State Of Karnataka By Lokayukta Police vs D G Manjunath on 19 November, 2010

[Cites 6, Cited by 0]

Karnataka High Court

State Of Karnataka By Lokayukta Police vs D G Manjunath on 19 November, 2010

Bench: N.Ananda

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE
DATED THIS THE 197" DAY OF NOVEMBER 2010_.__

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MR.JUST1CE N. ANANDA f7  *' 

CRIMINAL APPEAL N0..,1.35._1 /20021" " 5  '
BETWEEN: A

State of Karnataka by   " V A   "
Lokayukta Police.   " ~. _..lA--ppel1ant

(By SI'i.S.G.Rajendra Reddy, A1<:1§}§§_<§eL{;c;) 

AND:

D.G. Manj unatli, S;'e1'_Gan_3..ap~pa"7  '
Aged about 4.7 'Years A' ' _   .. 
Taluk Developmeﬁt:;Offi'e.e1"-._ .. V
SC/S'§1._Deve16p:;1e;i'Vt.Cu--r<p0i"ati_0r1
Kolar, R./0' No: 1 split}-.{V'*{_3V(")l0riy

Hosapet Bellafry.   ' ...Respondent

(By , Sri.Mal1a.deVaiah.;- Advocate for Sri.G.K.Narasi1nha

 Muithy,AdV0cate).vV_ ____ __ _

 V  appeal is ﬁled under section 378(1) 8: (3) Cr.P.C.,

-eta__gfa:1t*-l_eave._tp file an appeal against the judgment and

c.rder' of acquittal dated 27.04.2004 passed by the Principal
Sessions. Jiidge, Koiar in C.C.No.8/ 2000, aequitting the
resp"ondent'--accused for offences punishable under sections

 7, l3[1](__d3[ii) I'/W section 13(2) of P.C. Act, 1988.

  a _ This appeal coming on for ﬁnal hearing this day, the
 £'§0uft delivered the following:



JUDGMENT

The respondent/accused (hereinafter referredﬁtoc. as accused') was tried and acquitted for offences under Sections 7 , l3(1)(d] r/w. Section l3(2)_o_f \ Corruption Act, 1988 {for short"; «Al'ct'];i'A Lokayuktha police has filed this apple'alll'~..

2. Heard Sri S.G.V_RajendralReddy, Counsel for appellant and Sri M'alladevailai1,ll"rleariled Counsel for accused.

3. llpr_o:s;.ec1:iti.o'n is as follows:

_acciised was working as Taluk Developrnuent Karnataka SC / ST Development Corporation" 'Kolari State owned Corporation]. The lV'"-,prosec1;1"tior1_witnesses namely. PW--2 Muniyappa, PW--7 PW--8 Narayanappa belong to Scheduled are natives of Jangamagurjenahalli village, Kolar PWs.2, 4 to 7 and some other persons were the beneficiaries of Ganga Kalyana Scheme which provided the 7\Ia. «..e-'xL--*--'-'7£f\' "' following benefits to the beneficiaries [persons belonging to SC and ST) subject to fulfillment of certain conditions} The group of beneficiaries holding _ acres of land had the benefit of getting the_.boreiwell--l.:sunk0 .. the land at the cost of Corporation.: If rrouﬁdplté be more than 1,000 gallons per.__hour,._the Corporation , provide submersible pumpset, necessary2G--.l_:Apipesiand cable wire. At the cost of4_._"C«'orploration, ainstallationf would be energised by the _Karnatal:a.E1ect:Eici--ty It is; ~p:cseéi;{:§i§"'ihat PWs.2, 7 and 8 had sunk the year 1997 and they were :lvv.Arecogni2ed'-~:1lash"'beneficiaries. The accused/Taluk Developrrnent charge of providing submersible purripsets andgnecessary accessories for installation of » ;subInersible"~-.pump sets to the borewells sunk by the *.ben.eficia}ries~lg;."recognised by the District Manager of Kai'nata.ka"';SC/ST Development Corporation Limited, Kolar. 9% I pt"

E : A .1

4. It is the case of the prosecution that on 23.3.2000 PWs.2, 7 and 8 and other beneﬁciaries had met in the office of Karnataka SC/ST Development3:mCorjjoratio'i1._V Limited, Kolar and requested hirnh to issue=-ciertificates, enable PWs.2, 7 and 8 to get necessary accessories to install thlelslarne sunk by them. In this connection, demanded a sum of Rs.5,00O/-V "and other beneficiaries as a motive' necessary certificates. .p1.eaded their inability, accused slim of Rs.5,000/-- in his 9.00 am. on 24.3.2000.

