Karnataka High Court
Imamsab Moulasab Torgal vs The State Of Karnataka on 11 July, 2023
-1-
CRL.A No. 2553 of 2013
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
DHARWAD BENCH
DATED THIS THE 11TH DAY OF JULY, 2023
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE ANIL B KATTI
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 2553 OF 2013
BETWEEN:
IMAMSAB MOULASAB TORAGAL
AGE: 62 YRS, OCC: RETIRED CDPO
R/O: RAMDURG, TQ: RAMDURG
DIST: BELGAUM
...APPELLANT
(BY SHRI S.B. DEYANNAVAR, ADVOCATE)
AND:
Digitally
signed by THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
POOJA
POOJA DEELIP
SAVANUR
THROUGH BELGAUM RURAL POLICE
DEELIP
SAVANUR Date:
2023.07.13
R/B SPP CIRCUIT BENCH, DHARWAD
11:15:25 -
0700
...RESPONDENT
(BY SHRI ANIL KALE, ADVOCATE)
***
THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL IS FILED US/EC. 374(2) OF
CR.P.C. SEEKING TO SET ASIDE THE LOWER COURT
JUDGMENT, ORDER DATED 02.02.2013 AND ACQUIT THE
APPELLANT IN SPECIAL CASE NO. 132/2011, IN LOKAYUKTA
CRIME NO.09/2010 FOR THE OFFENCES P/U/SEC. 7, 13(1)(d)
R/W 13(2) OF P.C. ACT 1988.
THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING AND THE
SAME HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED FOR JUDGMENT
ON 27.03.2023, THIS DAY, THE COURT, DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
-2-
CRL.A No. 2553 of 2013
JUDGMENT
Appellant/accused feeling aggrieved by judgment of trial Court on the file of IV Additional District and Sessions Judge and Special Judge (PCA), Belgaum, in special Case No.132/2011 dated 02.02.2013, preferred this appeal.
2. Parties to the appeal are referred with their ranks as assigned in the trial Court for the sake of convenience.
3. The factual matrix leading to the case of prosecution can be stated in nutshell to the effect that complainant is working as President of Shabari Rural Development Society and the accused was working as C.D.P.O in Ramdurg. The said Shabari Rural Development Society has lent two hands to C.D.P.O office including the complainant for operating the computers provided under Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005. In this regard complainant and computer operators were required to pay honorarium salary of Rs.1,000/- and Rs.3,000/- and the salary was enhanced to the tune of Rs.2,000/- to messenger and Rs.5,000/- to computer operators, this order was given effect with April 2010, but the notification was issued on 10.06.2010. The honorarium for the month of July 2010 to the tune of -3- CRL.A No. 2553 of 2013 Rs.7,000/- and arrears of honorarium for the month of April, May and June 2010 to the tune of Rs.9,000/- was to be received by complainant as the President of Shabari Rural Development Society. The complainant used to receive the said amount and disburse to the concerned computer operator after realizing the cheque in favour of Shabari Rural Development Society. The accused was working as C.D.P.O in Ramdurg being public servant on 05.08.2010 has demanded illegal gratification of Rs.9,000/- from complainant and he assured that the said amount will be paid after getting cheque encashed and accordingly complainant got encashed cheque. Thereafter, the accused again insisted for payment of illegal gratification of Rs.9,000/-. On 16.08.2010 at about 11:00 a.m. on the strength of complaint filed by complainant trap was conducted in C.D.P.O. office at Ramdurg. Accused demanded and accepted the amount of illegal gratification from the complainant for discharge of his duties from the complainant. It is further alleged that accused by abusing his official position as public servant obtained pecuniary advantage to the tune of Rs.9,000/- thereby committed criminal misconduct. On these allegations made in the complaint, the investigating officer after -4- CRL.A No. 2553 of 2013 investigation filed charge sheet under Section 7 and 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.
4. In response to the summons, accused appeared before trial Court through counsel. The trial Court after being prima-facie satisfied framed the charge against accused for the afore said offences. Accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. Prosecution in order to prove the allegations made against accused relied on the evidence of PWs.1 to 11 and documents Exs.P.1 to 41, so also got identified M.O.Nos.1 to
13.
