Karnataka High Court
M Krishnappa vs State Of Karnataka Through The Police ... on 3 August, 2011
Author: V.Jagannathan
Bench: V.Jagannathan
Pil ee ee ee eee ee Lr ee ee ee ee a eee ee ons ie yh Be | "oF cObt oe. CRIMINAL | Y AND LSC Me) READ were CORRUPTION ACT AND SENTERNCI L IN THE MiGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT € DATED THIS THE 2° DAY OF AUGUST 2011 BEFORE ADVOCATE CG > KASH, ADVOCATE) POLICE WE TG, BANGALORE DIVISION KARNAT ACA, LRARUIBT Ar RANGA ORE. w. RESPONDENT (BY SRE: GR Tals CARMEL? Bs 5G e. 2008 nag stb a GM ig) OF THE PREVENTION OF MEM TO LAN me 6.1 FOR A PERIOD OF Ce ONE YEAR, IM ADGITION, THE ACQUSED 1 GENTENCEO TG BAY A FING OF TS000/- IN DEFAULT TO OBPOSIT THE SAID FINE AMOUNT, The AGO JSED SHALL. UNDERGO FURS Asa! 'oa Sa Bak hh SRE a, Ee, Of EE Eek he eB a ELE RRA REELS E AGREE EB Sad d PAMRPL EMA EARS ENA, EOE ROL OF Re EE fee a a -YGE IS 'B.L. with fine of F106, "under | SPT ACT, LGB, ANID FURTHER aeas AIM TO UNGER 6.2. FOR & 1G GF TW YEARS AND TO BAY A FINE OF €10,000/- AND ON FAILURE TO PAY THE ABS ae HE SHALL. Ws te SD PG OD OF 2 kh IMERISONMENT S46LL RUM - THAT THE SUBS): CGMCUREENTLY. AL, COMING. GF FOR FINAL. MBARING THIS <2 FOLLOWING: a ie by Lie accu calling in question Als conviction and tence passed by the af the Court het ow. The. Appetit punishe ble under Se convick tion cixler tion 138(A}d) end sentences to run concurrently, 2 The osroseculion ceee, im short, @ thet the compiminent Rajaram (PW-1) who Fed tier voluntary retirement from the post of lnepector of Income Tex gn Aan CUE GLEN TEE to RS EAS RUAECMRLARUA PMidgh COW RT CRE MARMATAMA HHGM Eo Meat ie that Taal hot BAe =
to tke ep contrect gartrment, es oF Government buildings and for the purpose of obte ining vency Certificate. Hae. yeputy Sommissionar, ry documents and-his application as. re feecor mendations.
forwarded te the accuted for face The accused, at the relevant point of Hime, was working as Special Tahsikiar, ngaiore 'Nort. Toink and as the complainant felt that the accused as dodging the matter, the complainant approached the "Deputy. Com ner by wey of a Pubic Gi ance Petition and thereafterwards, the : to spend up 'the matter, The accused ce or. 7.8 2.2000 ta the complzinant asking Alm to
-eriginai, . documents. THe plainant Prods ced thie documents. ané of 17.86.2006, the complainant cate.
3. The complainant wes not willing to pey the bribe emount. Me agerceched the Lolkevukthe Polke with a PUPP Wa EOL RAT OOUA OAS PPh AUR OP LOM MAT AICA AGH COU & Des, "tat Sand? Saad EM BO Sy BO aah, BOM gg,
- however, found ia be eam pletion of the inve . Examiner, the charge sheet was submit tomolaint-Ex.Pl. The ce NO.19/2 and the investigation an with. the Entrustment Penchaname being conducted followed by. the:
complainant and tne shadow the accused.
i ig the further case of the pros ecution that at: :
around 4.30 or 4.50 p.m. the compininant and. the shadow witness met the accused and acce ised demended £9,000/- anc when the amount wag at it to be given by Pw, che told him to p itvon the table and he Kept the meorey on the table ard thereefterwa rds the accused tock the emeunt wilh | hig sight hand end put . into the (eff side drawer of the table. Pedowtng the signel given oy the complainant, Lokayuktha Police ame and. | caught held of the accused,
4 in the chemical) elutier Right hand wash of the 3 accuse | -tumea the solution ite oink colour but fhe left hand wash, eG The Trap tehegar wee ara' wet ae per Ex. Re. The accused gave his explanation that he wie unaware of the money kept In the table drawer. After gation, which Included obtelning _aanetion order, @@ wel @s the ragert from fhe Chern'icel
4. Accused pleaded not guilty to the cherge. Trereafber, the prosecution led the evidence by examining witness coming ty ihe Off ne of a Wh SNORE RPE PLEAS FIERETE Gh WP ARMADA HIGM COURT GF KARNATAKA HIGH ¢ fa Soe Stat Bo Sab evklence of DW-1 wad ne 7 tive. cise of the prose 7 the | "appellant ana SF.S.G § PWe.l to 9, Exs.P1 t P2Zide) and M i. to @ were marked.