As *7M beneficiaries were not willing to

b)r*ibe_vacc1.1s'er:l_:,V PW'-2AIodged first information on 23.3.2000 at in thevoffilce of Lokayuktha police at Kolar. The i'infV"estigatil§dg.;Officer namely, PW--9 Lokesh registered Crime /2ooo'i.io} offences punishable under Sections 7, 13(1}[d) r/w.~~v3ection 13(2) of the Act against accused and A despatched first information report to the jurisdictional 3 at ........G,-, .

Special Judge. Thereafter, PW--8 secured witnesses namely PW--3 -- Suresh, PW--4 -- Thimmaiah. PW~2 -- Muniyaippa and produced before the Investigating Officer, 8 of Rs.500/~ denomination and 10 currency denomination. PW--9 smeared on the currency notes and entrusted"thietsamelltop'P ".-2"

presence of PWs.3 and and explained phenolphthalein to was 5.00 pm. by then, they on the following day. to appear in the office of a_ m. on 24.3.2000. After making necessarylvll.preparations;wPW--9 prepared mahazer as per Bic}?-3 was witnessed by aforestated witne_ssesD"'0_n at 8.00 am., PWs.2 to 4 appeared ifi':i.l:l'l€5,.A'0ffi€¢ of fioiiayuktha police and thereafter the raiding "party 'oy..ln=..festigating Officer which included PWs.2 to 4 othervfofficials reached Bangarpet. The jeep was stopped at a distance from house of accused situate in Housing A :C;olo_ny at Bangarpet. PW-9 asked PW--2 to meet accused and he asked PW~3 to accompany PW~2 to observe what would transpire between accused and PW-2. Thereafter, PWs.2 and 3 went near the house of accused. outside the house. PW--2 entered the accused. At that time, accused isialleged ' illegal gratification of Rs.5,000/alas issue necessary certificate.:*for :"su'bn1ersible' pumpset and other accessoriesﬁto l?'W:2...;§aid illegal gratification of Rs.5,0(5'Oi/~~-to- who on receipt of the same gave«J§WQ_ slip:s""tQ PW«2 came and gave a prel¥~detelr1j1iI1ed._& 's_ign_a1:f[ to the Police Inspector. There.after';*til:_e F%ol1ce"«..inspector and other members of raidinggnarties ef1tered--~th'e.~1'1ouse of accused. Accused was sitting on long ..'soAfa.ll"'PW--2 informed PW~9 that accused ' hawreiceived taintedlvcurrency notes. The tainted currency "notes beneath the sofa and the Police Inspector seiaed tainted currency notes and after conducting phenovllplhthalein test by dipping the hands of accused in "1." .sodium carbonate. The police Inspector seized the sips said to have been written by accused. The accused was formally arrested on the sarne day. The Investigating Officer collected necessary documents and sent the incriminating articles to F'.S.L. After obtaining sanction from PW--5H (Regional Managing Director of SC/ST Corporation::Lirriite_d)uVé ﬁled charge sheet against accusedforr--aforestatei:iVloffericcs.1"-.' V

5. During trial, PWs.l to'«V_S:'--pviIlere»"e;§tamiI1é§1~p[_,aVr1dx documents as per Ex.P--1l to:."*~P--13.V. and objects' M.Os.1 to 6 were rnariied. Accused,lVafter his exaznination of 313 Cr.P.C, filed a along with four documents. a The leariied""Jud'ge on appreciation of evidence and on heaﬁngllthel Counsel for parties acquitted the accused. Loltayuittha police has preferred this appeal. » :'Fh.erefore,~.foi~l.owing points would arise for determination:

' vvllfwheithver the prosecution had obtained Valid and . legal sanction to prosecute the accused? 2} Whether the prosecution has proved that accused being the Taluk Development Officer ofal,_:S1C./ST Corporation (public servant} demanded"f1*o_fIn._lélﬁfs:2, 7 and 8 illegal gratification of Rs.5,()_{)'$(')_:';(j .éai\\ office at about 4.30 p.m;:on reward to issue ce,rtificatfe--AtoV. enable .them °t.o'°getg submersible pumpsetairid other .acce--stso.ri:esVVthereby committed a,n'~o_ffen_ce" Section 7 of the Act?

