Bangalore District Court
The State Of Karnataka vs Mr. H. Prakash on 13 February, 2023
KABC010106632020
IN THE COURT OF THE XXIII ADDL.CITY CIVIL & SESSIONS
JUDGE & SPECIAL JUDGE ( P.C. Act) BENGALURU
(C.C.H.No.24)
Dated: This the 10th day of February, 2023
:PRESENT:
LAKSHMINARAYANA BHAT K.
XXIII Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge
and Special Judge ( P.C. Act),
Bengaluru Urban District, Bengaluru City.
Special C.C.No.243/2020
Complainant: The State of Karnataka
represented by erstwhile Police
Inspector, Anti Corruption Bureau,
Bengaluru.
Now Karnataka Lokayuktha,
Bengaluru Urban Police station,
Bengaluru.
(By the Public Prosecutor)
V/s
Accused : Mr. H. Prakash,
S/o.Late Halappa,
aged 54 years,
First Division Assistant,
P.V.P. Polytechnic,
Nagarabhavi, Ring road,
Ambedkar Engineering College,
2 Spl.C.C.243/2020
Mallathally, Bengaluru-56.
Residing at No.16, Venkatesh
Mansion, 1st Floor, 4th Cross,
Suvarna Studio Road,
Bengaluru.
(By Sri Kemparaju, Advocate)
JUDGMENT
The Police Inspector, the then Anti Corruption Bureau, (in short the 'ACB') Bengaluru presently the Karnataka Lokayuktha Police Wing, Bengaluru City Division has filed the charge sheet against the accused for the offences punishable under Sections 7, 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of The Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (in short the "PC Act").
2. The short facts of the case as per the charge sheet averments are that, the informant Cw1 - Mr. M.N. Srinivasa was serving as Lab Assistant in P.V.P. Polytechnic College, Bengaluru and he remained unauthorized absent to his duty. Therefore, the college authority had issued several show cause notices to him and also public notice in Vijayavani kannada daily. The accused is also serving as First Division Assistant (in 3 Spl.C.C.243/2020 short 'FDA') in the same college. The case of the prosecution is that the accused approached Cw-1 the informant and assured for his reinstatement to the college and permit him to report to the duty after consulting with administrative officer of the college and personal assistant of the Director of Technical Education. The accused alleged to have demanded Rs.3 lakhs as the illegal gratification and after negotiation agreed to receive Rs.2,75,000/-. The accused had also obtained Rs.25,000/- from Cw-1 for furnishing the documents applied under the Right to Information Act. The informant was not inclined to pay the illegal gratification and hence he recorded the conversation with the accused and lodged the report before the ACB Police. The concerned police registered the case, secured two independent witnesses, laid the trap and arrested the accused. After the trap, the accused was subjected to undergo the chemical hand wash test and recovered the illegal gratification from his possession. When he was produced before the court he was admitted to bail. After 4 Spl.C.C.243/2020 completion of the investigation, the Police filed the charge sheet.
3. After taking cognizance of the offence, the presence of the accused has been secured and complied Section 207 of the Cr.P.C. After hearing both sides the charges were framed and the accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.
4. In order to bring home the guilt of the accused, the prosecution has examined Pw.1 to 10 witnesses, produced Ex.P1 to P-50 documents and M.O.1 to 8 articles were identified. After completion of the prosecution side evidence, necessary questions were framed regarding the incriminating circumstances appearing in the prosecution evidence and the accused was examined under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C. In his defence, the accused got examined two witnesses as Dw.1 and Dw.2 however he has not produced any documentary evidence.
5 Spl.C.C.243/2020
5. Heard the arguments of both the sides. The learned advocate appearing on behalf of the accused also filed memorandum of written arguments.
6. After analyzing the oral and documentary evidence placed on record by the prosecution and the defence, facts and circumstances of the case, the points that would arise for the determination are :
1. Whether the prosecution proves that it has secured valid sanction as per Ex.P1 to prosecute the accused in compliance of Section 19 of the P.C. Act?
