Bangalore District Court
The State Of Karnataka vs Mr.Chandrakanth on 28 October, 2016
IN THE COURT OF LXXVI ADDITIONAL CITY
CIVIL AND
SESSIONS COURT AND SPECIAL COURT,
BENGALURU.
(CCH-77)
PRESENT: Smt.SHRIDEVI S. ANGADI,
B.A., LL.M.,
LXXVI ADDL. CITY CIVIL &
SESSIONS JUDGE &
SPECIAL JUDGE, BENGALURU.
DATED: This the 28th day of October,2016
Spl. C.C.No. 169/2012
COMPLAINANT The State of Karnataka,
Rep by Inspector of
Police, Karnataka
Lokayuktha,
City Wing, Bengaluru.
(Rep by Spl.Public
Prosecutor)
--Vs-
ACCUSED Mr.Chandrakanth
A.Ganji,
S/o.Annaveerappa,
Age: 38 years,
2 Spl. C.C. No.169/2012
Commercial Tax
Inspector,
Local VAT Office-020, 3rd
Floor, Vishveshwariah
Tower, Bengaluru R/at:
No.1365/1, "E"Block, 2nd
Floor, 5th Main,
Rajajinagar 2nd Stage,
Bengaluru.
(Rep by Sri.V.B.Naik
Advocate)
1. Nature of Offences Offences punishable
under Sec.7, 13(1)(d)
R/w.Sec.13(2)
Prevention of
Corruption Act, 1988
2. Date of Commission 15.11.2011
of offences
3. Date of First 15.11.2011
Information Report
4. Date of arrest 15.11.2011
5.Date of 22.01.2015
Commencement of
recording of evidence
6. Date of 19.09.2016
Closing of evidence
3 Spl. C.C. No.169/2012
7. Date of 28.10.2016
Pronouncement of
Judgment
8. Result of the case The accused is
acquitted under section
235(1) of Cr.P.C. for
the alleged offences
punishable under
section 7, 13(1) (d)
r/w.13(2) of Prevention
of Corruption Act,
1988.
JUDGMENT
The accused is charge sheeted for the alleged offences punishable under Sec.7, 13(1)(d) R/w Sec.13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act 1988.
2. The prosecution case is that :
The accused was working as a Commercial Tax Inspector, Local VAT office - 020, 3rd floor, Vishweshwaraiah Tower, Bengaluru. Sri.J.M.Jayaraj is the Proprietor of M/s.J.M.J.Constructions Company. On 29.09.2011, C.W.1.-D.V.Chakravarthi has submitted an application for issue of TIN and Professional Tax Registration Number on behalf of 4 Spl. C.C. No.169/2012 M/s.J.M.J. Constructions Company. The accused allegedly demanded a sum of Rs.6,000/- as a bribe for issue of TIN, subsequently it was reduced to Rs.4,000/-. The case of the prosecution is that at the relevant time, the application for issue of TIN and Professional Tax Registration Number in respect of M/s.J.M.J. Constructions Company was pending. The complainant was not willing to pay the bribe amount and gave information to the Lokayuktha Police on 08.11.2011. The Lokayuktha Police, in order to confirm the genuineness of the complaint, gave the Voice Recorder to the complainant to record the conversation with the accused. On 15.11.2011, the complainant gave the complaint to the Lokayuktha Police as per Ex.P1. The Lokayuktha Police registered a case in Crime No.58/2011, secured C.W.2 and C.W.3 for the trap. The Investigating officer conducted colour test to demonstrate the effect of Phenolphthalein powder with Sodium Carbonate Solution to show that when Phenolphthalein powder contacts solution, it turns into pink colour. The currency notes were smeared with Phenolphthalein 5 Spl. C.C. No.169/2012 powder. The complainant was asked to go and meet the accused and to pay the bribe amount on demand.
C.W.2 was sent as a shadow witness to observe the transaction as an independent witness. On 15.11.2011, at about 3-30 p.m., the complainant and C.W.2 went to the Office of the accused. The accused demanded the bribe amount. The complainant gave the bribe amount. The accused received the bribe amount and put it in right side pant pocket and once again, he removed the amount and put it in left side pant pocket through his left hand. The complainant came out from the office of the accused and gave signal to the Investigating officer. The Investigating officer along with C.W.3 and other team members of the trap came to the scene, recovered the bribe amount at the instance of the accused and he was made to dip his both hands into Sodium Carbonate solution which turned to pink colour.