3} Whet1'§er_'.the_ prosecution. proved that on »--a.m., in his house at accused dernanded and accepted from 'P'N-V2'ille§al_ffgratiification of Rs.5,000/-- as a motive 're_Ward'-- to"vissu.e certificate to enable PWs.2, 7 and V 2 , Swto get" svubniersible pumpset and other accessories Ganga Kalyana Scheme thereby accused _.cor_nfI1itted an offence punishable under Section *~ d";.7[2} of the Act and the accused by mis using his official position as a public servant obtained pecuniary advantage of Rs.5,000/-- and thereby committed an offence under Section l3(l){'d.)» r/W. Section 13(2) of the Act?

4) Whether the learned trial Judge'lthasatproperlyk"

appreciated the evidenceon '1'eeor'd? if

5) Whether the impugned , interference?

6) To what order?'

7. My findings on' the and reasons thereof are as follows: ._ . , . . .. .

consideration of evidence of has held that PW»»5 should have Circular before according sanction to accused. At this juncture, it is necessary to state that cornp.etence of PW--5 to accord evidence to prosecute the ease v'vlaas~v.,_no~'.c;"§.alled into question. However, learned trial Ju'dgev--..has "held that the contents of the sanction order and the evidence of PW--5 would demonstrate that PW--5 had not lglappiied his mind before according sanction to prosecute l0 accused. The learned Sessions Judge has found fault with PW-5 for not going through the Circular dated 1522,1999 issued by the SC / ST State Corportion Limited Kalyana Scheme which provides the benefits , people belonging to SC/ST: the:-ii'1'a1in§§\r theft» beneﬁciaries; procedure for "iﬁoil-ev_€éii.."§, minimum extent to be of beneficiaries; procedure for xdrillirigl"bgoreyyé11;.._co.rlducting of yield test; energizationllllof providing of submersible for installation in the saidl"~vboir:_e.vJells_{ thewguidelines stated in Circuularf?'Eﬁ;vP~6':iaccused whlowvyas the Taluk Development Officer7did- not either to identify beneficiaries or issL1.€_certificates;-tokprovide submersible pump sets and '9 9' ae.ce'ss_erievs to the"be'r1eficiaries under the Scheme. He was _ 'C1f1f1'1i19';e'Ci».4Vi\'v_iVt'l?" the duty of supervision. Accused was .le5;pecte_d'to supervise whether the benefits provided under the scheme are properly utilised by the beneficiaries. 11 Therefore, the learned Sessions Judge has held that the sanction accorded by PWWS is not valid.

8. The law is fairly well settled that authority, on perusal of the investigation re.cor{:i»sx having regard to the facts and circumstances j;olf1_tl:'e' record a prima facie satisfaction aho?.itl'the -' facie case to prosecute the'i'e».:laccused§.,l_ lllsanctioningl authority need not the matters.

The purpose of documents and recording l«:isV1.t..Q:1l3rotect the innocent public..s.er\}ants"1fro;_n vexzatious prosecutions. For the K/--/' aforestated sanctioning authority need not record 'a__ sa.tisfactio1iy:ll't;hat the material collected from inyestigationv.rould completely support the case of the , 'proseoution'~._or the case is likely to end in conviction. ._T"ri_eprefor"e_,.v__'th:e"'approach of the learned Sessions Judge is If-\o..,.//1.-'~«<i0;. ' erroneous; "

On perusal of the sanction order marked as EX.P--5, I ﬁnd that sanctioning authority [PW--5} after going 'through the records of investigation and the report of i}1*1e-- Director General of Karnataka Lokayuktha'_o'o~1i:ce:and considering the facts and circumstances of the.__case_ led to the trap of accused has Vriecordetdj ijriinai'. satisfaction that there is materiai to pr'ose'cu':e accused for the aforestated offences. dehoi find any infirmity in the sanction In view of the above discussic'-n, 'I. answer' affirmative.

