health Inspector in the said office is a competent person to deal with the matter, so he told him to consult him. Thereafter he went and discussed with this accused about his trade licence. At that time, this accused demanded illegal gratification 12 Spl. C.C. No.51/2013 of Rs.35,000-00 for issuance of trade licence and after bargain, it was reduced to Rs.29,000-00.
16. On 09-05-2012 this accused went to the shop of the complainant and collected a sum of Rs.5,000-00 as a part of that amount. After paying that amount this complainant was not intending to pay bribe to this accused, so he has consulted his friend Bhimanna in the matter. Said Bhimanna advised him to consult Lokayuktha Police in the matter. On his advice, on 10-05-2012 he had been to the office of Bengaluru City Division Lokayuktha and discussed with Manjunath Dy.S.P. At that time, said Lokayuktha Dy.S.P., asked him to consult his Police Inspector Mr. S.T.Vadeyar. On his advice, he went there and narrated the facts of the case and after hearing the same, said Vadeyer, P.I. has handed over digital voice recorder to the complainant and asked him to record in the same with regard to demand of any illegal gratification by the accused in connection with issuance of his trade licence. As per his advice, he returned back to his shop. On that day, again this accused went to the shop of the complainant and asked him to pay the balance amount. On that day, complainant paid a sum of Rs.10,000-00 to the accused, he collected that amount and told him that, he has received total sum of 13 Spl. C.C. No.51/2013 Rs.15,000-00 and complainant has to pay the balance amount of Rs.14,000-00 on 14-05-2012. On 14-05-2012 this accused has not visited to the shop of the complainant for collecting the balance amount as told by him, despite this complainant gave phone call to him.
17. On 15-05-2012 in the afternoon when the complainant, shadow witness, another panch and Lokayuktha Police were present near the shop of this complainant, at that time, this accused came to the shop of the complainant and demanded him to pay the balance illegal gratification amount of Rs.13,500-00 and received from the complainant and kept it in his pocket. Thereafter the complainant gave signal to the Lokayuktha Police by wiping his face with hand kerchief as directed by Lokayuktha Police. After seeing the same, Lokayuktha Police surrounded the accused, disclosed their identity by showing ID card and enquired about the matter. On enquiry about the matter and after search of the accused, they found the tainted currency notes of Rs.13,500-00 in the pocket of the accused and another Rs.500-00 with the complainant. Thereafter they seized the same, conducted trap proceedings as required under law, investigated the matter and filed charge sheet against the accused by obtaining sanction for the 14 Spl. C.C. No.51/2013 offences punishable under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) r/w 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act.
18. In support of the case of prosecution learned Public Prosecutor submitted before the court stating the fact that, this accused is working as Senior Health Inspector in Ward No.28 of BBMP, Bengaluru is not in dispute. The fact that initially the accused has demanded illegally gratification of Rs.35,000-00 from the complainant for issuing of his trade licence and after bargain, it was reduced to Rs.29,000-00. Thereafter initially the complainant gave Rs.5,000-00 on 09-05-2012 and Rs.10,000-00 on 10-05-2012. On 15-05-2012 at about 2.30 p.m. when the Lokayuktha Police, shadow witness and panch witnesses were present near the shop of the complainant, at that time, this accused came there and demanded balance illegal gratification of Rs.13,500-00 from the complainant. After paying that amount, the complainant gave signal to the Lokayuktha Police by wiping his face with the hand kerchief as directed by them. After observing the same, they surrounded the accused, disclosed about their identity by showing their ID card, conducted enquiry and seized bribe amount from the accused, compared the same with its note numbers mentioned in Ex.P.3. Thereafter they got prepared sodium 15 Spl. C.C. No.51/2013 carbonate solution in two bowls; taken out some portion of the same in a bottle as sample and got washed both the hands of the accused in the remaining sodium carbonate solution in both the bowls. Said solution was changed into pink colour, so that itself disclosed the fact of receiving of tainted currency notes of Rs.13,500-00 from the complainant for doing official favour to the complainant in obtaining his trade licence. Hence, the prosecution has proved its case against the accused with regard to demand and acceptance of the bribe amount by this accused. PW.1 the sanctioning authority has stated about the issuance of sanction, PW.2-Arunkumar, the complainant has stated about the demand and acceptance of illegal gratification by this accused, PW.3-N. Rajanna, panch and shadow witness has specifically stated about the entire proceedings taken place before him in the Lokayuktha office regarding pre trap and subsequently with regard to the trap proceedings. PW.4-Dr. Suresh, Health Medical Officer, BBMP, has identified the voice of this accused recorded in the voice recorder and cassettes and issued service particular and other documents requested by the Investigating Officer. The attendance register of this accused is marked at Ex.P.9, report of PW.4 is marked as Ex.P.14, service particulars of the accused is marked as Ex.P.15 and duty allocation particulars of accused is marked as Ex.P.16. PW.5- 16 Spl. C.C. No.51/2013 B.K.Manjaiah, CPI and PW.6-Sannathammaiah Vadeyar, the Police Inspectors cum Investigating Officers, have stated