3. The Investigating officer after completion of the investigation has sent the investigation papers to the Commissioner of Commercial Taxes - C.W.11 for 6 Spl. C.C. No.169/2012 seeking sanction to prosecute the accused. C.W.11 has accorded sanction to prosecute the accused on 22.03.2012. Along with the final report, the sanction order of prosecuting the accused is filed.
4. My Predecessor in Office took the cognizance of the offences. The accused is on bail. The accused has engaged the services of an advocate to defend him. After hearing, the charge was framed for the offences punishable under sections 7, 13(1) (d) r/w.13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act. The charge was read over and explained to the accused. The accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.
5. During the trial, the prosecution examined P.Ws.1 to 4 and got marked Ex.P1 to Ex.P24 and M.Os. 1 to 12. During the course of cross examination of the prosecution witnesses, two documents are marked as Ex.D1 and Ex.D2 on behalf of the accused. The accused examined under section 313 of Cr.P.C. for the purpose of enabling him to explain the circumstances existing against him. The accused 7 Spl. C.C. No.169/2012 denied all the incriminating evidence available against him. The accused has not chosen to lead any defense evidence. I have heard the arguments.
6. After hearing the arguments and on perusal of the records, the points that arise for my consideration are:
1. Whether the prosecution proves beyond all reasonable doubt that the accused, being a public servant, working as a Commercial Tax Inspector, on 15.11.2011 at about 4-30 p.m., has demanded and accepted illegal gratification of Rs.4,000/- from C.W.1 -
D.V.Chakravarthi as a motive or reward to show an official favour for issue of TIN and Professional Tax Registration Number in respect of M/s.J.M.J. Constructions Company and thereby committed an offence punishable under section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988?
2. Whether the prosecution proves beyond all reasonable doubt that the accused, being a public servant, working as a Commercial Tax Inspector, on 15.11.2011 at about 4-30 p.m., by corrupt or illegal means or otherwise by abusing his official position as a public 8 Spl. C.C. No.169/2012 servant demanded and accepted the illegal gratification of Rs.4,000/- without public interest from C.W.1-
D.V.Chakravarthi and thereby committed Criminal mis-conduct, an offence specified under section 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act which is punishable under section 13(2) of The Prevention of Corruption Act.?
3. What order?
My answer to the above points are as under:
POINT No.1: IN THE NEGATIVE
POINT No.2: IN THE NEGATIVE
POINT No.3: AS PER FINAL ORDER.
for the following:
REASONS
7. POINT No.1 AND 2: For the sake of
convenience and to avoid repetition of facts, I have taken both the points together for consideration.
8. The prosecution case is that the accused being a public servant working as a Commercial Tax Inspector on 15.11.2011 has allegedly demanded and 9 Spl. C.C. No.169/2012 accepted illegal gratification of Rs.4,000/-from C.W.1- D.V.Chakravarthi as a motive or reward to show an official favour for issue of TIN and Professional Tax Registration Number in respect of M/s.J.M.J.Constructions Company.
9. The defense of the accused from the very inception is that he has inspected the spot on 05.10.2011, prepared a Check Memo and submitted the report to C.W.4- Smt.C.Pushpa. He is neither the competent authority nor empowered for issue of TIN and Professional Tax Registration Number.On 09.11.2011 itself, C.W.4 has issued TIN and Professional Tax Registration Number in respect of the M/s.J.M.J.Constructions Company and advised the complainant to obtain it through Online. In so far as M/s.J.M.J.Constructions Company, no work was pending with the accused as on the date of trap.