9. It._jVs'i:._thV§ ages pfdseeﬁguon that on 23.3.2000, aroufiﬁ and 8 and other beneﬁciaries had met'a_cc11_sed_inttheeyeoffice of SC/ST State Corporation Limgitedee. at and requested the accused to give tavenable them to get submersibie pumpset and .nec_essarﬁ;=veaccesfsories for instailing the same in the boreweii sunk byfthetm. Accused is alleged to have demanded iiiegal gra_'tific'ation of Rs.5,000/~ as motive or reward showing it 'official favour to PWs.2, 7 and 8. As per the 13 prosecution, this was the initial demand by accused. From the evidence of PW--2 Muniyappa, we find that he wasnot a beneﬁciary under the Scheme and he was espou_sin'gs.'cai:se of PWs.7 and 8. PW--2 has deposed that PWs.2, 7 and 8 met accused afidAA8VreCi'1\eeiteC;1'ft1t1n_ptQ":i'ss'u.e them a certificate to get submeérsibteffff :

demanded illegai gratiﬁcation--v::of"Rs.8;VO0.O/ "7sjand 8 offered a sum of refused.

Accused demanded 111e;g;i__;f_Rs_:5,000/- to show the aforestatedgofficiai" vf'insiVsfted that amount should be. at ifsangarpet. PWs.2, 7 and 8 were tofbfribe accused. Therefore, they approached theLoffiice:bofﬁoltayuktha police. .10. éffrom-the"-exridence of PW--2 and documentary itxéis clfeéarmtfhat PW--2 was not a beneficiary. PW--7, 'who' «a:ccVo1°ding'_;.to the case of prosecution was one of the benefici_aries,'f:has given altogether a different version. PW--7 has de_p(:;sed that accused demanded a sum of Rs.5,000/-- as gratification per unit, PWs.2, 7 and 8 did not have ,_pq,4,.c,.G , 14 money. Thereafter, they mobilised money and paid a sum of Rs.5,000/-- to PW--2. PW~7 learnt that on the following day, PW-2 had lodged a complaint with Lokayuktha next day, PW--7 got all the beneﬁts under the is f During cross examination,:"he"l1asl.admitt'e0l Vthat 23.3.2000, the accused demanciedlgAdilllegall grat:fi§;'a:i§n, ' PWs.2, 7 and 8 did not haveljlgifrnloney. the funds and gave a sumsof 'PWXZ on the following day.

11. The eyfidencefof is vague. PW--8 has cannot giyeddlthe date on which they had met accused; .deﬁo'sed that they mobilized a sum of Rs.5..Q00/d-Vanda.gave*_it""to PW--2 on 23.3.2000. PW--8 has that on thefollowing day, accused was trapped by we have three versions relating to initial demand. of illegal gratification by accused. PW--2 has .d:e§0sed that accused demanded illegal gratification of 15 Rs.5,000/-- and PW--2 offered a sum of Rs.2,000/-- but the accused refused to accept the same. PW--7 has deposed that on the day when illegal gratification was demande.d';v not have money. They mobilized the moneyand PW--2 on the following day. PW,:8.__has_-'deposiedfhat cannot give the date when i}1egal"gra:i'fieation was He has deposed that on 23.3.2009', they. mobiliaecﬂand paid sum of Rs.5,000/-- to PW--2. file'-learnt thaton following day, accused was trap«}3xe'd_Abfy _Tl'1erefore, there is no consistent, AcogentA.evi.denc~eA to ".i5ro"ve1vVi"d.emand of illegal gratification on At this juncture, it is t¢'f{;r'ef¢:+»¢;i_o thedocumentary evidence made available byVthe.'1oifos'ee1:i'tioi*1. Admittedly, PW-2 was not a beneficiary"'undefthev.Scheme. As per the first information.

fovliljoiwing »pxersons"""namely Narayanappa, Venkateshappa, Narayana Swamy and one Nagaraj were the .be_neficiaries}and they had sunk borewells in compact block of comprising Sy.No.92, 5'7, 97 and 96 of A Jangamaguijenaha11y. PW--2 has admitted that his elder f\'. We 16 brother Ramaswamy was one of the beneficiaries and borewell was sanctioned by the Government. He hadddenied the beneﬁts to his brother, which he had benefit under the Scheme. Later it was not installed the pumpset.