about their role in the matter. PW.6-is the most important witness who has registered the case, investigated the matter and submitted the charge sheet against the accused. In his examination in chief he has specifically stated about the each and every steps taken by him at particular point of time before trap and after trap. The evidence of PW.6 corroborate with the evidence of PW.2 to 4. Nothing has been elicited by the counsel for the accused in the cross-examination of PW.6 to disbelieve the prosecution case. Though there are any omissions and contradictions in the evidence of prosecution witnesses, the said omissions and contradictions are not material omissions and contradictions to disbelieve the entire case of the prosecution. The evidence of PW.1 to 6 and the documents marked at Ex.P.1 to P.26 and M.O.1 to 12 clearly prove the prosecution case against the accused for having committed the offences alleged against him. Further he has stated that, by looking into the admissions given by this accused in his cross-examination along with his documents produced before the court, it indicates that the prosecution has proved its case against the accused beyond all reasonable doubt. Hence, he requested the court to convict the accused by awarding maximum 17 Spl. C.C. No.51/2013 sentence. In support of his contention, he relied on the following decisions:
1. 2015(4) Crimes 159 (Supreme Court) between (C. Chandrasekharaiah V/s State of Karnataka),
2. Unreported decision (Supreme Court) in Crl.Appeal No.1864 of 2011, dt:16-09-2014, between (Somabhai Gopalbhai Patel V/s State of Gujarat),
3. Unreported decision (Supreme Court) in Crl.Appeal No.697 of 2011, dt:01-07-2015, between (Chaitanya Prakash Audichya V/s C.B.I.),
4. Unreported decision (Supreme Court) in Crl.Appeal No.1317 of 2008, dt:06-05-2015, between (State of Andhra Pradesh V/s P. Venkateshwarlu),
5. Unreported decision (Supreme Court) in Crl.Appeal No.955 of 2015, dt:24-07-2015, between (Gurjant Singh V/s State of Punjab),
6. Unreported decision (Supreme Court) in Crl.Appeal No.618 of 2012, dt:05-07-2016, between (Mukhtiar Singh V/s State of Punjab).
19. Contrary to this, learned counsel for the accused submitted before the court stating that, merely because the prosecution witnesses have supported its case itself is not a ground to convict the accused. It is well settled principles of criminal jurisprudence that "Hundred criminals may be acquitted but one innocent person shall not be convicted". For convicting a person the prosecution has to prove its case against the accused beyond all reasonable doubt. First of all the prosecution has failed to establish its 18 Spl. C.C. No.51/2013 case about the demand and acceptance of illegal gratification of Rs.28,500-00 from the complainant as contended by it. Though the prosecution has proved the fact of receiving of Rs.13,500-00 by this accused from the complainant, it is not an illegal gratification, but it is the legal fee payable by the complainant for renewal of trade licence and other charges. Along with the application of this complainant he has produced the brochure marked at Ex.D.1, wherein it is specifically stated as to what is the amount payable by the complainant to obtain trade licence to his shop. In the cross-examination of PW.2 he has admitted about the threat given by this accused to close down his shop, in case he fails to pay the trade licence fee. The said fact is the cause for filing this case. This accused is an innocent person having good service records and reputation in the society. But with malafide intention to insult him and to put him under trouble, the complainant has falsified a case against the accused.
20. PW.1-Siddaiah, the then Commissioner of BBMP has specifically stated that, this accused is not a person authorized to issue trade licence, but it is the Range Medical Officer. When he is not a person to issue trade licence to the complainant, question of he demanding and accepting any illegal gratification from the complainant 19 Spl. C.C. No.51/2013 does not arise. With regard to the evidence of PW.2 to 6, he has specifically stated that, there are so many omissions and contradictions in their evidence and there are some latches on the part of the prosecution in investigating the matter and prosecuting this accused. The said facts falsify the prosecution case and prove that, this accused is a innocent person. When there is no prima facie case against this accused for having committed the offences alleged against him, the question of prosecuting him for the offences punishable under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) r/w 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act and question of convicting this accused for the said offences does not arise. Apart from his oral arguments, he has submitted his written argument and relied on the following decisions:
1. 1997 SCC (Cri) 894 between (Mohmoodkhan Mahboobkhan Pathan V/s State of Maharastra),
2. 2004 SCC (Cri) 1130 between (Punjab Rao V/s State of Maharastra),
3. (2009) 15 Supreme Court Cases 200 between (State of Maharashtra V/s Dnyaneshwar Laxman Rao Wankhede),
4. AIR 2016 Supreme Court 5389 between (Harpal Singh @ Chhota V/s State of Punjab),
5. 2011 Cri.L.J. 2801 (Kerala High Court) HN-D, between (Rajeevan Aswathy Pattathanam Kadappakada, Quilon V/s Superintendent of Police), 20 Spl. C.C. No.51/2013
6. 2014 (4) AKR 580 HN-A (Supreme Court) between (Anvar P.V. V/s P.K. Basheer and others),
7. 2012 (3) KCCR 1738 (Karnataka High Court), between (Sri Ramesh Desai and Another V/s The State of Karnataka by Raichur Lokayuktha P.S.),
8. AIR 1975 Supreme Court 1432 between (Sita Ram V/s The State of Rajasthan).
In view of all these reasons he requested the court to acquit the accused.