10. P.W.1 is the complainant. P.W.1 has deposed that he is the proprietor of Mathashri Constructions. His friend Jayaraj is the director of M/s.J.M.J.Constructions Company. He was 10 Spl. C.C. No.169/2012 authorized to obtain TIN in respect of M/s.J.M.J.Constructions Company. He has submitted an application on behalf of M/s. J.M.J.Constructions Company for obtaining TIN and Professional Tax Registration Number through Online. He approached the accused on 04.10.2011.He was told by the accused that he would conduct the spot inspection of the office of Jayaraj. On 05.10.2011, he went to the office of the accused. The accused was not in office. He contacted the accused through his Mobile. As per the instructions of the accused, he met him on the same day at Bensontown. When he asked the accused about the requisite fee, he told him to meet him on the next day in his office. P.W.1 has further deposed that on 08.10.2011, he met the accused in his office. Since the application was submitted through Online, TIN in respect of M/s.J.M.J.Constructions was ready. He has remitted the charge of Rs.500/-. He was in need of KST Number and TIN Number. He had to again pay additional amount of Rs.4,100/-. On 25.10.2011, he remitted Rs.4,100/-. On 25.10.2011, he asked the 11 Spl. C.C. No.169/2012 accused to get him TIN Number and VAT Number. The accused sought two days time.
11. P.W.1 has further deposed that since there was delay in issuing TIN and Professional Tax Registration Number, he lodged complaint- Ex.P1 with Lokayuktha Police.
12. P.W.1 has further deposed that Investigating officer has secured the presence of C.W.2 and C.W.3. He entrusted the currency notes of Rs.4,000/- before the Investigating officer. The Investigating officer has drawn Pre-Trap Mahazar. Thereafter, he proceeded on his Motorcycle to the Office of the accused. C.W.2 being a shadow witness has followed him. He asked the accused about KST Number and TIN Number. The accused asked him whether a sum of Rs.4,000/- is brought or not. He answered in the affirmative. The accused came out of his Office and nearby Lift has received Rs.4,000/- from his right hand and kept in the left side pocket of his Shirt. He gave signal to the Trap team by wiping his face with Kerchief. Immediately, C.W.17 along with C.W.3 and staff 12 Spl. C.C. No.169/2012 rushed to the spot and caught hold the accused. Right hand finger of the accused was washed in the Sodium Carbonate Solution, which turned to pink colour. Left hand finger wash of the accused has not turned to any colour. The tainted currency notes were seized. On being questioned by C.W.17 about the records of Jayaraj, the accused produced it. Thereafter, Trap Mahazar was drawn as per Ex.P4 in the Office of the Lokayuktha.
13. P.W.1 has further deposed that in the matter of issue of License, he gave tainted notes of Rs.4,000/- to the accused. On 26.09.2011, he had met the accused in connection with his personal License and not in connection with work of Jayaraj.
14. P.W.1 who is the material witness has turned hostile in so far as receipt of bribe amount of Rs.4,000/- by the accused in connection with pending work of M/s.J.M.J.Constructions Company. The learned Spl.Public Prosecutor cross examined this witness at length. But nothing useful to the case of the prosecution is elicited during the course of cross 13 Spl. C.C. No.169/2012 examination. The Statement said to have been given by P.W.1 before C.W.17 is marked as Ex.P7 to Ex.P10. But P.W.1 in his cross examination deposed that he has not given such statement before C.W.17.
15. From the evidence of P.W.1, it is clear that on 26.09.2011, application was submitted through Online for issue of TIN and Professional Tax Registration Number in respect of M/s.J.M.J. Constructions Company. The accused was entrusted with the work of conducting spot inspection and submit report. On 05.10.2011 itself, the accused has conducted spot inspection. On the same day he has submitted the report to his higher Officer i.e., C.W.4. On 09.11.2011 itself, C.W.4 has issued TIN Number. There is an endorsement to this effect in Ex.D2. The complainant was advised by C.W.4 to obtain TIN through Online. This fact is admitted by P.W.1 during the course of cross examination. From this, it is clear that as on the date of Trap, no work in respect of M/s.J.M.J. Constructions Company was pending with the accused. Further C.W.4 was the Competent 14 Spl. C.C. No.169/2012 Authority and empowered to issue TIN. The accused being a Government servant had no capacity to show an official favour of issuing TIN. All these facts create suspicion about demand of bribe by the accused.
16. Ex.P1 is the complaint dated 15.11.2011. It reveals that when the complainant has approached the accused on 26.09.2011 in connection with issue of TIN and Professional Tax Registration Number in respect of M/s.J.M.J.Constructions Company, accused has demanded bribe amount of Rs,6,000/-. But complaint was lodged on 15.11.2011. There is delay of 50 days in lodging the complaint. The delay has not been properly explained. The inordinate delay in lodging the complaint raises serious doubt regarding the prosecution case.