5. On closure of the prosecution evidence, statement of accused under Section 313 of Cr.P.C, came to be recorded. Accused denied all the incriminating material evidence appearing against him and claimed that false case is filed. Trial Court after appreciating the evidence on record convicted the accused for the aforesaid offences and imposed sentence as per order of sentence.
6. Appellant/accused challenged the said judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed by the trial Court contending that there is a delay in filing the complaint and sending FIR to the Court which has not been satisfactorily -5- CRL.A No. 2553 of 2013 explained by prosecution. The trial Court has failed to appreciate the defence of accused that the complainant has only returned the borrowed money from him which he has accepted, the accused has never demanded any illegal gratification of Rs.9,000/- for issuing cheque. Therefore, the recovery of money from the accused is not illegal gratification and it is only a return of loan taken by the complainant. The approach and appreciation of oral and documentary evidence by trial Court are contrary to law and evidence on record. Therefore, prayed for allowing appeal and to set-aside the judgment of conviction and order of sentence imposed by trial Court. Consequently, to acquit the accused from charges leveled against him.
7. In response to notice of appeal Sri.Anil Kale, special counsel appeared for respondent.
8. Heard the arguments both sides.
9. On careful perusal of material evidence placed on record by prosecution, it would go to show that complainant is working as President of Shabari Rural Development Society and accused was working as C.D.P.O at Ramdurg. The said Shabari Rural Development Society has lent two hands to C.D.P.O. -6- CRL.A No. 2553 of 2013 office at Ramdurg including the complainant and computer operator under Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005. The prosecution alleges that accused has demanded illegal gratification of Rs.9,000/- for release of honorarium for the month of July 2010, and the arrears of honorarium for the month of April, May and June 2010 to the tune of Rs.9,000/-. On the basis of complaint filed by P.W.2 trap was conducted in the C.D.P.O office at Ramdurg. Accused demanded and accepted the illegal gratification of Rs.9,000/-. The prosecution to prove the allegation of accused having demanded and accepted illegal gratification of Rs.9,000/- for release of honorarium mainly relies on the evidence of complainant- P.W.2, shadow witness-P.W.3 and P.W.4-Co-panch witness to the entrustment and trap panchanama Exs.P.5 and 25 respectively. The said evidence is sought to be corroborated by the evidence of investigating officer P.W.11 from the stage of registering the case to trap panchanama and P.W.9 who filed charge sheet.
10. The prosecution to prove that accused is public servant working as C.D.P.O at Ramdurg within the meaning of Section 2(C) of the Act relies on the oral evidence of P.W.5 -7- CRL.A No. 2553 of 2013 Assistant C.D.P.O. who deposed to the effect that accused is working as C.D.P.O. at Ramdurg. P.W.6 is SDA working in the same office has also deposed to the effect that accused is working as C.D.P.O in Ramdurg. Copy of attendance register Ex.P.14, defence statement of accused Ex.P.29 substantiate the fact that accused is working as C.D.P.O at Ramdurg. The said fact is also not denied by the accused. Therefore, prosecution out of the above referred evidence on record has proved that accused is public servant within the meaning of Section 2(C) of the Act.
11. The direct witness to speak on demand of illegal gratification by accused is P.W.2-complainant, who filed complaint-Ex.P.4 and produced the conversation between him and accused, wherein accused demanded illegal gratification and said conversation is converted in the form of C.D- M.O.No.4. The prosecution relies on the evidence on shadow witness-P.W.3 and Co-pancha-P.W.4 to prove the entrustment panchanama Ex.P.5 and trap panchanama Ex.P.25. The voice of conversation between accused and complainant has been recognized by P.W.5, who is working as Assistant C.D.P.O in the same office. Investigating officer-P.W.11 is witness for -8- CRL.A No. 2553 of 2013 processing entrustment panchanama-Ex.P.5 and conducting of trap-Ex.P.25.
12. On careful perusal of the evidence of P.Ws.2, 3, 4 and 11, it would go to show that they have spoken about complainant is President of Shabari Rural Development Society which has provided to two hands to C.D.P.O. office at Ramdurg, including complainant for operating the computers provided under Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005. Complainant was also working as messenger to serve summons under the said Act. The honorarium for the month of July 2010 amounting to Rs.7,000/- in respect of messenger and computer operator was due and arrears of honorarium for the month of April, May and June 2010 to the tune of Rs.9,000/- was to be received by complainant as President of Shabari Rural Development Society.