21. Here after considering the submissions of both the sides, after going through the oral and documentary evidence placed by the prosecution before the court along with the decisions relied upon by both the sides, now the points remains for consideration of this court are whether the prosecution proves its case against the accused beyond all reasonable doubt or not is the fact to be considered by this court. In a decision reported in (2015) 16 Supreme Court Cases 350 HN-C between (Khaleel Ahmed V/s State of Karnataka). Their Lordships held as follows:
" C-Criminal Trial-Proof-Burden and Onus of proof- Nature of burden of proof, required to be discharged by prosecution-What is-Held, It is a golden principle of criminal law, that burden of proof required to be discharged by prosecution is one of proof beyond reasonable doubt".21 Spl. C.C. No.51/2013
Further in the decisions relied upon by the counsel for the accused reported in (1) 1997 SCC (Cri) 894 between (Mohmoodkhan Mahboobkhan Pathan V/s State of Maharastra) (2) (2009) 15 Supreme Court Cases 200 HN-A & C between (State of Maharashtra V/s Dnyaneshwar Laxman Rao Wankhede). Their Lordships held that the initial burden of proof is on the prosecution to prove its case even if the proof of any fact stated by the accused is on the accused. Further it is held that in Prevention of Corruption cases the prosecution has to prove the facts of demand and acceptance of bribe amount as held in (2016) 12 Supreme Court Cases 150 HN-A between (V. Sejappa V/s State by Police Inspector Lokayuktha, Chitradurga). Their Lordships held as follows:
"A. Public Accountability, Vigilance and Prevention of Corruption-Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988-Ss. 7 and 20-Illegal gratification-Proof of demand-Sine qua non for constituting offence under S.7-Mere recovery of tainted money, not sufficient to convict accused-Presumption under S.20-When arises-Duty of court while invoking provisions of S.20-Principles summarized-Demand not having been proved, acquittal restored ".
22 Spl. C.C. No.51/2013In view of the ratio involved in the decision stated above, this court held that the guilt or innocence of the accused shall be decided by this court by considering the oral and documentary evidence placed by the prosecution before the court.
22. Here by considering the evidence of PW.2 and the documents marked at Ex.P.6, it is clear that, this accused is the Proprietor of a bakery and sweet stall running in a complex bearing No.35, Banasawadi main road, M.S.Nagara, Bengaluru, is not in dispute. Further the fact that this complainant submitted his application before BBMP for obtaining trade licence for the year 2012- 13 is also not in dispute. The fact that at that time of submitting that application, the complainant has paid a sum of Rs.3600-00 as a fee towards the same is not in dispute. Ex.P.8(d) is the application submitted by the complainant before BBMP for obtaining trade license and in that application this accused has mentioned its fee as Rs.3600-
00. This fact is admitted by the accused in his cross-examination at para 3 on page 5 and it reads as follows:
"...It is true that the writings appears in page No.50 of Ex.P.8 is in my hand writing. It is true that in that document I have recommended the issuance of license after verifying the documents and making local 23 Spl. C.C. No.51/2013 inspection. It is true that in that document I have not mentioned in the same stating that Shashikanth Hegde was owning due towards his license fees and this complainant has not obtained license for selling the products. It is true that the calculation appearing in my 313 statement is not appearing in the document at page No.51 at Ex.P.8. the relevant portion on page No.51 of Ex.P.8 are marked as Ex.P.8(b) and 8(c). It is true that the amount written as Rs.3600-00 on page No.53 of Ex.P.8 is calculated by me. Said portion is marked as Ex.P.8(d)......."
When all these facts are admitted, now the point remains for consideration of this court is whether after payment of that trade license fee, this accused has demanded any amount from the complainant for issuance of that trade license or not is the fact to be decided by this court. It is the case of the prosecution that after submitting of that application and payment of prescribed fee on 25-04- 2012, when the complainant had been to the BBMP office to enquire about his trade license, at that time, one Mr. Srinivasa has directed him to consult this accused and at that time, this accused demanded Rs.35,000-00, after bargain, it was reduced to Rs.29,000-00. The said fact stated by the complainant (PW.2) in his examination in chief before the court is appearing on the first page and it reads as follows:
"......... When I met Chikkanna and he told me that for getting my work I have to pay Rs.35,000-00. I 24 Spl. C.C. No.51/2013 can identify said Chikkanna who is now before the court as an accused. When I shown my inability to pay Rs.35,000-00, accused scaled down his demand and asked me to pay Rs.29,000-00.......".
As per the case of the prosecution and as per the evidence of PW.2- Arun Kumar K.M. he has stated that after the said settlement on 09- 05-2012 he paid a sum of Rs.5,000-00 and on 10-05-2012 he paid Rs.10,000-00 to the accused as part payment of that bribe amount. For payment of said amount to the accused by the complainant he has not produced any evidence before the court except his oral evidence and the conversation alleged to be appearing in the CDs marked at M.O-3 to 6, 13 and 14. The complainant has stated that before appearing in Lokayuktha office, he has recorded his conversation with the accused in his mobile phone and he has handed over to Lokayuktha Police. Said statement is at para 2 page 2 of his evidence and it reads as follows:
".......I have handed over the mobile phone to the Lokayuktha Police Inspector in which I have recorded the conversation between me and the accused held on 05-05-2012...".
By considering the evidence of PW.2-Arun Kumar K.M. it is clear that his oral evidence is also based on electronic evidence also. In a decision relied upon by the counsel for the accused reported in 2014 25 Spl. C.C. No.51/2013 (4) AKR 580 HN-A (Supreme Court) between (Anvar P.V. V/s P.K. Basheer and others). Their Lordships have held as follows:
"(A) Evidence Act (1 of 1872), Ss.59, 65A, 65B, 63,65-Electronic records-Admissibility-Secondary evidence of electronic record-Inadmissible unless requirements of S.65B are satisfied".