17. Further, on 05.10.2011 itself, the accused has conducted spot inspection. On examination of the complaint-Ex.P1, it is seen that in between 05.10.2012 to 08.11.2011, the accused has called the complainant to his Mobile. But nowhere it is mentioned that the accused has demanded bribe at 15 Spl. C.C. No.169/2012 that point of time. On perusal of complaint meticulously, it goes to show that on 08.11.2011, the complainant met the accused in his office and spoken only about requisite fee for issue of TIN and Professional Tax Registration Number. Ex.P1- complaint does not depict that from 26.09.2011 to 08.11.2011, the accused has demanded for bribe. It is mentioned in the complaint-Ex.P1 that when the complainant met the accused on 09.11.2011 and spoken about his work, the accused written in the small piece of paper as Rs.6,000/- and thereafter, demanded Rs.4,000/- as bribe. But, there is no investigation with regard to the said piece of paper. A careful perusal of entire deposition of P.W.1 makes it clear that the allegation made by the prosecution that on 09.11.2011, the accused has demanded for bribe is nothing but false. P.W.1 in his evidence has categorically admitted that on 05.10.2011 itself, the accused has done his part of work and on 09.11.2011, C.W.4 has issued TIN and advised the complainant to obtain TIN through Online. This fact is supported by the documentary evidence i.e., Ex.D2.
16 Spl. C.C. No.169/201218. Further, a perusal of entire deposition of P.W.1, it reveals that the accused has not demanded bribe for doing official favour of issuing TIN in respect of M/s.J.M.J.Constructions Company. P.W.1 in his examination in chief, recorded on 22.01.2015 at page 5 para 10 has categorically deposed that he gave tainted currency notes of Rs.4,000/- to the accused for issue of his personal license and not in connection with work of his friend Jayaraj. During the course of cross examination on behalf of the accused recorded in page No.8 para No.13, P.W.1 has categorically admitted that the accused has not demanded bribe amount for issue of TIN in respect of Jayraj. Further P.W.1 admits that he has not paid tainted currency notes to the accused as bribe. In further cross examination, recorded in para No.12, P.W.1 has admitted that the accused told him to remit a sum of Rs.4,000/- for issue of TIN in respect of Mathashri Constructions owned by him. If the admission given by P.W.1 is considered, it is clear that the complainant gave tainted currency notes of 17 Spl. C.C. No.169/2012 Rs.4,000/- to the accused for issue of TIN in respect of Mathashri Constructions and not in connection with M/s.J.M.J.Constructions Company. Immediately, after the Trap, the accused has submitted his written explanation about the possession of tainted currency notes. In the said written explanation also, the accused has stated that the complainant gave tainted currency notes of Rs.4,000/- in respect of issue of TIN in connection with his own company and not in respect of M/s.J.M.J. Constructions Company.
19. The evidence of P.W.1 is totally contrary to the contents of Ex.P1. The prosecution has miserably failed to prove that before lodging the FIR, the accused demanded for bribe from the complainant for issue of TIN and Professional Tax Registration Number in respect of M/s.J.M.J.Constructions Company.
20. Further, the evidence of P.W.1 does not support the case of the prosecution to prove that the accused has accepted the tainted currency notes from complainant for rendering official favour of issuing 18 Spl. C.C. No.169/2012 TIN and Professional Tax Registration Number in respect of M/s.J.M.J.Constructions Company. From the evidence of P.W.1, it is clear that he has not paid the tainted currency notes to the accused as bribe, but towards the requisite fee for issue of TIN in respect of Mathashri Constructions owned by him. The evidence of P.W.1 will not support the case of the prosecution to prove the factum of demand and acceptance of bribe by the accused for issue of TIN and Professional Tax Registration Number in respect of M/s.J.M.J.Constructions Company.