13. On 05.08.2010 accused demanded illegal gratification of Rs.9,000/- from complainant and he assured that money will paid after getting cheques enchased. On 05.08.2010 itself complainant encashed two cheques for Rs.9,000/- and Rs.7,000/-. Thereafter, accused insisted to pay illegal gratification and demanded illegal gratification. Further -9- CRL.A No. 2553 of 2013 threatened that in case illegal gratification as demanded is not given, outsourcing with Shabari Rural Development Society will be cancelled. The complainant being not willing to pay illegal gratification, filed complaint before Lokayukta-Ex.P.4 on 13.08.2010 and produced mobile containing conversation between him and accused which came to be converted in the form of C.D-M.O.No.4.
14. Complainant has produced 7 currency notes of Rs.1,000 denomination and 4 currency notes of Rs.500 denomination totally amounting to Rs.9,000/-. The said currency notes were smeared with phenolphthalein powder. The currency notes were counted by P.W.4 and P.W.3 has noted down the number. Thereafter, the currency notes were kept in the pocket and instructed to give the same, if accused demand the illegal gratification. Complainant was further instructed to give signal by wiping face with hand kerchief on payment of illegal gratification. Complainant was also provided voice recorder and instructed to record the conversation between him and accused. Accordingly, entrustment panchanama as per Ex.P.5 was prepared and photograph at Exs.P.6 to 13 were taken.
- 10 -
CRL.A No. 2553 of 2013
15. Thereafter, they left Lokayukta office at about 8.30 a.m. and on reaching the outskirt of Ramdurg, complainant contacted the accused, who in turn told that he has come to Yeragatti, since his relative is admitted to the KLE hospital and asked him to come on the next day at 10.00 a.m. to the office. On the next day 16.08.2010 complainant and pancha witnesses came to Yeragatti bus stand, where they were instructed to wait for P.W.11. Thereafter they went to C.D.P.O office at Ramdurg. Complainant and P.W.3 shadow witness were duly instructed and sent them to the office of accused. The shadow witness was waiting near the door of the office and another panch witness P.W.4 along with Lokayukta officials were waiting at some distance from the office. The complainant asked accused to reduce the money, since employees may not sign the vouchers, but the accused demanded Rs.9,000/- and complainant paid the said amount. Accused accepted illegal gratification from his right hand and told that in connection with some other transactions Rs.500/- is required to be paid to Shivareddy Pandappa Jagapur and returned Rs.500/- note to complainant. Accused kept remaining amount of Rs.8,500/- in back side paint pocket. Therefore, complainant on coming out of the office gave signal to the Lokayukta officials as instructed.
- 11 -
CRL.A No. 2553 of 2013
16. On arrival of the Lokayukta staff, complainant showed accused and stated that he has demanded and accepted illegal gratification. The accused produced an amount of Rs.8,500/- from back pocket of the paint. On enquiry about shortage of Rs.500/-, the complainant has produced Rs.500/- note, since accused has returned the said money. The same were seized under trap panchanama-Ex.P.25 which they identified as M.O.Nos.1 and 2. The hand wash of accused and the wash of paint pocket turned into pink colour. The accused right hand and left hand wash collected in separate bottle in M.O.Nos.6 and 7 and pant wash collected in another bottle M.O.No.3. The conversation between complainant and accused was recorded in the voice recorder and converted same in the form of C.D-M.O.No.9. The conversation recorded in M.O.No.9 was played before P.W.5, who is colleague of accused working as Assistant C.D.P.O. in the same office, identified the voice of accused and complainant. The trap panchanama was prepared Ex.P.25 and entire process of trap was photographed Exs.P.19 to 24. On the other hand, it is the defence of accused that he has some financial transaction with complainant and in this regard he has received the said money from complainant as he repaid the loan amount. Whether the said tainted money
- 12 -
CRL.A No. 2553 of 2013recovered from the possession of accused is illegal gratification accepted by accused or accepted the money being repayment of loan is to be now decided.
17. The latest constitution Bench judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court in NEERAJ DUTTA VS. STATE (GOVT. OF N.C.T. OF DEHLI) reported in SCC ONLINE SC PAGE NO. 1724 summarized the legal position to prove demand and acceptance of illegal gratification as under:
"(a) Proof of demand and acceptance of illegal gratification by a public servant as a fact in issue by the prosecution is a sine qua non in order to establish the guilt of the accused public servant under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) (i) and
(ii) of the Act.