In that decision at para 7 to 11 their Lordships have discussed as to how the court has to appreciate the evidence of the prosecution witnesses based on electronic evidence and about its admissibility. In that decision their Lordships held that as per Section 22(a) "oral admissions as to contents of electronic records are relevant unless the genuineness of electronic record produced is in question." Further they have discussed about Section 45(a) of Indian Evidence Act and stated that for considering the electronic evidence such electronic documents should be examined by an expert and his evidence is necessary. Further in that decision their Lordships have stated about Section 65(B) and procedures should be followed by the I.O. For fulfilling the conditions mentioned in Section 65-B of Indian Evidence Act, the prosecution has not sent the said electronic evidence for the examination by the experts and the original conversation record of the complainant and accused in the mobile and voice recorder are not produced before the court and the device used for transmission of said 26 Spl. C.C. No.51/2013 conversation to the CD. In view of non-sending of such materials objects to the expert examination, non-obtaining of certificate from the competent person as required u/s 65(B) and non-production of such documents before the court and in view of the ratio involved in the decisions stated supra, this court held that the case of the prosecution on electronic evidence is inadmissible. When the conversation in the CDs marked at M.O.3 to 6, 13 and 14 are not proved as required under Law, this court held that the oral evidence of the complainant with regard to demand of Rs.29,000-00 by this accused and receiving of Rs.15,000-00 as part of that amount on 09- 05-2012 and 10-05-2012 are inadmissible.
23. After deciding about the inadmissibility of the electronic evidence placed by the prosecution before the court, now the rest of the prosecution case depends upon other evidence placed by the prosecution before the court. PW.1-Siddaiah has stated in his examination in chief stating that this accused was serving as a Senior Health Inspector at Ward No.28 of Maruthi Sevanagara, Bengaluru. This fact is not in dispute. The fact that after filing the complaint by the complainant on 14-05-2012 the I.O. PW.6-Sannathamappayya Wodeyar, Inspector of Police, Lokayuktha, has secured the presence of 27 Spl. C.C. No.51/2013 PW.3-N. Rajanna and CW.3-Smt. Manjula by issuing letter to their higher authorities marked at Ex.P.19 and 20. After their arrival he introduced the complainant to them, handed over that copy of the complaint to read and after going through the complaint, the said panch witnesses enquired the complainant about its contents and he has submitted that the same are true and correct. Thereafter he asked the complainant to produce cash of Rs.14,000-00, at that time he has produced 28-currency notes of Rs.500-00 denomination. Thereafter the I.O. has note down the currency notes numbers in a sheet marked at Ex.P.3 and obtained the signatures of complainant and panch witnesses. Thereafter he got prepared the sodium carbonate solution in two bowls taken out some portion of the same in a sample bottle, smeared phenolphthalein powder on the said notes and asked CW.3 to keep that amount in the left side shirt pocket of the complainant. Thereafter he got washed her hands in the remaining sodium carbonate solution kept in two bowls and it was changed into pink colour. Thereafter he instructed the complainant to meet the accused and to pay the said amount on demand and after payment of that amount he shall give signal to the Lokayuktha Police by wiping his face with hand kerchief and asked PW.3 Rajanna to be with him and to act as a shadow witness. After completion of the same, I.O. prepared the 28 Spl. C.C. No.51/2013 pre trap mahazar as per Ex.P.4 and obtained their signatures on the same and later he put his signature. Thereafter they left the Lokayuktha office around 1.30 p.m. and came near the bakery shop of the complainant. After their arrival, the complainant gave phone call to the accused but he did not receive that call till 6.00 P.M., so all of them return back to Lokayuktha office and after their arrival, the I.O. prepared another panchanama as per Ex.P.5 and obtained signatures on the same and instructed them to come on next day morning.
24. As per the instructions of I.O, on 15-05-2012 the complainant and pancha witnesses appeared in Lokayuktha office and thereafter the Lokayuktha Inspector smeared phenolphthalein powder on the same and asked CW.3 to keep the same in the shirt pocket of the complainant and left that office and came near the bakery of the complainant around 10.30 a.m. After their arrival, the I.O. instructed the complainant to meet the accused and to pay the said amount only after demand and asked PW.3 Rajanna to act as a shadow witness by observing the conversation taken place between the accused and the complainant. As per his instructions, all of them came near the bakery and complainant and shadow witness were present in the bakery and Lokayuktha Police and another panch witness were on opposite side of 29 Spl. C.C. No.51/2013 that bakery. Thereafter around 1.30 p.m. this complainant called the accused through his mobile phone and he replied that he will come around 2.30 p.m. and at about 3 p.m. accused came to his bakery shop on his Activa Honda two wheeler and asked the complainant to pay the amount. After his demand, he paid a sum of Rs.13,500-00 to the accused and asked him to issue his trade license. After receiving that amount the accused kept that amount in his pant pocket. Thereafter the complainant gave signal to Lokayuktha Police by wiping his face with his hand kerchief as instructed by I.O. In the mean while they rushed to the spot, surrounded the accused and disclosed their identity and got prepared sodium carbonate solution in a bowl taken out some portion of the same in a sample bottle and got washed the hands of the accused in that solution and it was changed into pink colour. By this they confirmed that the accused has received the tainted currency notes from the complainant. Thereafter I.O enquired the accused about the said bribe amount and got it removed from his pant pocket through PW.3. Thereafter I.O taken the accused to his office, collected the certified copies of the documents marked at Ex.P.6 to 9, returned to their Lokayuktha office and drawn the trap mahazar as per Ex.P.10, obtained the signatures of the complainant, pancha witnesses and the accused for having received the copy of that 30 Spl. C.C. No.51/2013 panchanama. Thereafter the I.O. secured the presence of PW.4-Dr. Suresh, Health Medical officer, BBMP, displayed the conversation of the accused with the complainant recorded in the CDs and got identified the voice of this accused in the same and obtained his statement as per Ex.P.14. Thereafter the I.O. has recorded the statements of complainant and other witnesses and submitted the charge sheet before the court.