2. Whether the prosecution beyond reasonable doubts prove the fact that the accused being the public servant working as the First Division Assistant in P.V.P. Polytechnic College, Mallathhalli, Bengaluru in the month of February 2018 had obtained illegal gratification of Rs.25,000/- from Pw-2 for furnishing copies of official documents and 6 Spl.C.C.243/2020 thereafter demanded gratification of Rs.3 lakhs from him on 6.4.2018 for his reinstatement to the college and obtained the gratification of Rs.2,75,000/- from Pw.2 on 11.4.2018 in between 1.45 p.m. and 1.50 p.m. near bus stand, Papi Reddy Palya, Bengaluru and thereby guilty of the offence punishable under Section 7 of the PC Act?
3. Whether the prosecution beyond reasonable doubt proves the fact that the accused being the public servant by abusing his official position as such public servant demanded and obtained Rs.25,000/- and Rs.2,75,000/- as pecuniary advantage from Pw.2 Mr. M.N. Srinivasa and thereby committed an offence of criminal misconduct defined under Section 13(1)(d) and punishable under Section 13(2) of the P.C. Act?
4. What order?
7 Spl.C.C.243/2020
7. The aforesaid points are answered as:
Point No.1 : in the affirmative;
Point No.2 : partly in the affirmative ;
Point No.3 : partly in the affirmative;
Point No.4 : as per the final order
for the following
REASONS
Point No.1 :
8(a). Section 19 of the PC Act prescribes the
requirement of the sanction as a condition precedent for the prosecution of any public servant. The accused during the relevant point of time of the incident of trap was working as the FDA in P.V.P. Polytechnic College. He was discharging the public duty and therefore he is a public servant within the ambit of Section 2(b)(c) of the PC Act. Therefore, it is incumbent upon the prosecution to prove that the valid sanction has been secured as prescribed under law to prosecute the accused. 8(b). In discharge of the burden to prove the validity of the sanction, the prosecution has examined Pw.1 Mr. 8 Spl.C.C.243/2020 A.R. Krishnamurthy working as the Secretary and managing trustee of the Panchajanya Vidya Peetha Welfare Trust ( in short the PVP Trust). In his evidence he stated that the PVP polytechnic College is a Government aided college and it is administered by the PVP Trust. He deposed that the investigating agency had placed all the documents along with the final report and sought permission to prosecute the accused. After verification of the documents he found that prima-facie the accused is involved in corruption and hence proceeded to pass Ex.P1 order by according the sanction. During his examination Ex.P2 order came to be marked in evidence. Ex.P-2 is the copy of the order produced by the prosecution to show that Pw.1 was appointed as the Secretary of the PVP Trust.
8(c). During the cross-examination of Pw.1 it is the contention of the accused that before initiating any action against the officials of the college, the administrative committee of the college is required to report the matter to the Director of Technical Education 9 Spl.C.C.243/2020 and obtain his approval. During evidence Pw.1 has admitted that he is not aware of filing of the application by Pw.2 to the Principal of the College to obtain documents under the Right to Information Act. Pw-1 has specifically denied without verifying the documents he has mechanically passed Ex.P1 order by according the sanction.
8(d). Pw.1 was the Secretary of the PVP Trust during the period 1.4.2017 to 31.3.2019 is proved from his testimony and Ex.P-1 and 2 documents. The accused has also not disputed those documents. During the cross- examination of Pw.1, the accused has also not specifically come up with any contention who is the authority competent to accord the sanction. Moreover, he has not denied as the Secretary of the Trust, Pw.1 is the authority competent to accord sanction. It is for the accused to show that Ex.P1 order was not issued by the authority competent to accord sanction.
8(e). As per Section 19 of the PC Act, the sanction has to be accorded by the authority competent to remove the 10 Spl.C.C.243/2020 public servant from his office. In the case on hand, the accused was working as the FDA in the PVP Polytechnic college. Pw.1 in his evidence and in Ex.P1 order has specifically made reference that as the Secretary of the trust, he is having authority to remove the accused from the post.