21. The next evidence relied on by the prosecution to prove the demand and acceptance of bribe by the accused is P.W.2 P.W.2 is the shadow witness. But his evidence is contrary to the contents of Trap Mahazer-Ex.P4. P.W.2 in his evidence has stated that when the accused asked the complainant as to "how much amount he brought, complainant told him that he is having money". But this fact does not find place in Trap Mahazer-Ex.P4. Further, the evidence of P.W.2 is contrary to the contents of Ex.P4 19 Spl. C.C. No.169/2012 with regard to place of demand and acceptance of tainted currency notes by the accused. The evidence of P.W.2 is totally contrary to the Trap Mahazer-Ex.P4 with regard to acceptance of bribe amount by the accused. The prosecution has failed to prove by leading cogent and convincing evidence that the accused has accepted the bribe amount from the complainant for doing official favour of issue of TIN and Professional Tax Registration Number in respect of M/s.J.M.J.Constructions Company. In the absence of any evidence of demand and acceptance of amount as illegal gratification, recovery of money from the accused by itself is not sufficient to prove the guilt of the accused.
22. P.W.3 is the sanctioning authority who accorded sanction for prosecuting the accused. The sanction order dated 22.03.2012 is produced and marked as Ex.P12. P.W.3 during the course of cross examination has spoken about the procedure to be adopted for issuing TIN and Professional Tax Registration Number. He admits that whenever any 20 Spl. C.C. No.169/2012 application is filed for TIN and Professional Tax, matter will be referred to the Inspector of Commercial Taxes by the Asst.Commissioner of Commercial Taxes. Thereafter, the Inspector will hold spot inspection and report the same to the Asst.Commissioner of Commercial Taxes. Thereafter, further process will be taken up by the Asst.Commissioner of Commercial Taxes. On seeing Ex.D1 and Ex.D2, P.W.3 has stated that on 05.10.2011 itself, the accused has submitted his report and Asst.Commissioner of Commercial Taxes issued TIN Number. P.W.3 also admits that Inspector of Commercial Taxes is not empowered to issue TIN. According to him, it is on the basis of the report of the Inspector of Commercial Taxes, the Asst.Commissioner of Commercial Taxes will issue TIN Number. It is pertinent to note that P.W.3 said to have accorded sanction to prosecute the accused, after perusal of entire materials placed before him. According to the prosecution, Ex.D1 and Ex.D2 were the documents collected by the Investigating officer, at the time of Trap Mahazer and they were the part of the materials placed before the sanctioning authority 21 Spl. C.C. No.169/2012 (P.W.3). From Ex.D1 and Ex.D2, it is clear that the accused has conducted spot inspection and submitted report on 05.10.2011 i.e., 40 days prior to the date of Trap. On the basis of the report submitted by the accused, C.W.4 has issued TIN on 09.11.2011 itself.
23. It is well established that a Sanction order must be demonstrative of the fact that there has been proper application of mind on the part of the sanctioning authority. The grant of sanction is only an administrative function. It is intended to protect public servants against frivolous and vexatious litigation. It also ensures that a dishonest officer is brought before law and is tried in accordance with law. Thus, it is a serious exercise of power by the competent authority. It has to be apprised of all the relevant materials and on such materials, the authority has to take a conscious decision as to whether the facts would reveal the commissions of an offence under the relevant provisions. It is incumbent on the prosecution to prove that a valid sanction has been granted by the sanctioning authority after being 22 Spl. C.C. No.169/2012 satisfied that a case for sanction has been made out constituting an offence. A case instituted without a proper sanction must fail, because this being a manifest defect in the prosecution, the entire proceedings are rendered void ab initio. The order of sanction is a prerequisite as it is intended to provide a safeguard to a public servant against frivolous and vexatious litigants, but simultaneously an order of sanction should not be construed in a pedantic manner and there should not be a hyper technical approach to test its validity.
24. In the instant case, P.W.3 has not referred the documents i.e., Ex.D1 and Ex.D2 though they were part of the materials placed before him, before taking an opinion as to whether the same constituted an offence requiring sanction for prosecution. The prosecution failed to prove that valid sanction has been granted by the sanctioning authority, after being satisfied that a case for sanction has been made out constituting an offence. P.W.3, without application of mind and without appreciating the relevant 23 Spl. C.C. No.169/2012 documents has mechanically accorded the sanction. Therefore, the order of sanction- Ex.P12 issued by P.W.3 is not a valid and proper sanction.