eculion evidence, the elatement of the accused was recorded, the accused himself was examined es DW-d°. documents, E Exs. Di eo 2, = The - t mony of PW-1- dese "vetness, supported by the avidence of otha? ote asved.. The evidence of DW-1 wes however nok accepted ay the. trial Court by observing that the suricient to rebut or mpreost cution. Therefore, the trial Ceurt ultimately. sonvicted the oa lent 8P¢ senten eS el en ether.
S. i heve heard the learned counsel, Sri.S.S.Keti, for jencra Reddy, for the ondent-Loxayuktha and perused the records of the cess. fet cour Sri.3.5.Motl, for the eppellant ergued ai greet iength end took this Court through the entire MEGN COU RIE Ae BIN SY OI A AEF Dee 8, 2 z a be es yf a 3 3 we 2 i baad 2 tek Both Path, Vo! 8 BARR al ee nah accurad and the evidence ef DW-1 all taken | "ghee proba a "giso go to confirm that the right hand wash of the eocu 5 evidence on record te contend that the evidence on record giv io two seis of views, one favouring the prosecution and the other favouring the accu Therefore, v the tra the evidence of GWed and she :
Court ought not have ignore explanation Ex.P.15 given by the accused, it is argued that. :
'ifle stand of the eccused has: heen that when the a "net present and after some tims, the accused came to tha che eh ered he was dnawere of the ameunt, bising found in the teble drawer, it iy therefore , contensied that the conduct of the aceu coupied wstthe the a planation Ex.P.15 given by the ener vrould ise the that the accuse not-receive the bribe amount from the comolsinant.
8. Ag far ag the hand wash of the accused @ concern that the evgence of os, Chemical Examiner, that is PW-9 and thet of PW-S-L.0. would which was colle in MO-4 was colourless. This also ¢ od Bad RIN ES AIA, fear Tat Mol 2 Red ARLE a Al OREM A a fae a wage te the gecus compl inené wie on the higher side ag against the r
-. Gammmigsioner therefore, had ehh witness hed pot inasmuch as the evidence of PWe id go to show that the nceused Hon of 'the issuance af solvency te to the complainant and in that contiection, aW-S nad put up @ draft recommendation on 'ia 8. 2m Pagwever, SCUTION, not placed by tre p out on the other hand what Is p wced 's Ex, P-3(d), which is a draft ommenda ton ay pws. _ Therefore , it is contend thee when the accused nad. fejected the requesc of the compisinant-for issue nee of Solvency Certificate, as according ; ihe valuation of the pronerry made by the petty and further more, as the eccus ion of tse building of the there wae no first floor, the Agsistent mimmenced for rejection of ; the Solvency Certiicate, and ee such the evidence of PW-6, tec hestie by the wiion, WOU €8o go t confirm the stend of the .
accused thet there wee no work oending with the acc BUARSUAT AR PEG OO OK KAELENPK PEEMEEE Wet F QI ORR, FONRg ES COPE Sat Bo PORE Pa A Neh Se ast oe Nog
--fellance. placed By the . : stimony of Pws.4 and 2 : oo gounsel, § %.5.Koti, for the appellant, is that the gro _ case is that the eccused ° L7.8.2000, but the charge is fram
-- ; 'nade for the bribe on 19.68.20 & such the trial Court did net properly sopreciated the entire evidence on ard, bul only conside ine eveience. of PWa.l and 2 which is not correct. As regards to the evidence'. siggy armed. "counsel, of PWe.l and 2. £ is argued by the Sr.S.S.40ti, that though the said wits ne deposed te the ; effect that the accused cemanaed rte amount ee ea asked the complainant te keep it on the table and the the amount from his 3 it hand fingers and put be tae (err hand side te ble drawer, the Bald evigence of PWS.) and 2 shoud have bean considered Ene ght of ayeral evider ee en fecord ee mn particular, the evidence of oOW-4 and the. exp: vation, Ex. p. as given by the secu Learned | Judge has falied to considér Ex.P-i8 of the evidence of Wel in: pre pe Ve and therefore, the i Judge only om the = @rrondous.
