Karnataka High Court
S C Boraiah vs The State Of Karnataka By The Inspector ... on 30 June, 2010
Author: Subhash B.Adi
Bench: Subhash B.Adi
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE
DATED THIS THE 30"' DAY OF JUNE 2010
BEFORE
THE HUMBLE: MRJUSTICE SUBHASH [I _
CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 161 1/ziomlpf ,
BETWEEN: I h A
Sri.S.C.Boraiah
Aged about 49 years
8 / o. Chikkanna
I Division Clerk
Primay Health Centre
Kadugondana Halli _ _ " -.
Bangalore. _ ' APPELLANT
{By "
M / S. M .T. Nanaiah' Shanigarappa 'Assts .]
AND: 1111 M
The State of Ka1'natal{a = A
The Inspector of 'P.olice¢ " 9'
Karnataka Lokayukta "
City Division " ,_ " '
_ Bangalore. ' - , .. RESPONDENT
-Sri.Su€A3,Rajendra Reddy, Adv.)
Appeal is filed Under Section 374(2)
Cr.P."C. against the judgment dt.13.11.2001 passed by the
~..«,9*..special'jVu(1ige, Bangalore urban and rural district, Bangalore in
- " ._Spie.gC.C.No. 136/ 99 convicting the appel1ant--aecused for the
offenc_es U / S. 7' an d13 (1) [d] of Prevention of Corruption Act,
i.98'8°and sentencing him to undergo R1 for one year and to
pay a fine of Rs..'2,000/~ and I.D., to undergo S.1. for one month
-for the offence U/S.7 of PC Act. 1988 and further sentencing
him to undergo R1. for one year and to pay fine of Rs. 2,000/-
and 1.1)., to undergo S.I. for one month for the offence U/S.
demanded Rs.8.000/--.
13(2) of P C Act, 1988.
imprisonment to run concurrently and sentence of fine to run
consecutively.
The substantive sentence of
This Appeal coming on for hearing this day, the:.l'Court
deiivered the foliowing:
JUDGMENT
This appeal is against the judgment o£'¢:3'nv¥:i¢s5n dated 1"
13"' November 2001 in Spl.C.C.No::,13E$_/i1t¥)98a_o'n:lthel:lfi.le"':1gf Special Judge. Bangalore Cityfl
2. Accused was charge sheete.d--bly*-the Lokayuktha Police for an offence punishable" under}?lffiecliiioniiA13(1][d) read with Section 13(2) of Preifentioii Act, 1988 (in short 'Act']. 2,
3.V7,PWl-21 had retired from service on 231.1.1998"»_as this regard, she had made an appl.ic:atio'n to l.thve:_l\/Iedical Officer, Primary health Centre. A"g_'KadugonldAanahal_1i for the retirement benefit: as per Ex.P11. approached the accused to forward the . Sentice Reg:s"i;er and other documents to the Accountant 1 ~_,.'¥CtK31T'1£_"I"alltl3'"' office. However. the accused demanded Rs.8,OOO/W for "the purpose of doing the said officiai work. in this regard.
"she went to the office of the accused after one week. again he On 20.4.1998, complainant gave %& yr L.-.2 Rs.1,000/--. In May 1998, complainant again approached the accused. Accused demanded Rs.1,000/-- for sending the records and he asked to pay the remaining mo_I'1'cy"~.,afi,er completion of the work. Accused told the compla_lri.ant" . on 12.5.1998 and pay Rs.1,()00/--.
4. Complainant; was not agreeable amount, hence, she went: to eLoR~ayt1kt.1*ia_ Police "filed a'-' complaint as per Ex.P15__. PW~§...secL1red the"sh.ado,vv witness PW~1 and panch witness Inspector gave instructions to _*the gt:oinIp;a:nafn_t, Eli/791 and cw-3. Complainant .ga.vc note_s1=of Rs.i_;')9,'"'each over which the Lokayuktha " lphenolphthalein powder, which was 'n'a1adVéd'fi'j'o;fe;<, CW-3 after counting, gave the notes tonthcrvconipllainanjt, the hands of CW--3 were washed and solntl-onflwas preserved in IVi.O.5 and the washed solu.t,io11_, wntcn. turned into pink colour, was preserved in Police instructed PW--2 and PW--1 as to . whatto aawiian they come to the office of the accused. 9' it 12.5.1998, according to the instructions, PWs-1
-- left the office of the Lokayuktha along with the Lokaytiktha Police Constables at 12.45 p.m., reached the Primary Health Centre, Kadugondanahalli at about 1.30 pm. The jeep of the Lokayuktha was parked about 100 feet from the Primary Health Centre. PW--2 along with PW--1 to_l'the office of the accused. Accused demanded the the' . complainant. Complainant gave the tainted nioney;~vvhi.ch_was"'V received by the accused by his right ha'I1d:'an:l_1 amount underneath the tablee'dra_wer.llThereaftelr,A..p:PW~2_l§went_u4 outside and gave signal to inside the chamber of the £3.CCLlS€vCl*l._zV:!FLl]_'C)\"_l.:f1'1 andithereafter, hands of the accused ivgstidiurn carbonate solution afterthel:§v:a_s11v:of pink colour.