25. The defense of the accused from the very inception was that money recovered from him was towards the requisite fee for issue of TIN in respect of Mathashri Constructions owned by the complainant. Ex.P5 is the written explanation submitted by the accused immediately after the trap. In the said written explanation, accused has stated that the complainant gave tainted currency notes of Rs.4,000/- not in respect of M/s.J.M.J.Constructions Company, but in respect of his own company. Though the complainant and shadow witness have denied the explanation submitted by the accused, at the time of trap, P.W.1 in his evidence has categorically admitted that he has given the tainted currency notes of Rs.4,000/- to the accused towards requisite fee for issue of TIN in respect of Mathashri Constructions owned by him and not as a bribe for issue of TIN in respect of M/s.J.M.J.Constructions Company. Further, Ex.D1 24 Spl. C.C. No.169/2012 and Ex.D2 reveals that 40 days prior to the trap, the accused has conducted spot inspection and submitted report to C.W.4. On 09.11.2011 itself, C.W.4 has issued TIN. The complainant was advised to obtain TIN through Online. This fact is admitted by P.W.1. There was no work pending with the accused as on the date of trap. Under these circumstances, the written explanation submitted by the accused as per Ex.P5 is an important document. Further, the written explanation submitted by the accused, while recording 313 of Cr.P.C. statement also corroborates the contents of Ex.P.5. The contents of Ex.P5, written explanation submitted by the accused while recording 313 Cr.P.C statement, coupled with admission given by P.W.1 makes it clear that the defense taken by the accused appears to be more probable and acceptable.
26. The prosecution has miserably failed to prove that accused has demanded and accepted illegal gratification of Rs.4,000/- from the complainant as a motive or reward to show an official favour for issue of TIN and Professional Tax Registration Number in 25 Spl. C.C. No.169/2012 respect of M/s.J.M.J.Constructions Company. Since the prosecution failed to discharge initial burden of proving the fact of demand and acceptance of illegal gratification by the accused, the benefit of presumption as provided under section 20 of Prevention of Corruption Act can not be given in favour of the prosecution.
27. In the instant case, material witnesses have not supported the prosecution case and there is only the evidence of investigating officer regarding the trap. When the material witnesses have not supported the prosecution case, conviction can not based on the basis of uncorroborated evidence of Investigating officer. The prosecution has miserably failed to prove the alleged charges that leveled against the accused. Hence, I answer point No.1 and 2 in the Negative.
28. The learned counsel for the accused has placed reliance on the following decisions:
1) 2014(3)SCC(Cri)394, P.L.Tatwal -Vs- State of Madhya Pradesh 26 Spl. C.C. No.169/2012
2) 2008(1) SCC(Cri) 130, State of Karnataka -
Vs-Ameerjan
3) 2006(2)SCC 250 Om Prakash -Vs- State of Haryana
4) 2011(2) SCC (Cri) 462- Birappa and Another - Vs- State of Karnataka
5) 2014(10) SCC 473 - Anvar P.V. -Vs-
P.K.Basheer and Others
6) AIR 1994 SCC 1538- Babulal Rajpal -Vs- State of U.P.
7) AIR 2006 SCC 628- State Vs-
K.Narasimhachary
8) AIR 1977 SCC 666Trilok Chand Jain -Vs- State of Delhi.
9) 2012(1) KCCR 414 - R.Malini -Vs- State of Karnataka
10) (2010) 4 SCC 450- Banarsi Dass -Vs- State of Haryana
11) (2006) 1 SCC 401- T.Subramanian -Vs- State of T.N. 27 Spl. C.C. No.169/2012
12) AIR 2010 SCC 1589- Banarsi Dass -Vs- State of Haryana
13) 2011(1) SCC (Cri) 1045- Raja Kantham -Vs- State
14) Crl.A.No.878/2008- State by Lokayuktha Police -Vs- V.Venkatesh
15) Crl.Petition No.15461/2011 - Ramesh Desai
-Vs- State of Raichur Lokayuktha Police
29. I have carefully gone through the facts and ratio laid down in the above quoted cases. I respectfully agree with the law laid down in the above quoted cases. I have borne in mind the ratio laid down in the above quoted cases while appreciating the evidence and on coming to the conclusion.
30. POINT No.3:- In the result, I proceed to pass the following:
ORDER The accused is acquitted under section 235(1) of Cr.P.C. for the alleged offences punishable under section 7, 13(1)(d) r/w.13(2) of Prevention of 28 Spl. C.C. No.169/2012 Corruption Act, 1988 and set at liberty.
Bail bond executed by accused stands cancelled.