10. The ether contention put forward by ned ution bec cemended the bribe amount on et @¢ 7 the cemenac was bend therefore, thie Is elec 2 serous Cefect in the oroseculion case and * the damanc mace on the earlier date, thet © on 17.68.2000, is not in the eG apt 'all ARMATAICA Mit ¢ Ana RARINATAR OS Hib COURT OF ye AP Soh EET Dah BREE, EERE ES 8G Be 2 ee "nr Su tae SR aes Sj charge, the question of the accu having demanded the money for the first time on 19.8.2000 also does not- arise. Moreover, @ven | fore the sanction authority, the accused. having demanded bribe on 17.8.2 BESONG, the: trial Court ee for consideration. For all th inner be sustained "le we 7 ned counsel for the appellant is from the accuse ig@ and therefore, no reliance cen be The trie! Court dei not consider el niesion sex te have been made by learned counsel eq ie concerned, it @ argued by the | to cross pelant Get the accused SEnme sone SESE MES UAE EKA EE WWE WP MMA EAI HIGH COURT OF KARNATANMA HIGH COE a0 exvemine the progecution wit ata certain @ of the trie) as the counse i for the accused was not avilable. Therefore, the cross-examination by the accused Sas ied. tor nm edm ried ;
ce but however, subsequeniiy, counse: for permitted te. cess exainine the :
PWe.l and 2. and the i
-aéxcemination go to 'show that it was Wed and 2 . that the sccused fever demanded ner eccepied any bribe amourt, put on thei athar nafed wher t the compleinant had kept the amount tn tie drawer of the accused' table. Therefore, re by the trial Ceurt whatever admiseion,, thet is nefan from the: 'evidence of PWs.4 ane 2 could feet be given much weight & the: accused wes: hand ; (OF went of coureel 3500, IL 2010 J-counsel fer the @ thet the cease of the are.
Therefore, when the entire evidence on record gives rise to sible views, the trie! Court should have acquitted AGM ¢ & a i HR ENEMA RADA TEMG? LAURE Ob KARN ATA A HIGH COURT OF KARNATA, fost AM, pink colour'and, EX.P-21 which Is the repert of the Chemica fo Be "solourt ".. progacutien cage. Mor 7 under the Act, technicalities ia efit of doubt and as such the accused by giving him b judgment of the Court apoes!.
idy accepted §5,000/« from the compla nant, on "49.8, 2000 ane en shaken in the testimony of nies ses has nat be ination, but on the other hand the suggestion ton sif confirms the pros tase. Ad far as tha hand wah ie concerned, it is argued that both PWs.1 and 2 stated in thelr evklence that the hand wash ht hed Res turned inte of the accused nemaly thet of the i Examiner aise cenfirms that the hand wash was plnic In colour ence of PWs.8 and 9 with regard to the and ag such the ev "hand wash end the colour of the solution In MO-4 being found armel meee muck diference fo the eover, when the Court trying the casa cannot be glen undue importance. Soe sel aside by allowing this oried the judgment of the -- SME MEE SNE PAIN ER ESE PRESET SY i PRIMA BAR MGM COURT OF KARMATAIRA HIGH Co. ae Oe ae " 47,8.2600 and th . laid and as such no defect . apart aay error of omission or i he
45. As fer ag the pendency of the work with the iy anc the accuesd has also put his:
eignature to the tran mehegsrey #P-6. "Therefore, 3 is clear thet the fle pertaining to the cmpalnan wes wth the "ect in [he change ls concerned, It le ave though In 'the change & is not ily stated the Gribe emount on L?. 8, 2000, vet: mn | the course cf evidence, & hes been put to vos thet the demand wes made by the accus:
flerwards on 19.8.2 a found in the charge and that julatity in the charge is cureble in view of Section of Cr.P.c. and as such the defect pointed out by the learned counsel for the appellant is PHESEEE Met A RI BAR AUALARA SGH COURT OF RARMATARA HIGH ¢ fe Bane BE eB BS. ER ory gh PR de "heaving i3 not a 4 us One.
counsel for the rege voncent that the trial Court hes considured & the entire evidence cerefully and the conclusion reached Senne: t@rmhec ae per in favour of the prosecution which ic aveilebie under Settion : 20 of the having fot bean n rebutted, the 26 viction of the net cal for r any interference Bh the hands of Enl@ Gourt.
i?. In the Bght oF the aforesaid "contentions nut forward, the paint for consideration a whether the eppellent nas Meade cute case one this Court te interfere with the judgment of conviction and sentence passed by the Court?