13. The accused had applicationb dated 21.8.1998 sub_mittedV__bj(»v:_PW§2 £¢~<:1:)iAst;-jet Officer, SC/ST Development VC-or"poraticirr: -wherein pw--2 has stated that beneﬁts Scheme were provided :j««vC'hikkavenkatana Bhovi, Muniyappa. V. Nagaraj appa. However, one the Rarnaswamy, was claiming that jsanctioned in his favour. The said Rarﬁriaswamydlwas not aiiowing other beneﬁciaries to use 'vzateri gboreweii. He had not even instaiied the .subrnersibleibuirnpset provided by the Corporation. On the other he had given the "submersible purnpset and it ..other accessories to some other persons. When PW-2 and ' '~_o''1e'rs questioned said Rarnaswarny, he held out threats to W. * 17 their lives. This complaint was lodged on 21.8.1998, when the accused was not working as Taluk DeVelopment"~Qfﬁcer in SC / ST Corporation at Kolar.

14. The accused had also produced notice dated 03.03.1999 issued .-on »bcpha'l1."llfiarriasjrqafilyll' S/o.YellanabhoVi, brother of PW9'§«.wl5_._ereinlllit. he had sunk a borewell year" 1999 in' possession of land bearing sur.vey.Nos.96,. 997,1 and 58 of J angamaguijenahalli Kolar Taluk and survey No.55 of v_Yedahalli;'& Kas,faba,"'. Taluk. On the security namely Muniyappa [PW2);.._ANarayariaswifarnyg.:Nagarajappa s/o. Yellanabhovi and ChikkaVenl<at.ana_ ° s / o.Munibhov"i of Jangan1.agurje1iaha11i Village are trying to obtain loan and other benefits from Karnataka SC ST Development .C*orpoi*ati_on 1;i':riited on the basis of concocted documents by irnpers--onat'ion, pretending themselves as Ramaswarny. Therefore applications of aforestated persons shall not be en tertained.

15. At this juncture, it is necessary to recall the guidelines of Circular as per Ex.P.6 and evidenee'--of--«.f"~.?l[5~ Anilkumar B.H., that the beneﬁts under Scheme had to be distributed by...the D_i'strict:..'fMai1a_ger'i-ofg Kamataka SC ST Development:":.Co1fporation"

Taluk Development Officer "had supeivisoryA§_j'ur.isdictior1;.L' There is no documentary PW2 was one of the beneficiariesT'and«V_phc§p'vvﬁ"gp've£ititled to get beneﬁts under Ganga K.alyana"~ submersible pumpset a reasonable doubt would any official favour to seek iifrom .or«l:.vv'hether grievance made by PW2 againstlaocusved" The so--called beneﬁciaries nariiely'.PW7 V6: had not approached Police Inspector of at any point of time. There is no .docuA1ﬁe:ri_t.ary~:;"evidence to prove that PW'? & PW8 were ide'ntiﬁ_ed beneficiaries under the scheme and they were _ V nentitlevd' to receive submersible pumpsets and accessories. In t H_the~circumstances, it is not possible to hold that prosecution JV, (ﬁx-x -$1./xx.» 19 has proved that on 23.03.2000. accused had demanded from PW2 illegal gratification of Rs.5,000/-- as a motive' orhireivard to provide submersible pumpset and its to PW2 or PW7 & PW8. Therefore. I negative.

Regarding Point No.3: V V _ V ' V

16. I find from the eviden:ce'of_pPW2 and PW9 [Investigating Officer} trap accused were made at aboutV.é1~.3O:.p.Vn0.[fporv'--§;_p;ri*I_4dioinddd23.03.2000 and thereafter. in the office of Lokayukta .: on 24.03.2000. The procedure to entrust tainted currency notes and demonstrated by him were regjirded under..rr1aha_e.ar as per Ex.P.3. ~1_7~.i in the evidence of PW2 to PW4 and PW9 that at 8 a.m., PW2 to PW4 appeared before PW9 in the office of Lokayukta Police at Kolar and thereafter they 2 xpreceeded to Bangarpet. At this juncture, it is relevant to «Q &k'''' r 20 state that PW9 is stated to have prepared a mahazar on 24.03.2000 in the Office of Lokayukta Police at Kolapbefore proceeding to trap the accused. On had not verified whether tainted currency notes to I33VV2u' on 23.03.2000 were in tact. Frorn thepécondutq. 0f:f«;a..v9,"VV:iyi":is obvious he had not even botheredto. maintain" s'ecrecy of.' trap. It looks rather ridicu1o'us'ithat PW_9'ai'ter7_entrusting tainted currency notes~..jt0 P76/'V2 23.03.2000 had allowed a PW2 to move freely. ipviijtirap accused was made known, to advance. PW9 had made pre7)ara'tior1sV'..__to residence of accused at 8.30 shows casual approach of PW9 .