25. The counsel for the accused has denied the entire case of the prosecution including conducting of pre trap proceedings and trap proceedings. This denial will not dispensed with any proof. In view of the same, this court held that mere denial will not dispensed with proof.
26. In Prevention of Corruption cases, the court shall not convict the accused solely on the evidence of the complainant. Because the complainant is a interested person who want to see the conviction of the accused based on his evidence only, so for considering the evidence of the complainant, the corroboration of the same, evidence of independent witness is must. In Prevention of Corruption cases the police insist one of the panch to act as a shadow 31 Spl. C.C. No.51/2013 witness. Here in this case PW.3-N. Rajanna has acted as a shadow witness. In his examination in chief he has stated about the procedures followed by the I.O. on 14-05-2012 and 15-05-2012. Further in his examination in chief he has stated about the arrival of the accused to the Bakery of the complainant, demand and acceptance of bribe amount. Said statement is appearing in his examination in chief (PW-3) on page 4 and it reads as follows:
".......At about 1.30 PM accused came to the shop of CW.1, accused demanded the amount from CW.1 and CW.1 handed over the amount of Rs.13,500-00 to the accused.........".
Further he has stated about the further proceedings taken place after receiving of that amount, and in his evidence he has stated about the washing of the hands of the accused in sodium carbonate solution and changing of that solution into pink colour. Said statement in his examination in chief on page 4 reads as follows:
"........... When the fingers of both the hands of the accused was washed in the sodium carbonate solution, same turned into pink colour and it was seized by the Lokayuktha police.....".
By considering the statement of PW.3 in his evidence before the court, the prosecution has proved the fact of demand and acceptance of 32 Spl. C.C. No.51/2013 Rs.13,500-00 by the accused from the complainant and seizure of the same by the Lokayuktha Police under Ex.P.10.
27. In the trap mahazar the I.O. has specifically mentioned the numbers of the notes seized from the position of the accused. The said numbers are tallies with the notes note down by the I.O,. in a note sheet marked at Ex.P.3. The evidence of PW.2 to 4 are corroborated with the evidence of I.O. and PW.6-S.T. Wodeyar. By considering the evidence of PW.2,3 and 6, the prosecution has proved the fact of demand and acceptance of Rs.13,500-00 by the accused from the complainant and seizure of the same. However, the prosecution has not produced any evidence before the court with regard to the demand and acceptance of another Rs.15,000-00 by the accused from the complainant on 09-05-2012 and 10-05-2012. In view of the same this court did not consider the evidence of complainant with regard to said Rs.15000.00, as that statement is just like a "Tempest in the Wind".
28. Here in this case after recording the statement of accused U/s 313 Cr.P.C. he denied the incriminating evidence against him. However, with regard to the receiving of Rs.13,500-00 from the 33 Spl. C.C. No.51/2013 complainant is admitted. In his statement he has stated that the said amount received by him is the balance trade license fee payable by the accused to BBMP. The counsel for the accused submitted that previous owner one Mr. Shashikantha Hegde who was doing his bakery and sweet manufacturing and sale business in shop No.35 has not paid his previous trade license fee, so this accused collected that Rs.13,500-00 from the complainant on 15-05-2012 as the arrears and penalty towards trade license fee payable by the accused to BBMP. In the examination in chief of this accused (DW.1) on page 2 he has stated that about the said amount and it reads as follows:
".........I told the complainant that he has paid the less amount and he was required to pay a sum of Rs.17,100-00 and out of which he paid only Rs.3,600- 00 by way of DD. I have given the details of the amount due from the complainant as a license fee and penalty in my statement filed u/s 313 and Sec. 233 of Cr.P.C.........".
When the accused says that the said amount of Rs.13,500-00 received by him from the complainant is the bribe amount and this accused contends that, it is remaining licence fee payable by the complainant to Bruhath Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike, so this statement proves the fact of demand and receiving of that amount by the accused from the 34 Spl. C.C. No.51/2013 complainant.. When he admits that fact and takes such contention, then onus shift on the accused to prove the same.
29. Ex.P.6 to 8 are the documents pertains to bakery and confectionary shop of the complainant maintained in the Bruhath Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike office. Ex.P.6 is the trade license for the year 2012-13, Ex.P.7 is the receipt issued by BBMP for Rs.3,600-00, Ex.P.8 is the BBMP file pertains to the shop of the complainant. In that Ex.P.8(d), the application submitted by the complainant for issuance of trade license is appearing and in that application the amount payable for license fee is prescribed as Rs.3,600-00. In the cross-examination of accused-(DW.1) on para 3 page 5 he admitted about that file and it reads as follows:
".............It is true that the writings appears in page No.50 of Ex.P.8 is in my hand writing. It is true that in that document I have recommended the issuance of license after verifying the documents and making local inspection. It is true that in that document I have not mentioned in the same stating that Shashikanth Hegde was owning due towards his license fees and this complainant has not obtained license for selling the products. It is true that the calculation appearing in my 313 statement is not appearing in the document at page No.51 at Ex.P.8. the relevant portion on page No.51 of 35 Spl. C.C. No.51/2013 Ex.P.8 are marked as Ex.P.8(b) and 8(c). It is true that the amount written as Rs.3600-00 on page No.53 of Ex.P.8 is calculated by me. Said portion is marked as Ex.P.8(d)......."