"ia.
is the ono nant, PiWes ig the shadow witness, The PWed ¢ drawn as per Exe.P7 and P@ and PWe4 ic the ine case on the besis of Lokeyukthe Police who regis ee ek ee ee ee ee ete ee ee a eee See we ee ae Coke ce, ee " veraion, then as per the settled the 14 ex.P-l, PWS is the senctloning euthority who qweake to the sanction order-Ex.P-10. @We? ig the Revenue Inepect ake to the fact of having supmitt r ew. Bo Bip),
19. In the light of the contentions put forward, the | evidence of PWa.1 to 6, 8 ane 9 apart from the defence evidence oF. Bw. i. and 'the explanation ex.P-LS given by the necuwad, and te ist be seen from the evilence on record petits S we te. the one and only conclusion, , qiion, JF the evidence ees namely the vers lew ot the t permis e view | Z 'talcen apert fram the proses flor in Ww, (if such ¢ wil seve be given the oenell of circumstances, the accus doubt, i ig with the aforesaid beckground, the evidence on cord réaquires to be examined,
- 20. 'WelsRoleram who le the compleinant nes de _ i fie evaence that he met the accused in connection with wirement of Selvency Certificate and heaving given spolicetion to the Deputy Commissioner on 26.6.2000 alone MEMES SIE IMAIESUATARE PUGET GASUICT OF MARMATAIA HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA HIGH ¢ Be tp is with documents end the sei epolication having jean forwarded to the Tehsiider, for verification, PW. 'hae thet on 13.7.2000, ence . the. Revenue a ued a notice cb to pi el0ueec & éocunants, PW-1 has also dapozed that he. met the accused aad tok the acts sed in "Bis Car to Als house at bribe amount on 19.8.2000- | _ aeze "Complaint Is lodged as per Ex.P-1 and the entrust ant a me a complainant whether fi brought and on being tol in the eNirmative, ee ee ee ek eRe SL a tec Ts. a Olt OO) a wey MS ATARA be He Ms co if Bat St os about the netes and the ace asked PWee abe oo gel witness that the no the Balioe Iney . 2 hes else dey LS and also sel that he has kept hic letter ly and he. wil eqn & end forward the same. There afterwards, PWe1 took kept it onthe te ble.
€ left sie drawer of his table ani nut the notes ineida the drawer and sloned dt Theres te © the evidence: Of Pw-1 that Ne gave tha wetha: Polke, whs. came, and surraundad : and then the right nas ad wash of ehe accuss ac Wac xan ane the solution turned inte ight rosé cour and & was teken ins bottle, wiles ig. 4 and ist hand wesk ef fhe eo istion Inte any colour, and it Is fterwards Police inspector asked the accused nai the Polee that ne did 2 lngoector ney notes.
nak know. shout: the cu ut the currency foles and & wae tod oy the % were in the teble drawer aad then oul the: currency a notes which were ken and they ere marked as MO-S, Pe ip Rig evMlence treat the eccus G produced Hash the file from hie table and efter taking the xerox, ergines were given to the accu ith His right hang a PEE MINES PUGET GLEE Wir KARNATAKA MIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA HIGH ¢
- | compisina nt went to the Office "eccused and at abe L?