'V108. Nowadverting to the evidence relating to crucial dernand and acceptance of bribe by accused on a.m., in his residence at Bangarpet, we .,.vW9_ it have divergent versions in the evidence of PW2 to PW4 and 21 The vital discrepancies found in the evidence of PW2 are as follows:--

PW2 has not deposed that shadow PW3--Suresh had accompanied him when meet the accused in his house. PW2has not t-hatlhpe i had kept tainted currency notes 'in his pos's.es*s.ion "al'ter'ii.t was entrusted to him on PW'2.'deposed' t after he met accused in his hous.e','.acrfpusedlldemanded illegal gratification of Rs.5,0lO'0l/3 2C)n_i:he other hand, PW2 has depoésedg after vhoiise of accused, PW2 paid Rs.5,OOlG[--5Itof.acclused..andifaccused had kept the bribe amount 1nl'drawer:lol' table; accused wrote two chits and gave it to PW2. 4-The*reafAi:;erl'aec1uSed came out of his house to show the vhouselof agent distributing submersible pumpsets. _'l)ur1rig._cross--examinat1on, PW2 has deposed; after (PWQJ entered the house of accused, accuseddropped tainted currency notes on the floor and .coveFil'ie notes with a paper on it and sat on it. t 22

19. PW3~Suresh, who is alleged to have accompanied PW2 to the house of accused has given altogether adifferent version. PW3 has deposed; after PW2 entered pf accused, PW3 was standing near door of questioned accused whether his work questioned PW2 if he had brought PW2 told that he has brought«::ci:'thereafter it PW2' it had paid bribe ainount toAVAacvcu_se'd~;._'accused. was holding bribe amount in his of the house of accused and PW9; thereafter, raiding par'-'iv to house of accused and found on the ﬂoor between two divans; currency notes lying between two divans' ahandeddover the same to PW9.

the evidence of PW3, I find his evidence aspect of demand and acceptance of bribe accused contradicts evidence of PW2. PW2 has nI1o_.t deposed that there was conversation between him and ' ''',_Vaccused. PW2 has deposed that accused had received bribe 23 amount and kept the same in drawer of table. PW3 has deposed it appears that PW2 had paid bribe amount to accused and accused was holding bribe amount in h.isqhand. From the evidence of PW2, it is not clear whg had demanded bribe amount from PW2. PWZ_i::ha.sT.:depose§1--V' that he entered the house of acctisedand 9 amount to accused, who kept However, PW3 has deposed'th'at. it Aappearg. paid' bribe amount to accused and 'vsAr'as'-holicling bribe amount in his hand. in the evidence of 'demand and acceptance of br:be'dd:d{dud{t._p wjasﬂone witnesses in the raiding party.x7PW'3 has about what had transpired in the QfficedﬂdofVLokayu1+;ta'"'PoEice at Kolar on 23.03.2000. PW3 " V' h'a._§.;,1/1:9'; dveposeddvthat tainted currency notes were smeared ph_eIioiph'tha1ein powder and later they were entrusted has not deposed as to what had transpired duririgthe evening of 23.03.2000. PW2 has not deposed as N 9.,..rcat.,\.

24 to why -meg had not visited the house of accused on 23.03.2000.