As per the said admission, it is clear that, the contents in that file are to be considered by the court for deciding the fact stating as to whether the amount of Rs.13,500-00 received by this accused on 15- 05-2012 is the bribe amount as contended by the prosecution or it is the balance trade license fee payable by the complainant to the BBMP. By looking into the contents of the said Ex.P.8(b) and (c) it goes to show that, there is an recommendation for issuance of trade license to the complainant for doing his bakery and confectionary business in the same. Ex.P.8(a) is the license issued by the BBMP to the complainant for the year 2011-12. By considering that document into consideration, it indicates that, the complainant has obtained license for the said period. However, it is the contention of the accused stating that the previous owner Shashikanth Hegde has not paid the trade license fee to the said shop for the year 2010-11 and this complainant was doing his business without obtaining licence. For proving that fact the accused has not produced any documents before the court. In his cross-examination on page 2 he has admitted that the trade license of this complainant was got prepared by him on 11-05-2012 and he went 36 Spl. C.C. No.51/2013 to the shop of the complainant to give the same and collect the remaining fee. If really the complainant was due to pay Rs.13,500-00 to the BBMP towards his trade license fee, what was the necessity for this accused to get prepare that trade license without collecting that amount and what was the necessity for him to carry it along with him on 15-05-2012. In the cross-examination of PW.1-Siddaiah, the then Commissioner of BBMP the counsel for the accused put a suggestion stating that the Health Inspector can go to the shop of the applicant and issue trade license. For that he replied that there is no provision as such, but it will be a mutual understanding between them. To over- come from this statement of PW.1, the counsel for the accused relied on a document marked at Ex.P.16. This document is dt:23-05-2012 i.e., after the incident. If BBMP has passed any such resolution, the accused ought to have produce it's copy before the court, but he has not produced the same before the court. In the cross-examination of this accused on page 6 at third line he has stated that he has not issued any notice to the complainant to pay Rs.17,100-00 for issuance of trade license, however, he has orally informed. Said portion reads as follows:
".........I did not issue notice in writing to the complainant to pay Rs.17,100-00 for issuance of trade license, however, I informed him orally............."37 Spl. C.C. No.51/2013
Foraccepting the fact that for obtaining trade license from the BBMP this complainant was suppose to pay fee of Rs.17,100-00, the accused has not produced any evidence before the court. By looking into the document marked at Ex.P.8(b) and (c), it is clear that, by accepting the fee paid by the complainant along with his application this accused has recommended for issuance of trade license. Because in that note it is specifically mentioned about the inspection of the said shop and use of 5-HP electric motor for preparation of Bakery and Confectionary products for sale. If really the amount payable by the complainant to BBMP for obtaining the trade license of Rs.17,100-00 as contended by the accused, there was no necessity for him to recommend for issuance of trade license by accepting the less fee paid along with the application. Further the amount specified at Ex.P.8(d) is written by this accused and that fact is admitted by him. In the absence of any cogent evidence with regard to the defence taken by the accused in his 313 statement and the application filed under Section 233, the said stand taken by the accused holds no water. However, the learned counsel for the accused relied on the documents marked at Ex.D.1, i.e., brochure of BBMP. In that brochure, it has specifically stated about the fee payable for obtaining trade license from BBMP by considering the nature of businesses. Accused has stated that as per 38 Spl. C.C. No.51/2013 that brochure, a sum of Rs.13,500-00 recovered from the accused on 15-05-2012 is the license fee and penalty for issuance of trade license. As per the calculation of the accused on page 3 of his 313 statement the total amount mentioned in the same comes around Rs.17,100-00. In that statement he has stated that due of trade license fee for the year 2010-11 is Rs.1000-00 and fine amount as Rs.10,000-00 and Rs.500-00 is collected towards the Solid Waste Management Fee. Further the license fee for the year 2011-12 is mentioned as Rs.1000- 00 and fine is mentioned as Rs.1000-00. Further the license fee for the year 2012-13 is mentioned as Rs.1000-00 and fine amount is Rs.1000-00. In that statement he has stated that as per Ex.D.1 on page 10, he has collected a sum of Rs.10,000-00 towards the license fee and NOC fine amount of Rs.500-00 and fee for use of 5-HP motor is Rs.100-00. This defence taken by the accused in his statement is baseless and not supported with any cogent evidence. By looking into the documents marked at Ex.P.8(a), it is the license obtained by the complainant for the year 2011-12. If really the previous owner of the complainant namely Shashikantha Hegde has not paid the trade license fee, why the BBMP has issued license in the name of this complainant to the said period is doubtful. Usually the license will not renewed without collecting the previous due. Further, there is no 39 Spl. C.C. No.51/2013 mention in the notes prepared by BBMP for issuance of trade license to the complainant about such dues.