ce of PW-2 that the 'ike ot on the table of the accused d. = in pertaining to him wee n S-axamination by the eccus 7 wee that he gat written Exs.P- aby and Sfe) through someady, as Abe fiend Was swollen on that day and person who wrote was net hie aseieta nt, is the shadow witness and he has Bs PW=2-Prehle more or lesy in tune with PYEL by stating in the "course of his evidence that at around 3.15 p.m. he and in the first foo 1.30 o.m., the accused ached the Office t. Thereefterwards, they wated for the out 4.50 o.m. accuge?d came to the chamber end PW-i sat in the Chair oppasite to the accused COL ESE SEE TORE EPRI Buhl Ad RE UE BM PAI A GG COURT GF WARN ATA A MIGH ¢ Brad a ey © ea a dt 7 the. brite amount and thereatt the Police. Let cocgenount end then the accu:
Ls took out the amount from his shirt pocket sand tried ta give, tt we ta the accused and accused fond pw. 1 is keep. the satd amount on the table and accordingly, ewe 1 kept the currency noles of fhe feeble and acc ine 8 same with his right hand fingers and kepe re in the jet 'table drawer and theres fterwa réa. antuned: toid that he. would #enc the recor mendation a fer signing. 25, pw. hee. sits deposed in Ais evidence that the the accused about the fpribe Police Inepector | question amount and acct 'teid them net Re does not naw shout erwania on belng [od by PW-2 that. the seCUsEd hes kept the amount in the teble drawer, the accused about the bribe opene ive left cide tebe _ drawer and the notes were found in the drawer and as per De instructions of the Police Inspector, PW-2 took out the notes
- from the left side table drawer and the notes were taken and LOr 8gked about (he fle of 8W-1 t which the the Police Inspec accused fegponded by producing the came from taking out EERO NEE ONLINE, EUG Med EE LD ARM ATAIA HIGH COURT OF MARNATAWA HIGH € " the chambers of tha Teahsildar pul "> drawer and ple if fox was lake no and the original Was Ex.P=5 i the said file Peet , BAYS PWed. ~ 'Gzeminelion by the accused, wee he eg 7 d consistent with what » deposed 'by. hit in his : examination-in-chief and this witne says that: white rPOlee aaved the ecfuse about the amount, avcused had toid the Police that he is not aware of the amount and that he had age thé amount.
27. PWs.1 and 2, ing cross-examined by the accused, "later of. wate 'alse cross-examined by the feunese) for "the: secused and in 'the eeuree af the er exarnination by the: cou PWS... end 2 have deposed thus: : | i for the _ During the cross-examination by the coun:
, hes bean uy i to PW-1 thet no one was in the chambers of the accused and PW-1 entered the jeff side tab inside the drawer and 2 the currency ne Sama out of the chambers. The suggestion wes however n Genied by the witness. Ag fer as PW-1 ie concen in é the crogs-exemination by the counsel for the accused K has een Drought out thet PW-2 hes acted es a paench in all 5 OURT OF KARNATAKA HIGH ¢ ee io POET RRA PETE REC GE IMT AN A bee hd eal Meat Ma? Mig BR accused had ordere and aceotdingiy, on 7.8.20¢ 17.8,2000 to put up @ note me application as there was " fiepert of the Revenue Ingpe . done spot | 20 c thet on 19.8,2000 when he and PW-1 want to the chambers of the accy bd, the accused i inthe 'cron = for the sccuset that there is _ difference in the colour the solutions found in MO-@ and iO-2.
We! 28, PW-G-Lakshmtkanthamma has det evidence that application made. by the. complainant is at Ex.PS(a) and it wes recelved on 15.7.2909 and on that she put up a « per Ex.P-S(a} to tte Shetietadar, whe in tuen, made note and put up the flie te the accused. On 31.7.2000, the d motice to be issued to the complainant Pw-6 aa Aelice fa fhe complsinant. and. thersefterwarde accused tok! Pw-6 on rimending rejection of the cor and the apolicetion. She has deposed in her evidence thet the accused hes alres on end meade 8 note to that effect and directed P'W-+6 to make e recommendation i the Qeputy Gommiseioner and on 18.68.2000, Pw.g Prépered draft SRR AAR RNR, BAC GRA Mea Re ig Ma Hae Ri, MAMA aE GR + Met Hi He RG Mag ENN A aE Se ey +B MRSA SEAR PTE Wa, a Rage nae, Sl a 7 ; a : OWS DLKLR. R : and laf finger hand wash of the accuged. In the cross . "axeminalion, thie witness d ed recommendetion to the Deouty Commissioner and was pat up before the Sheristeder and thereafterwards no. ccings took plece. This win prec the draft put ap by her. In the cross s-examination, it has - stood _ brought cut from this witness, tina the properti in the names of bwo 6 ona and the septation x wa fie iy enly ane person.