M.Os. 2 to 11 being worthless are ordered to be destroyed after the appeal period is over. .
M.O.No.1 Metal Seal shall be returned to the Lokayuktha Police after the appeal period is over.
M.O. No.12 currency notes is ordered to be confiscated to the State after the expiry 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 28th day of October, 2016) (SHRIDEVI S. ANGADI) LXXVI Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge & Special Judge, Bengaluru- (CCH-77) 29 Spl. C.C. No.169/2012 ANNEXURE LIST OF WITNESSES EXAMINED FOR PROSECUTION:
PW.1: D.V.Chakravarthi PW.2: Syed Rahamathulla PW.3: Pradeep Singh Kharola PW.4: B.Y.Renuka Prasad LIST OF DOCUMENTS MARKED FOR PROSECUTION: Ex.P.1 Complaint dated 15.11.2011 Ex.P.1(a) &(b) Signature of PW.1 Ex.P.2 Currency detail sheet Ex.P.2(a) &(b) Signature of PW.2 Ex.P.2(c)& (d) Signature of PW.4 Ex.P.3 Pre Tap Mahazar Ex.P.3(a) Signature of PW.1
Ex.P.3(b) to (g) Signature of PW.2 Ex.P.3(h) Signatures of PW.4 Ex.P.4 Trap Mahazar Ex.P.4(a) Signature of PW.1 Ex.P.5 Explanation of the accused Ex.P.5(a) Signatures of PW.2 Ex.P.6 Spy camera Transcription sheet 30 Spl. C.C. No.169/2012 Ex.P.6(a) &(b) Signature of P.W.2 Ex.P.7 Portion of statement of PW.1 Ex.P.8 Portion of statement of PW.1 Ex.P.9 Portion of statement of PW.1 Ex.P.10 Portion of statement of PW.1 Ex.P.11 Digital Voice Recorder/transcription Ex.P11(a)to (c) Signatures of PW.2 Ex.P.12 Sanction order Ex.P.12(a) Signature of PW.3 Ex.P.13 FIR copy Ex.P.13(a) Signature of PW.4 Ex.P14 Memo of Social welfare Department Ex.P15 Memo of Commissioner Transport Department Ex.P16 Digital Voice Recorder Transcription Ex.P17 Spot Map Ex.P17(a) Signature of PW.4 Ex.P18 & 19 Sketch Prepared by AEE Ex.P20 Covering letter Ex.P20(a) Signature of witness on covering letter Ex.P21 Service particulars Ex.P22 Chemical Examination Report Ex.P22(a) Signature of witness Ex.P23 Documents collected from the office of the accused from C.W.4` Ex.P24 Call details of accused and complainant 31 Spl. C.C. No.169/2012 LIST OF MATERIAL OBJECTS MARKED FOR PROSECUTION:
MO.1 "C" Metal Seal MO.2 Article 1 MO.3 Article 2 MO.4 Article 3 MO.5 Article 4 MO.6 Article 5 MO.7 Article 6 MO.8 Article 7 MO.9 Article 9 MO.10 Article 10 MO.11 Article 11-Pant MO.12 Currency Notes (Article No.8)
LIST OF WITNESSES EXAMINED FOR ACCUSED:
-NIL-
LIST OF DOCUMENTS MARKED FOR ACCUSED:
Ex.D1 Check Memo
Ex.D2 True copy of Form-VAT-I
(SHRIDEVI S. ANGADI)
LXXVI Addl. City Civil &
Sessions Judge & Special Judge,
Bengaluru- (CCH-77)
32 Spl. C.C. No.169/2012
(Judgment pronounced in the open
Court vide separate judgment)
ORDER
Accused present
The accused is acquitted under
section 235(1) of Cr.P.C. for the alleged offences punishable under section 7, 13(1)(d) r/w.13(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and set at liberty.
Bail bond executed by accused stands cancelled.
M.Os. 2 to 11 being worthless are ordered to be destroyed after the appeal period is over. .
M.O.No.1 Metal Seal shall be returned to the Lokayuktha Police.
M.O. No.12 currency notes is ordered to be confiscated to the State after the expiry of appeal period.
(SHRIDEVI S. ANGADI) LXXVI Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge & Special Judge, Bengaluru- (CCH-77) 33 Spl. C.C. No.169/2012