20. PW4~»Thimrna1'ah has deposed; Jtiie office of Lokayukta Police at Kolar at 8 am, raiding party led by PW9 proceeczleldl near the house of accused:_ Pw9~.ia'na othbe1f.lrnemb'ersl raiding party were standing "distanc'e_l_of the house of accused; I3'\"r'-12a ar1dl'l'Fl.lV;illVll'Went house of accused; after ten pre--determined signal; PW9:and party mshed to the house" sitting on a divan and tainted' on ﬂoor between two divans';--.fﬁlW'3l currency notes from the ﬂoor; PW9. .Was0h"ef1_l thex of accused and resultant wash .-- turneqpinto pink"c'olour; resultant wash was collected in and the same were sealed. Thus, we ﬁnd evidhence. ofl3.V_PklV4 is lacking in material particulars. PW9-B.Lokesh [Investigating Officer) has deposed; on f2;3.03.2000, PW2 appeared before him and lodged first 25 information as per Ex.P.2, on the basis of which he registered first information. PW2 produced an of Rs.5.000/-- [8 currency notes of Rs.500/-- denoinincatiogn 10 currency notes of Rs. 100/- denorninatiocn):;"_:

phenolphthalein powder on demonstrated phenolphthalein test§'..PWO gave 2 PW3 to accompany PW2 and 'thereafter I;W2 to PW4 to come to office Téolice at at 8 am.

on 24.03.2000. PW9 hee they did not proceed to 002000. PW9 has not assigned 'any. "'reaso'n,jgs.._ "'fo_r"_ aborting proceedings on 23.03'§200'0,ft?t ujn-egeuat that pws allowed PW2 to keep taintedcnrrertcyhim on 23.03.2000, so also he had .info1'1tied_VVdete;--ils"voftrap and name of accused to PW3'& P'-£4 zﬁtritnesses] "'d"'L1ring evening of 23.03.2000, without _ imaintai ..se'erecy.

eweees deposed; on 24.03.2000 at 8 a.m., PW2 to PW4~~carne to the office of Lokayukta Police at Kolar: PW9 Aconiinned possession of tainted currency notes with PW2; 26 thereafterthey left the office of Lokayukta Police at Kolar and stopped the vehicle at a distance from the house ofvlaccused at Bangarpet: thereafter, PW2 & PW3 were to meet accused; at 9.15 a.m., after half an" carg~.¢*V_,_ and gave pre--determined signal to other members of raiding. _partv..e11.tered house accused; accused was sittingon. a himself to accused and..V1oregi'aredlva--:s'odiu.rr1 carljlonate solution in two bowls; washed of in that solution; resultant wash; and they were collected in they were sealed; tainted currencvvnotes .on~.l_the ﬂoor between two divans were removed by l3W3.'a:f1d»lbth_e"sa;ine were seized by PW9: accused was questilonevd vif.helv1as" any thing to say. accu"sed'""is stated to have given his written per Ex.P.9. PW9 collected two chits from .lpossess_ion:1;ol' PW2, wherein it is stated that accused had written' that equipments may be given to PW2. 3X3. 512- 27 During crosswexamination, PW9 has admitted that PW2 was not one of the beneficiaries under the scheme»: PW9 has conducted mahazar proceedings at afternoon. PW9 has not examined electrical:jcontractorltolx whom Ex.P. 10 & Ex.P.11 were addressed'. 2 2. 2 2

22. At this juncture, it releyant originals of chits marked not!' produced before Court.' On lphotoistat copies of two chits were E>;.P. 11. As per the contents of alleged to have written torthia painelll/lenltataswamy (Electrical Contractor] ._mo--to1's may be installed to borewells sunk by'P__W'?_ has not examined the electrical contractor name Venkataswamy. PW9 has not produced Ex.P.}.0 & Ex.P.1l to prove that they were .wrijtteri 5?. . accused.

From; the guidelines of Circular marked as EX.P.6, I A.fi,n_.d submersible pumpset and other accessories will have to 2 provided to the borewells sunk by the beneficiaries by the J\} L /L. .5/'A 28 District Manager of Karnataka SC ST Development Corporation Limited. The Taluk Development or District Manager of the said Corporation is specification of motor, pumpsets and C» The installation of submersible accessories should take place presencev"olf Manager or under the supevthrision of" Dexrelopmentl Officer. The guidelinesof per'Vl¥3'X.VI5v.6 did not provide for distribution motors and its to electrical contractor] prosecution has not examined agent to prove that he had pumpsets, motors and its acces_sories= to diStI'i'but'e the same to beneficiaries under ' _ ---Kalypana Scheme.