(b) In order to bring home the guilt of the accused, the prosecution has to first prove the demand of illegal gratification and the subsequent acceptance as a matter of fact. This fact in issue can be proved either by direct evidence which can be in the nature of oral evidence or documentary evidence.
(c) Further, the fact in issue, namely the proof of demand and acceptance of illegal gratification can also be proved by circumstantial evidence in
- 13 -CRL.A No. 2553 of 2013
the absence of direct oral and documentary evidence.
(d) In order to prove the fact in issue, namely, the demand and acceptance of illegal gratification by the public servant, the following aspects have to be borne in mind:
(i) if there is an offer to pay by the bribe giver without there being any demand from the public servant and the latter simply accepts the offer and receives the illegal gratification, it is a case of acceptance as per Section 7 of the Act. In such a case, there need not be a prior demand by the public servant.
(ii) On the other hand, if the public servant makes a demand and the bribe giver accepts the demand and tenders the demanded gratification which in turn is received by the public servant, it is a case of obtainment. In the case of obtainment, the prior demand for illegal gratification emanates from the public servant. This is an offence under Section 13(1)(d)(i) and
(ii) of the Act.
(iii) In both cases of (i) and (ii) above, the offer by the bribe giver and the demand by the public servant respectively have to be proved by the prosecution as a fact in issue. In other words,
- 14 -CRL.A No. 2553 of 2013
mere acceptance or receipt of an illegal gratification without anything more would not make it an offence under Section 7 or Section 13(1)(d), (i) and (ii) respectively of the Act.
Therefore, under Section 7 of the Act, in order to bring home the offence, there must be an offer which emanates from the bribe giver which is accepted by the public servant which would make it an offence. Similarly, a prior demand by the public servant when accepted by the bribe giver and in turn there is a payment made which is received by the public servant, would be an offence of obtainment under Section 13(1)(d) and (i) and (ii) of the Act.
(e) The presumption of fact with regard to the demand and acceptance or obtainment of an illegal gratification may be made by a court of law by way of an inference only when the foundational facts have been proved by relevant oral and documentary evidence and not in the absence thereof. On the basis of the material on record, the Court has the discretion to raise a presumption of fact while considering whether the fact of demand has been proved by the prosecution or not. Of course, a presumption of fact is subject to rebuttal by the accused and in the absence of rebuttal presumption stands.
- 15 -
CRL.A No. 2553 of 2013
(f) In the event of complaint turns 'hostile', or has died or is unavailable to let in his evidence during trial, demand of illegal gratification can be proved by letting in the evidence of any other witness who can again let in evidence, either orally or by documentary evidence or the presumption can prove the case by circumstantial evidence. The trial does not abate nor does it result in an order of acquittal of the accused public servant.
(g) In so far as Section 7 of the Act is concerned, on the proof of the facts in
issue, Section 20 mandates the court to raise a presumption that illegal gratification was for the purpose of a motive or reward as mentioned in the said Section. The said presumption has to be raised by the court as a legal presumption or a presumption in law. Of course, the said presumption is also subject to rebuttal. Section 20 does not apply to Section 13(1)(d) (i) and
(ii) of the Act.
(h) We clarify that the presumption in law under Section 20 of the Act is distinct from presumption of fact referred to above in point
(e) as the former is a mandatory presumption while the latter is discretionary in nature."
- 16 -
CRL.A No. 2553 of 2013The Hon'ble Apex Court held that earlier three Bench decisions in B. Jayaraj, P.Satyanarayan Murthy with three Judge Bench decision in M. Narasinga Rao, there is no conflict between the judgments in the aforesaid three cases.
18. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the judgment in JAGTAR SINGH VS. STATE OF PANJAB reported in 2023 LIVE LAW (SC) PAGE NO.232 by relying on the afore mentioned constitution Bench judgment held that demand and recovery both must be proved to sustain conviction under the prevention of corruption Act. Conviction was set-aside as demand was not proved. The Hon'ble Apex court in the earlier judgment in K.SHANTHAMMA VS. THE STATE OF TELANGANA reported in 2022 LIVE LAW (SC) PAGE NO.192 wherein it has been observed and held that:
"Prevention of Corruption Act Section 7 and 13. The proof of demand of bribe by a public servant and its acceptance by him is sine quo non for establishing the offence under Section 7 of the P.C. Act. The failure of the prosecution to prove the demand of illegal gratification would be fatal and mere recovery of the amount from the person accused of the offence under Section 7 or 13 of the Act would not entail his conviction there under."