8(f). Moreover, in Ex.P-35 the Director of Technical Education has intimated the investigating agency that under the Karnataka Education Act, the managing committee of the College is the appointing and disciplinary authority empowered to initiate proceedings against the officials. Therefore, as the Secretary and the managing trustee of the PVP trust Pw-1 is empowered to accord the sanction. In Ex.P-40 column No.6 the Principal of the PVP Polytechnic college has stated that Pw.1 as the Secretary of PVP Welfare Trust is the disciplinary authority. The accused has not disputed he has been appointed to the post in the college by the managing committee of the PVP trust. Therefore, as an appointing 11 Spl.C.C.243/2020 and removing authority Pw-1 is the disciplinary authority empowered to accord the sanction.
8(g). The grant of sanction is an administrative function intend to protect the public servant against false, frivolous and vexatious prosecutions. In the case on hand, from the evidence Pw.1 the prosecution has proved all the relevant facts, material evidence have been produced and after considering those aspects, Pw.1 has proceeded to accord the sanction. After prima-facie satisfaction of the allegations made against the accused, Pw-1 as the secretary and managing trustee of the PVP Trust has proceeded to accord the sanction. Therefore, the prosecution from the oral evidence of Pw.1 and documentary evidence has proved the fact of securing of the valid sanction to prosecute the accused as per Ex.P.1. In the result, point No.1 is answered in the affirmative. Points No.2 and 3 :
Both these points are interconnected, hence in order to avoid the repetition of reasons and for brevity, they are taken up together for common discussion.
12 Spl.C.C.243/2020 9(a). Amongst the prosecution witnesses examined Pw.2 - Mr. M.N.Srinivas is the informant and he was working as an assistant in the PVP Polytechnic College. This witness in his evidence has stated that on account of ill-health of his parents, he unauthorizedly remained absent to the College. Therefore, the Principal of the College had issued several notice calling upon him to submit his explanation. Even after submitting the explanation, the Principal of the College did not allow him to report to the duty. Therefore he had applied the documents from the college under the Right to Information Act. In the month of February-2018 the accused had obtained Rs.25,000/- and as assured furnished the copies of the documents. 9(b). In his evidence Pw-2 has stated on 6.4.2018 the accused informed him that the managing committee of the college has agreed to reinstate him to his post as an assistant in the college. The accused had demanded Rs.3 lakhs as the bribe from Pw-2 for his reinstatement and after negotiation Pw.2 had agreed to make payment 13 Spl.C.C.243/2020 of Rs.2,75,000/-. The accused had instructed Pw.2 to arrange the fund within 3 days. Pw.2 has stated that he had recorded the said conversation with the accused in his mobile phone and on 10.4.2018 he approached the ACB police and lodged Ex.P3 first information statement. 9(c). Pw.6 - Mr. Vazir Ali Khan is the Dy.S.P., ACB, Bengaluru and in his evidence he has spoken about lodging Ex.P3 first information statement by Pw-2 and production of the CD containing the recorded conversation demanding the bribe by the accused. In furtherance Pw.6 received Ex.P-3 statement and registered the FIR as per Ex.P-28 and forwarded the report to the Court. After registering the case he had handed over further investigation of the case in favour of Pw.7 - Mr. G.S.Anil Kumar.
9(d). Pw.3 Mr. Vijay S.C. and Pw.5 Mr. Lokesh Naika S.H. are the public servants and independent pancha witnesses to the pre-trap and post-trap proceedings. Pw-7 Mr. G.S.Anil Kumar is the police inspector and the trap laying officer(in short the IO). Pw.2, 3 and 5 in their 14 Spl.C.C.243/2020 evidence have deposed that on 11.4.2018 in the ACB police station Pw.7 had introduced them with each other. Pw-3 and 5 have stated that after reading the contents of the first information statement and on hearing the recorded conversation produced by Pw-2, they had consented to assist the police as witness in the proposed trap. As per their evidence the police have prepared the transcript of the said conversation. 9(e). Pw.2, 3, 5 and 7 in their evidence have spoken regarding production of cash of Rs.2,75,000/- by Pw-2, the police officials smearing the phenolphthalein powder, Pw-5 was asked to count the smeared currency notes, keeping of the currency in the pocket of Pw-2, demonstration of the chemical hand wash test by the IO, and the sodium carbonate solution turning to the pink colour. They further stated during the pre-trap proceedings Ex.P5 pre-trap mahazar was drawn and Pw.2, 3 and 5 are the signatories to the said document. As per their evidence during pre-trap proceedings Pw.7 15 Spl.C.C.243/2020 the IO had nominated Pw.3 as the shadow witness in the proposed trap.