pf ..a::_c'used has produced correspondence between Afscheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes Development Corporation Ltd, Head Office at Bangalore and " Aalcopy of Work order issued by the said Corporation. As per _ ._A __g\ u--<?14.. , 29 the work order, eight beneﬁciaries under the scheme were identified in Kolar District. The prosecution has not.._proved that PW2 was one of the beneficiaries identified byv.th~e"said Corporation. The accused in his written stated that the Head Office of Karna.t..ai;a SC' . Corporation Limited had M/s.LUBI Submersible Limited, ls'ituate_ * Bangalore, for supply of and its accessories on turri-hey Manager had to conﬁrm the list of elvi-gible under the scheme to receive aforestated.equ_ipments§"There is no evidence on Submersible Limited had appointed its --~z_i:i'st.ributors at Kolar District. V. _23. it is relevant to state that PW2, PW8 haVve""'deposed; on the following day, they equipments such as submersible pumpsets. motorsv_ "its accessories. PW2, PW'? & PW8 have not ciepos-elCi':. from where they had received those equipments. A prosecution has no case that Karnataka SC J ST 30 Development Corporation Limited had appointed any agent for distribution of submersible pumpsets, motors and its accessories to beneficiaries under the said schem_e;.__The photostat copies of chits marked as EXP. 10 & 1_~ reveal that they were addressed to one 9» F10. and Venkataswamy "I Beeramanahalli Village, Kolar not made clear as to who who had received submersible. p and V "accessories from M / s.LUBI Submersible Bangalore. Above all, o3fig'i'na.ls Chits Ex.P.10 5; Ex.P.11 were There is no evidence on recordllto hold Ex.P.11 are in the handwriting of accused'. JlFFQI.I1 contents of Ex.P.9, I find that H»,l.i$llar5F3?a11appalllSfo'. Hanumappa, Venkateshappa S/o.

" Muniyappa, Narayanaswamy and had submitted their applications.

H.Narayjar1appa had requested accused to provide two more and to issue certificate for installation of pumpset to W 31 his boreweil and accused had received a sum of Rs.5,000/-- towards supply of four additional pipes to the boreweIl*efrom PW2. Afterwards, PW2 has filed a complaint

24. It is also interesting to n_otice_ 'neither it ' 8: PW8 has deposed that KamatakaiQgliilectriciityr'Board.'had sanctioned power for installadtionp of subntersibie{pu.mpset to-it borewells of PW2, pwfz 81 PW_e_§:;v':'I%fr0I;} the of PW2 and his previous condu<.:.t','IA ._a busy body. PW2 had grievance ._again:st-- Development Corporation" action against his brother, dated 21.08.1998.

PW2,:V1.yvh--o' be beneficiary under Ganga Kalyanad i. had once again claimed to beggbpeneficiary' under the said scheme on 23.03.2000. PW2 could beneﬁciary under the said scheme for second had taken up cause of PW? & PW8 to wreck Vengeance against accused.

32

25. Thus to sum up, accused was not the officer responsible for distribution of submersible pumpsets and other accessories under Ganga Kalyana Ccrw\E"U€mk" ' accused was not \ " 1 to identify or recognise'beneficiharies " . under the said scheme. The evidehcei on record does not indicate either PW2 or PW?' & beneficiaries.:i1nd'erV the said scheme. The prosecution hasvhfailedtof ;5rove"that on 23.03.2000 accused had dema:ri_de'd~-. illegal ' gra.tii"ication of Rs.5,000/-- from PWZIFW7 or reward to provide submers'ib_le rriotors its accessories to them as o£._C'ircu3ar.as per Ex.P.6 do not acciu_sed::A§,tVo ceitificate to PW2, PW? & PW8 as beneficiaries uridetfj the' «said scheme. 'V26. The'A.._;jroser:ution has failed to prove that on at 9 a.m., in the house of accused, he demanded .aa;;.£ecéi_v§a7f§11éga1 gratification of Rs.5,000/-- from PW2 as a motive--.for "reward to issue certiﬁcate to PW2. The learned trial ...Iudge""on proper appreciation of evidence has cquitted )"\?.

33 accused of aforestated offences. Therefore, I do not fine! any grounds to interfere with the impugned judgment. 2?'. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed.

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Karnataka High Court