16.58.2000 written by her is: nat avaitabie ein the fla, 'but she out up Ex.?-5(0)} *o the Sherist ae iz i therefore becomes to put up "recemmendation relating the claim : weaver the letter dated 16.2. 2700 comple ina nt, but} the light af the , day, € even accord it-hay come.in her evidence thet she gave report as per Ex.P- an tee ertcles gent Co Wer ane r conducting the & i the in the exemingtion-in-chief ise powder wes found in the right @ somersault by deposing to the effect that MO-4 looks colour! eo gieo MO-3 ang MO- ie, eeth that MO-5 looks sightly 5%. She aso says in the same br s admits thet Ex.P-5{d) is a Sour Sut Bl PEO PS ee ee ee a ee ee ee eee ee ee we Seah "witness, one will have to 'evidences concerning trap, OW>1 det oe pink in colour. Therefore, EH is clear from the cross- axemination of PWe-9 That she ig not very definite es. to the colour of the soution in MO-4 and she wes improving her evidence slage by + ge end such a testimony of this. witness _ will have DD be en with a pinch of salt.
30. PW-8-V.P.M.Swamy is thie LO. and it haa seme In tne evidence of thie wit that wheb the left hand fingers of Es fa bew!, the. solution did not change its colour, This is the evidence given in the wo on fe confirm exe mination-in-cbtet : cand, the 1. 0. 9 the fact that even during the cross-examination by stating that the solution containing MO-4 is not pink In colour but # contains white eolutien:
"SL. Meaping the afore sid avience of tne prosecution look at the defence evience of the accused, who wee examined as DW-1L, In the course of his thet on worker 'or 2000 8 lether was drafted of Solvency Certificate and that ietter wee pot by the Sheristedar at Ex.P-5(d). 1 is depo him chet on 19.98.2000, fe went for the valuation of the nQusenclc property belonging fo Muzarai Ineiitution e@long RAR SAE BLO Miia iN PUURPS We ALI EQ ie 8 ell DE Ca ui tee BP PR Oe Ee NA te OT a then the Police Constable who wae pre
- hands of Owed and prey : _ 'solution in both the bes "suggestion out to the accused hes eu puly Commigsiongr and Asgistant Cormmissioner with the De anc came back to (he Office at about 4.30 p.m. and while he wae sitting in the chair t attend some urgent es some people rushed to his chamber stati bribe ammount and BW-1 said that he Goes not know 3 anything about the money. 'f rné mennwitlle the'e cor ple Pélice Ineo ctor thet the money is avaiable ini drawer of the table aad "police In yspector pulled cur the are wer and told ow-1 te hand over the notes and OW-1 did not da ao. Theresfterwards, the Polee Inspector took the notes from rhe drawer, cotinted f ahd com pared them and sent caught hoki of the @c the solution in bwo bowls end mi merved I the ha ads of Wel in bwo bowle separetely end the fig did mot change colour. The witness and dk aot 'thet he did not demand any bribe _ecept any bribe money. This evidence of DWel has not a@ken curing {he crogs-exemination and the een denied by the Banceet Mal BREINER LL OELES VEEL SEGRE BERN ATARA HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA HIGH COL Re ee es home sys . very, cieer that the solution : "Examiner confirms that MO-6 so > Wes examined ag DW.
24 vfs and asked | the complainant to keep the amount on the table and thereatterwards he tock. the a: mount with hig right nened eet touch the = com 7 Hind the accuser oy notes i hand fingers. of the accus : i we i ought to have turned into pintc calour, but the evidence of PWe.dl and 16 is aur when at chenge ite cob both. the hands. on thé accused were dipped Inte chemical wis. Even PW-6-Chamice solution mepre in tw f& Seperate cere:
and uon wee coleuries _ Coupled 'with this the evidence placed by the accused whe i read with the evidence of PWe.8 and | OG, gives scope to tke the view that the accused did ned touch the currency notes and thet is why Big hend wash-MO- VE SARIRAABA FGM COURT OF KARNATAKA HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA HIGH € Sah ORL oF ue Set
- being eept in hie table drawer and the cherica a5
33. In adeition to the aforesaid reasons, it is to "be mentioned that Ex.
nis table drawer. Ever during 313 statement, accused § nas | taken & very sa evidence that | fram the son OF. the acrnned iS. nat in cspute, The further fect * ne te when there 's fey. dlasg eMent @ thet the currency notes weeny taken out From the drawer af the table oy PW? sccording to one version ar by the ¢ ec, thet eccused rer thet fe is nol ewere of the notes | olution into which the right hand fingers of the eccused wag immersed Twn 1 BARIALARA TIGR GUURT OF KARNATAKA HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA HIGH GOL be prosecution has are demand and acce;
-- At tle same time, the evidence of DW-1, who has with 26 of pink colour, that is MO-4, aven sing found to according #c to by the le coe namely the one repe Hoplcetion.