9(f). Pw.2, 3, 5 and 7 in their evidence further deposed that after completing Ex.P-5 pre-trap proceedings they went to trap the accused and as per the intimation and mutual understanding at 1.10 p.m. they reached Papareddy Palya, Bengaluru. Pw.3 was accompanied with Pw.2 as the shadow witness and he was sitting inside the car along with Pw.2. The accused came to the place and sat inside the car and demanded and obtained the tainted currency notes from Pw-2 and kept the notes in his trouser pocket. After these developments Pw.2 flashed the instructed signal to the trap team and immediately Pw-7 and the entire police officials came to the spot.
9(g). Pw.2, 3, 5 and 7 in their evidence have deposed that Pw.7 apprehended the accused, got prepared the sodium carbonate solution and the accused was asked to undergo the chemical hand wash test and in the examination the solution turned to pink colour.
16 Spl.C.C.243/2020 They further deposed regarding seizure of the trouser of the accused as per M.O.6. and thereafter, they went to the PVP College and seized the relevant documents and in the college the police have continued drawing of the further proceedings of the trap mahazar as per Ex.P6. 9(h). Pw.2, 3, 5 and 7 in their evidence have stated that in the PVP College Pw.7 has collected the voice recorder from Pw-2, prepared Ex.P19 the transcript of conversation and copy of the conversation recorded during the trap in Ex.P24 CD. Pw-7 stated regarding collection of sample voice of the accused and Pw.2 in Ex.P30 and 31 CD, seized Ex.P-18 document from the Principal of the college and preparation of Ex.P6 post trap mahazar.
9(i). Pw.7 in his evidence has further stated that during investigation, recording of the statement of the witnesses, collection of Ex.P-36 the chemical examination report, sketch of place of incident as per Ex.P39, service records of accused as per Ex.P40, work order of the accused as per Ex.P41, CDR and CAF relating 17 Spl.C.C.243/2020 to the mobile phones of Pw.2 and the accused as per Ex.P43 to 48.
9(j). Pw.4 - Ms. Chandrika G. is the Assistant Director of FSL, Bengaluru and she is the author of Ex.P24 voice analysis report. In her evidence she narrated the process of the scientific examination and given opinion that the disputed and the sample speeches of the accused are similar and of the same person. 9(k). Pw.9 - Mr. Stanley Agnelo is the Nodal Officer and he has issued Ex.P43 to 45, the customer application form(CAF) , call detail register (CDR) of the mobile phone belongs to the accused and certificate under Section 65B of the Indian Evidence Act. Pw.10 -Mr. Rajesh K. is the Nodal officer and he has stated regarding issuance of Ex.P46 to 48 CAF, CDR documents and certificate to the IO. Pw.8- Ms. Ayisha S. is the Police Inspector and after completion of investigation of the case, she has filed the charge sheet.
18 Spl.C.C.243/2020
10. Dw.1, Mr. J.P. Manjunath examined on behalf of the accused is the Assistant Professor and he was the in- charge Principal in the PVP Polytechnic College during 2017-2019. As per his evidence, Pw.2 was very much irregular in attending the duty in the college. As on the date of the trap Pw.7 the IO had seized the trouser of the accused in the college. Dw.2, Mr. Murthy Chikkasiddaiah another witness examined on behalf of the accused is working as an attender in the college. He deposed that Pw.2 is financially in sound position and on the date of incident as per the direction of Pw.7 - the IO , he had brought the trouser. Thereafter the accused was provided with alternative trouser in the college and the IO has seized the material object.
The ingredients of the offence:
11.1. The prosecution in order to prove the charge against the accused under Section 7 of the PC Act is required to prove the following ingredients:
(i) The accused was the public servant when the offence was committed;
19 Spl.C.C.243/2020
(ii) he has accepted, or obtained the illegal gratification from Pw-2 ;
(iii) for himself or for any other person
(iv) as a motive or reward for doing an official act, or to show favour .