- 17 -
CRL.A No. 2553 of 2013The reference was also made of earlier judgment in P.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY VS. INSPECTOR OF POLICE STATE OF A.P. reported in (2015) 10 SCC 152. Therefore, in view of the principles enunciated in the afore mentioned judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court, the proof of demand and acceptance of illegal gratification by public servant is sine quo non for establishing the offence under Section 7 of the P.C. Act.
19. In the present case, accused has admitted that he has received money from complainant-P.W.2. However, it is the defence of accused that he has some financial transaction with complainant and in this regard, he has received the said amount from the complainant. In this context, it is profitable to refer the defence statement given by accused Ex.P.29 at the first available opportunity when the trap was effected. Accused in the defence statement Ex.P.29 made plain statement that he was having transaction with complainant and complainant used to take money from him as loan. The accused has given money and thinking that he is giving back loan amount accepted the same, but receipt of said money is not illegal gratification demanded by him. If at all the accused has accepted illegal gratification then it was open for him to make defence to suit
- 18 -
CRL.A No. 2553 of 2013the purpose to substantiate his claim. However, the accused without having any second thought made plain statement as per Ex.P.29.
20. In the present case, it is the evidence of P.W.2 that on 12.08.2010 at 10.30 a.m. received phone call from accused and demanded illegal gratification of Rs.9,000/- at any cost and he has recorded the same in his mobile. The mobile number of P.W.2 is 9886993653 and mobile number of accused is 9448406990. In view of the above evidence of P.W.2, he claims that accused has called him over phone and demanded illegal gratification of Rs.9,000/- at any cost. The evidence of P.W.9 would go to show that he has collected the call details of mobile used by accused Ex.P.34. P.W.9 claims that accused through the mobile of Vittal Dasar called the complainant over phone and demanded illegal gratification. This statement of P.W.9 runs contrary to the evidence of P.W.2 and the complaint allegation Ex.P.4. P.W.2 never claimed that accused called him over the phone through the mobile of Vittal Dasar nor the same is alleged in the complaint filed by the P.W.2 as per Ex.P.4. The said Vittal Dasar is examined as P.W.5 and he never speaks anything that accused has used his mobile for calling the
- 19 -
CRL.A No. 2553 of 2013complaint over phone on 12.08.2010. Apart from that the investigating officer has not collected any call details of the mobile belongs to P.W.5 and through the said mobile contacted complainant to establish the fact that accused demanded illegal gratification over phone to the complainant. The evidence of P.W.11 who is the investigating officer from registering the case till the conclusion of trap panchanama did never speak anything that accused has used the mobile of P.W.5 to contact complainant over phone to make demand of illegal gratification.
21. It is pertinent to note that complainant P.W.2 makes no allegation between 06.08.2010 from the date of realizing cheque till 12.08.2010 that accused has demanded illegal gratification of Rs.9,000/-even after delivering the cheque to complainant P.W.2, so as to connect the claim of complainant P.W.2 that accused demanded illegal gratification. However, P.W.2 during the course of evidence for the first time deposed to the effect that even after realization of cheque, accused persistently calling complainant over phone and demanded illegal gratification. However, the said evidence does not find place in the complaint filed by P.W.2 as per Ex.P.4. The
- 20 -
CRL.A No. 2553 of 2013call details of P.W.5-Vittal Dasar Ex.P.34 and call details of accused Ex.P.39 are collected only from 12.08.2010 and 13.08.2010, as per Ex.P.34 call details of P.W.5 only for the day on 11.08.2010 is collected. The evidence of P.W.9 and 11 is silent on this aspect of the matter. Therefore, no any credibility can be attached to the evidence of P.W.2 that accused was repeatedly calling complainant and demanded illegal gratification even after realizing the cheque.