STATE OF or From le 5 fi end | he dex, uments Daving bee oon effar the money. has been put on the table, the fad circumstance ¢ coupled "wh cA serious Nateiostty towarde the appellant, the 'Apes: 'Court 'ae 'the sald macte held that the t of conviction eaninot be sustained a eert fram the cre thet there was: fe occassion for the accused ta make the demand for. any. bit 2 ag: digo ine plausible explanefion. oe 35, th the, case on hand aise, the evidence on record &. IY the evidence of @We.i c es cis te. two cossible viey and 2 is taken inte consieration, it gives the impression that ke Case with regard to the ce of the bribe amount by the accused, os fe crose-exemination, coupled with the avklence of pws.s- LO. and PW-9-Chemical Examiner thet MO-4. , the chernice! solution wes found to be colourless, and the evidence of Pw. Md ot? am Y .
weit nO PWe8-1.O. and Chemical Examiner-PW-8, thie Muir WAU UP RARNTAMA MiGH Cc PCOS Ed, fe PG, PRES Banh RAEI, Of AE AEE B Sacha df BB Bt ot Sut os be. incorrect one and even according to PW-1, evidence on record, when the material on rec sets of views being ae iso indicating that the accused had 1 ommendec fer the ion of the applic mi of the complainant and the being able to place the instar cate. J and PW-6 further deposi 48.8.2 Tahsildar ea: :
the note pul up by her wes sent. theres oerweris he is net aware eat what hed Ae ppen ed, 'the erner view © a:
compainant and as such thera' was ne pending Work to be dane by the accu ? _
36.
rt froer. ths, fram the evidence of DW-1, I can be made out that the complainant nad not given necessary : Fehcui ats ene the information furnished by hiv wae laund te ines Gi did 'ot visit the s Uneer such circumelences, 7 iby of the complainant urging the grievance to the also cannot out.
"37, in the light of the aforesaid enalysis of the ore permite two sinle, one view being in fevour of the accused, the trial Court ought to heve extended the benefit of wns WE CARIURLARA FHM GUURT OF KARNATAKA HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA HIGH COU 7 ingtanes af 'the: comple mae and PW-2-shad = deposing about the 28 by eccepting the view that ic is favour doubt to the eccused i trial Judge did not consider the. evidence from every po esible angie but however focus: wes" . fixed on the evidence of PWs.1 and 2 and he jost ig gh : of the. :
evidence of DW+1 ail together. fer as submission of the learned "sounsel, St.S.G.Rajendra Reddy. for tite "respondent ~ that the technicalities should not be givan much _ imp i concerned It is correct to :
y that tre tectnicaitties should not be biown cut 6 | -pinpettion ag te elscard the substantive ev cence Of, recon, er the 'acts and clcuMmetance af thi a case, whan te mace ey wae not recove tne aces and the atmount having table drawer nok at the Instance of the accused But at the nt-PW-2, the chemical test of the head. wash al the ee see) , MO-4 wag found to be colourls by. both PW-8+2.0. and PW-9-Chemical Examiner ¥ wiregs in the course of the evidence not right head wash of the accused | Seng n, in the face of such infirmities in the prosecution case oo. Che evidence conceming hand wash cannot be ignored as of ne significance, VitWil Wer SUN AADAIA AEG < weak haa eo a hak PE atta da gh ES EMEA EPA ER BEE hos Poe aw & amount, any, dep 29 all the aforesaid reasons the judgments relied | for the appellant are sorties ag, and mmy view, this is @ ft cise where the view thet is in his favour, The trial Court has committed : serious error in isoking et the evWence only from ane ang and it fees Age given any valid reasons for Fey testimony of DW-1.
40, Far the ubeve réasens, the appeal is allowed and ited shall | "ie