30. By looking into the documents marked at Ex.D.1, it is clear that, the business of this complainant is as per Annexure-A of Schedule X (1). Sl.No. 1 of the said schedule is for bread, biscuits, pastry confectionery and savories. As per Ex.P.6, the trade license was issued for the said purpose. As per the said schedule, the fee payable for 10-HP and above was Rs.5000-00, since the complainant was using 5-HP motor, so he was not suppose to pay that much amount. Further the defence taken by the accused stating that the complainant was payable fee as mentioned in Annexure-A, Schedule-X (vi) is not acceptable. Because the said license fee payable with regard to the food and non-food items, not specifically mentioned under part (1) to
(v). By looking into the previous license of the complainant issued by BBMP for the year 2011-12 it is specifically mentioned that it was with respect to the Sweets and Bakery products. Further in trade license marked at Ex.P.6, it was issued for bakery and confectionary products, so the said schedule is not applicable to the complainant's case and the fee alleged to have been payable by the complainant to the BBMP as stated by the accused is not acceptable. When the stand taken by 40 Spl. C.C. No.51/2013 the accused in his defence is not proved with any cogent evidence, then there is a presumption under Section 20 of Prevention of Corruption Act to hold that the sum of Rs.13,500-00 marked as M.O.13, collected by this accused from the complainant is illegal gratification. In a decision relied upon by the Special Public Prosecutor reported in 2015(4) Crimes 159 (Supreme Court) between (C. Chandrasekhariah V/s State of Karnataka). Their Lordships held as follows:
"Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988-Section 20- Appellant not explaining circumstances of tainted money found with him-Presumption u/s 20 not rebutted- Prosecution case stood completely established".
Here in this case also the accused is admitting the fact of collecting of Rs.13,500-00 from the complainant. As per the case of the prosecution, the said amount is a bribe amount and as per the defence of accused, it is the difference of trade license fee payable by the complainant to the BBMP. When the prosecution has succeed in establishing its case with the cogent evidence of PW.2,3 and PW.6, then onus shift on the accused to disprove that fact. Further he was suppose to establish the same with cogent evidence. The accused has not succeeded in disproving the same, so this court held that the above said ruling relied upon by the Public Prosecutor is aptly 41 Spl. C.C. No.51/2013 applicable to the case on hand. In other decisions relied upon by the Public Prosecutor cited above, this court held that the ratio involved in the said decisions are aptly applicable to the case on hand. Because in the said decisions the demand and acceptance of the bribe amount by the accused are proved with the corroborating evidence of shadow witness. By considering the evidence of PW.2 and 3 i.e., complainant and the shadow witness and admission of the accused in his examination in chief, the fact of demand and acceptance of Rs.13,500- 00 by the accused from the complainant is proved. As per the case of the prosecution, it is a bribe amount and as per the case of the accused, it is a balance amount towards trade license fee payable by the complainant to the BBMP. When the burden of proof caste on the prosecution is discharged, then the onus shift on the accused to disprove the same, but he has failed to disprove the case of the prosecution stating that, it is not a bribe amount by producing any cogent evidence. When the case of the prosecution alleged against the accused is proved and established with oral and documentary evidence and accused failed to discharge that burden, then this court shall presume that the amount of Rs.13,500-00 received by this accused from the complainant on 15-05-2012 is bribe amount and not a 42 Spl. C.C. No.51/2013 balance amount towards trade license fee payable by the complainant to the BBMP.
31. I have gone through the other decisions relied upon by the counsel for the accused reported in (1) 2004 Supreme Court Cases (Cri) 1130 between (PunjabRao V/s State of Maharashtra), (2) (2009) 15 Supreme Court Cases 200 between (State of Maharashtra V/s Dnyaneshwar Laxman Rao Wankhede), (3) 2011 Crl.L.J. 2801 (Kerala High Court) HN-B between (Rajeeva Aswathy, Pattathanam Kadappakada, Quilon V/s Superintendents of Police), (4) 2012 (3) KCCR 1738 Karnataka High Court between (Sri Ramesh Desai and Another v/s The State of Karnataka by Raichur Lokayuktha P.S.) and (5) AIR 1975 Supreme Court 1432 between (Sita Ram V/s the State of Rajasthan).
The ratios involved in the said decisions are entirely different from the case on hand, so the accused cannot take the benefit of said decisions for his acquittal. Here by considering the oral and documentary evidence placed by the prosecution before the court, this court held that the prosecution has succeeded in proving its case against the accused with regard to demand and acceptance of Rs.13,500-00 from 43 Spl. C.C. No.51/2013 the complainant as bribe amount. However, the prosecution has failed to prove the fact that this accused has received Rs.5,000-00 on 09- 05-2012 and Rs.10,000-00 on 10-05-2012 from the complainant as bribe amount, so the court has disbelieved the prosecution case with regard to the payment of said Rs.15,000-00 to the accused as bribe amount. By considering all these facts into consideration, this court held that the prosecution has proved its case against the accused with regard to demand and acceptance of Rs.13,500-00 from the complainant on 15-05-2012 as bribe amount. In view of the same, he has committed the offences punishable under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) r/w 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. Hence, this court answered Point No.2 and 3 partly in the Affirmative and point No.4 in the Affirmative.
POINT No.5:
32. In view of all the reasons, this court proceeds to pass the following order:
ORDER Acting under Sec.235(2) of Cr.P.C., accused is held guilty for the offence punishable under Sections 44 Spl. C.C. No.51/2013 7 and 13(1)(d) r/w 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act,1988.
For hearing the accused on sentence.
(MALLIKARJUNAGOUD) LXXVII ADDL. CITY CIVIL & SESSIONS JUDGE & SPECIAL JUDGE, BENGALURU.
CCH-78 Hearing on sentence.
Heard the accused and his counsel on sentence. His counsel submitted that this accused is aged 65 years suffering from old age aliments, his wife is a breast cancer patient and he is having age old mother, so lenient view be taken for imposing the sentence.