22. The call detail collected by P.W.9 as per Ex.P.34 which according to him is the mobile used by accused to contact complainant P.W.2 for demanding illegal gratification. P.W.9 who claims that mobile of P.W.5 was used by accused for contacting complainant to make demand of illegal gratification. However P.W.5 himself does not certify the said evidence during the course of his evidence before the Court. Therefore call details as per Ex.P.34 cannot be relied to hold that accused by using the mobile of P.W.5 demanded illegal gratification from complainant even after realizing the cheque Exs.P.16 and
17.
23. Learned counsel for accused has argued that no work of complainant P.W.2 was pending as on the date of trap
- 21 -
CRL.A No. 2553 of 2013on 16.08.2010. The accused has already issued the cheque to complainant on 05.08.2010 itself and both cheques have been realized on 06.08.2010. Therefore, the mere possession of tainted money and recovery of same under trap pachanama- Ex.P.25 cannot be ground to hold that accused has demanded and accepted illegal gratification. It is specific case of the prosecution that accused has demanded illegal gratification of Rs.9,000/- and complainant assured that he will pay the amount after realizing the cheque amount. The issuance of the cheque by accused is alleged to be on condition to pay illegal gratification on realization of the cheque. P.W.7 who is the colleague of complainant does not speak anything that accused has demanded illegal gratification for issuing cheque Exs.P.16 and 17, nor complainant having informed to P.W.7 about accused demanding illegal gratification, since her money was also involved in this case. The said claim of prosecution is not supported by above referred evidence on record.
24. Indisputably, the accused has already disbursed the cheque Exs.P.16 and 17 to the complainant on 05.08.2010 and they were encashed by complainant on 06.08.2010. Therefore as on the date of filing the complaint Ex.P.4 on 13.08.2010 or
- 22 -
CRL.A No. 2553 of 2013on the date of trap on 16.08.2010 no any work of complainant was pending with the accused. In this context of the matter, it is profitable to refer the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in A. SUBAIR VS. STATE OF KERALA reported in (2009) 6 SUPREME COURT CASE 507, wherein it has been observed and held that in order to secure an order of conviction for the offences punishable under Section 7, 13(1)(d) R/w Section 13(2) of prevention of corruption Act the prosecution has to establish the following ingredients:
1. Demand and acceptance of bribe money.
2. Handling of tainted money by the accused on the day of trap (colour test).
3. Work of the complainant must be pending as on the date of trap with the accused.
The Co-ordinate Bench judgment of this Court in CHANDRESHA S/O MADARSHA KATBA VS. STATE OF KARNATAKA LOKAYUKTA POLICE KALBURGI IN CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.200105/2015 DATED 16.02.2022 by relying on the aforesaid judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court has held that when the work of complainant is not pending before accused as on the date of trap, the important ingredient to attract and complete the offence punishable under Section 7, 13(1)(d) R/w Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act
- 23 -
CRL.A No. 2553 of 2013cannot be sustained. The another Co-ordinate Bench judgment of this Court in State of KARNATAKA VS. NARAYANSWAMY IN CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.2506/2012 DATED 29.09.2021 has taken similar view that when work is not pending the offence punishable under Section 7, 13(1)(d) R/w Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act are not attracted. In the present case also indisputably the work of complainant was not pending as on the date of filing the complaint Ex.P.4 on 13.08.2010 or on the date of trap on 16.08.2010. Therefore, in view of the principles enunciated in the afore mentioned judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court and Co-ordinate Bench judgment of this Court, in view no work of complainant being pending as on the date of filing complaint or on the date of trap, the conviction for the offences punishable under Section 7, 13(1)(d) R/w Section 13(2) of the prevention of corruption Act cannot be legally sustained. The trial Court has not considered the effect of no work of complainant pending as on the date of filing complaint or on the date of trap, further there being no any concrete evidence to prove demand for illegal gratification erroneously proceeded to convict the accused which cannot be legally sustained. Therefore, interference of
- 24 -
CRL.A No. 2553 of 2013this Court is required. Consequently, proceed to pass the following:
ORDER Appeal filed by the appellant/accused is hereby allowed.
Judgment of the trial Court on the file of IV Additional District and Sessions Judge and Special Judge (PCA) Belagavi, in special Case No.132/2011 dated 02.02.2013 hereby set-
aside.
The accused is acquitted and his bail bond stands discharged.
Fine amount, if any, deposited is ordered to be refunded to the accused under due identification.
The registry is directed to transmit the records with the copy of this judgment to trial Court.
(Sd/-) JUDGE AC