lnnnediatelyl take out the notes.
counted! prepared trap mahazar and after comp1etion_Qof"'he sought permission from the sanctioning authority and after sanctioning the permission, . charge sheet' was filed)"
H 2 E"ha,6.HPro~s_eciution examined PWs--i to 9 and marked Exs.P1
--g to P536 Msl.Os.1 to 9. Trial court relying on the evidence of ".,:l3wa.i_1" -51 shadow witness and the evidence of Investigating .l C)fficer -- PW--7, held that the prosecution has proved the l "charge beyond reasonable doubt and convicted the accused. It is against the said judgment. this appeal has been filed. %AA\
7. Heard the learned Counsel Sri.Shankarappa for the appellant: and Sri.Rajendra Reddy for the Lokayuktha.
8. During the course of the trial, PW~2 --
though admits the initial demand, however, stat.edv:that'Itli--§:\' . accused handed over the pension patier coverFan,d ai"tei' shaving. received the said cover, she putthe tainted currency, notes'-~on~,V the table of the accused. In view.,:o'i7,the change, Vthbellvelrsion I of the complainant. she was treatedt hostile and prosecution cross--exan1ined her. In the giross:.e):amin.at.io'n., she admits for having gone to_the-.office of".the"a,cC_uSeCl« and the accused having received' itl1e_«nVLoney.' _
9. PWEI is_the.nu1ateri:a'l witness to the entire prosecution case..~§{He* is asihadow witness. In his evidence, he has A"g_c»ategoricVallystated that, he was deputed to the office of the Llloka3I1,tkt'h'a'_;'_v».__o'rt"V.I2.5.1998, he went to the office of the .V'a'1:1d on their instructions, he acted as a shadow his evidence, he has stated that, after reaching the the accused, he and complainant went inside and sat beiore the accused, as the accused was taking lunch and after It 10 minutes. accused demanded money of Rs.1,000/~ from the «Qt/"»_ complainant. Complainant gave the money and the accused received the same by his right hand and thereafter he kept the said amount underneath the table drawer. Comp1aina.n:t..'_:gaye a signal to the Lokayuktha Poiice and .
and shown his identification and then, wash his right hand in the sodium_ ca1'bo'n'a't..e_.:ésioititioiizritiiied said solution turned into pink V-ioiour. ; was also washed, but the the colour.
PW--7 prepared a trap HVPW-1 has been cross--examir1ed. Ir1_.th,e_ except minor discrepancy, been.;" clearly states that, accused had his right hand and thereafterokhed to PW--1 ~ complainant.
Except e1i*_;it'inVg had taken part in two more similar ..in"vestigation's, no other suggestion worth is made as it "regard. toiihis .,integritymor acting at the best of the Lokayuktha ,_1?oii_ceV.- discrepancy pointed out is that the chit coritaining the "serial numbers of the notes was not found, even *.,when checked in the vanity bag and it is stated that, after the "--"accus'ed touched the notes, his hands were washed, however. the evidence of PW-I is clear that the accused was asked to wash his hands first and thereafter he was asked to take out «%w' '/:'i the notes. From the evidence of PWs~l and 2 and Exs.P2 to P12 and the documents which were found in the possession of the accused pertaining to the complainant clearly es1.ahlish_es that, t.he accused was to forward the service _ Accountant Generals office and it mvvas materials do show t.hat the said were accused. Ex.P16 ~ acknowledgement«clearly addressed to the Accountant the reference to the docume'n:ts~7.. kept in a sealed cover. ltvvas collection of the money- iproVeSAf:::tli.at...t.1T1:efcorrlplainant was seeking an the service register for the theufpensionary benefit. PW~1's evidencezproves received the money from PW- 2 and it pr.o'ves:th'at the money was received for the :,jo.f handingfovevr t.he papers. Though PW--2 has not sulppor.+e"(:'.._V the A.tpr'osect1tion case fully. however, in the cross- examfinat.viOn;'f:--she admits that t.he accused had made a demand 'for the 'purpose of official favour of forwarding the papers. f 710. The evidence adduced by the prosecution do prove " -tliat the complainant had sought for official favour and. for which accused had made a demand. PW--l's evidence further €51'?
proves that said amount was received by the accused and the documents were handed over to the complainant with 3. covering letter addressed to the Accountant General. ll. Trial court considering the evidence of is clinching and clear and creates no doubt _and'~-consideiing the circumstances, has held that the pros'ec1§tioin--h:asuproi{ed'« the offence beyond reasonable doubt.
12. Even on. reappreciation__and_ giying..sec_oVnd look also, I do not find there is any e~rror'c'om:fnitt"ed trial court. Accordingly._ the app"ea'l is l dismissed.