Contrary to this, learned P.P. submitted before the court stating that by considering the nature of the offences alleged against the accused he is not entitled for any leniency, so he requested the court to convict the accused by awarding maximum sentence.
After hearing the submissions of both the sides and after considering the nature of the offences and sentence prescribed for the same, this court held that the offences alleged against the accused are heinous in nature and against the public interest. A public servant is 45 Spl. C.C. No.51/2013 not suppose to expect any illegal gratification from the public other than his legal gratification. However, by considering the submissions made by the accused and his counsel, this court held that lenient view can be taken for imposing sentence as he is retired from his service and suffering from old age aliments. By considering all these facts in to consideration, this court proceed to pass the following:
ORDER Acting u/Sec. 235(2) of Cr.P.C. accused is convicted for the offence punishable under Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act and he is sentenced to undergo S.I. for two years and to pay a fine of Rs.5,000-00 in default of payment of fine, he shall undergo S.I. for six months.
Acting u/Sec. 235(2) of Cr.P.C. accused is convicted for the offence punishable under Section 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act and he is sentenced to undergo S.I. for three years and to pay a fine of Rs.7,000-00 in default of payment of fine, he shall undergo S.I. for six months.
The sentences run concurrently.
Acting U/s 427 of Cr.P.C. set-off is given to the accused for the period for which he was in judicial custody during the trial.46 Spl. C.C. No.51/2013
Office is directed to supply the free copy of the Judgment to the accused.
The M.O.1 to 12 which are worthless are ordered to be destroyed and M.O.13 and 14 i.e., cash of Rs.14,000-00 is confiscated to the State after lapse of appeal period.
(Dictated to the judgment-writer, after transcription, corrected by me and then pronounced by me in the open court on this the 9th day of Nov. 2017) (MALLIKARJUNAGOUD) LXXVII ADDL. CITY CIVIL & SESSIONS JUDGE & SPECIAL JUDGE, BENGALURU (CCH-78) ANNEXURE LIST OF WITNESSES EXAMINED FOR PROSECUTION:
PW.1: Siddaiah PW.2: K.M.Arunkumar PW.3: N. Rajanna PW.4: Dr. Suresh PW.5: B.K.Manjayya PW.6: Sannathamappayya Wodeyar 47 Spl. C.C. No.51/2013 LIST OF DOCUMENTS MARKED FOR PROSECUTION:
Ex.P.1: Sanction Order Ex.P.1(a): Signature of PW.1 Ex.P.2: Complaint Ex.P.2(a&b): Signature of PW.2 and 6 Ex.P.3: Currency notes details Ex.P.3(a to d): Signatures of PW.2,3 & 6 and CW.3 Ex.P.4: Pre trap mahazar Ex.P.4(a to d): Signature of PW.2,3 & 6 and CW.3 Ex.P.5: Mahazar Ex.P.5(a to d): Signature of PW.2,3 & 6 and CW.3 Ex.P.6: Copy of trade licence Ex.P.7: Copy of licence fee receipt Ex.P.8: Copy of file at page 50 to 68 of charge sheet Ex.P.8(a to d): Portion of Ex.P.8 Ex.P.9: Copy of attendance Ex.P.10: Voice recorder transcription Ex.P.10(a to d): Signature of PW.2,3 & 6 and CW.3 Ex.P.10(e): Signature of accused Ex.P.11: Recording in the voice recorder Ex.P.11(a & b): Signatures of PW.3 & CW.3 Ex.P.12: Transcription of voice recorder Ex.P.12(a to c): Signatures of PW.3,6 and CW.3 Ex.P.13: Explanation given by the accused Ex.P.13(a,b, d): Signatures of PW.3,6 & CW.3 Ex.P.13(c): Signature of accused Ex.P.14: Report given by PW.4 48 Spl. C.C. No.51/2013 Ex.P.14(a): Signature of PW.4 Ex.P.15: Service particulars of the accused Ex.P.15(a): Signature of PW.4 Ex.P.16: Duty particulars of accused Ex.P.16(a): Signature of PW.4 Ex.P.17: Sri Sai Hospital medical slips Ex.P.18: FIR Ex.P.18(a): Signature of PW.6 Ex.P.19 & 20: Requisition letters to depute official Ex.P.19(a) 20(a): Signatures of PW.6 Ex.P.21: Rough sketch of spot Ex.P.21(a): Signature of PW.6 Ex.P.22: Sample seal Ex.P.22(a): Signature of PW.6 Ex.P.23: Acknowledgment of CW.3 Ex.P.23(a): Signature of PW.6 Ex.P.24: Chemical analysis report Ex.P.25: PWD sketch of spot Ex.P.26: Call details LIST OF MATERIAL OBJECTS MARKED FOR PROSECUTION:
MO.1: Sample solution MO.2: Pink colour solution MO.3 to 6: CDs.
MO.7: Sample solution MO.8 & 9: Pink colour solutions MO.10: Pant MO.11 & 12: CDs.49 Spl. C.C. No.51/2013
M.O.13 & 14: Currency notes LIST OF WITNESSES EXAMINED FOR ACCUSED:
DW.1: M.V.Chikkanna LIST OF DOCUMENTS MARKED FOR ACCUSED:
Ex.D.1: Suvarna Arogya Paravanige book Ex.D.2: Circular Ex.D.3: Copy of demand collection balance book Ex.D.4: Copy of demand collection balance book (MALLIKARJUNAGOUD) LXXVII ADDL. CITY CIVIL & SESSIONS JUDGE & SPECIAL JUDGE, BENGALURU (CCH-78)