11.2 To establish the guilt of the accused under Section 13(1)(d) of the PC Act, the prosecution is required to prove the following factors.
i) The accused being the public servant by corrupt or illegal means, obtained for himself or for any other person pecuniary advantage from Pw-2; or
iii) by abusing his position as such public servant, obtained for himself pecuniary advantage; or
iv) while holding the office as public servant obtained pecuniary advantage without any public interest. The demand and acceptance:
12(a). From the foregoing evidence let in by the prosecution and the defence, the accused during the relevant point of time was working in the PVP Polytechnic College as the FDA is not disputed. Pw.2 was also working in the same college as a helper in Science Department but on account of his continuous unauthorized absence, he has not been permitted to 20 Spl.C.C.243/2020 report to the duty by the Principal of the college. The College authority in this connection had issued series of notice and publication in Vijayavani kannada daily has not been disputed by Pw.2. He has admitted in his evidence that he was irregular in attending the duty but according to his explanation it was due to bonafide reasons.
12(b). As per the prosecution evidence Pw.2 has lodged Ex.P3 statement on 10.4.2018. His specific evidence is that the accused had assured with him for his reinstatement to the PVP College after consultation with Mr. Manjunatha the personal assistant of the Director of Technical Education and few officers working in the office of the Director of Technical Education. The contents of Ex.P3 first information statement, evidence of Pw.2 and other documents produced by the prosecution admitted in evidence show that due to unauthorized absence of Pw-2, he has not been permitted to attend the duty by the college management for more than two years immediately before the date of 21 Spl.C.C.243/2020 lodging of Ex.P2 first information statement. The prosecution has produced Ex.P18 document page-34 to 36 report submitted by the Principal of PVP Polytechnic College addressed to the Director of Technical Education Department, Bengaluru. As per the contents of the said report, Pw.2 remained unauthorized absent to the College from 1.3.2016. During the trial Pw.2 in his evidence or in Ex.P3 first information statement has not disputed this fact.
12(c). The specific defence of the accused during the trial is that Pw.2 is actively involved in the politics and he is the supporter of the Janata Dal (S) political party. During April-2018, the dates for the Karnataka legislative assembly election was already announced/scheduled and the election was under the process. Pw.2 had collected the money from the political party for distributing in favour of the voters of the constituency. However Pw-2 was apprehending to keep the said cash with him. In this regard, he had handed over M.O.8 cash to the possession of the accused as he is 22 Spl.C.C.243/2020 the trustworthy person. Therefore from the said defence, the accused has specifically admitted acceptance of MO No.8 cash from Pw-2.
12(d). The accused during the trial has not disputed that after the trap he was subjected to undergo the chemical hand wash test and the recovery of Rs.2,75,000/- cash identified as M.O.8 from his possession. After arresting the accused, Pw-7 has seized Ex.P29 paper slip in the handwriting of the accused. As per the evidence of Pw.2 after collecting M.O8 cash the accused had counted the currency notes and written the denominations in Ex.P29 paper slip. During the trial the accused has not disputed that the said document is in his handwriting. Therefore, the aforesaid paper slip seized during the trap and produced by the prosecution is sufficient corroboration to show that the accused had voluntarily accepted M.O.8 currency notes from Pw.2.
12(e). Ex.P36 is chemical analysis report and as per the said document the chemical examiner has opined 23 Spl.C.C.243/2020 the presence of phenolphthalein in the hand wash solution of the fingers of both the hand of the accused. Moreover, even in M.O.2 trouser of the accused presence of the phenolphthalein was detected. Therefore, the argument of the accused that M.O.2 trouser was seized after proceeding to the college from the place of incident makes no difference. As per the evidence of Pw.2, 3, 5 and 7, the M.O.2 trouser of the accused was seized in the place of incident, whereas the witness examined on behalf of the accused Dw.1 and Dw.2 have stated that the IO had arranged the alternative trouser to the accused in the college and thereafter M.O.2 has been seized. The question to be decided is not the place where the trouser was seized but whether it contained the traces of phenolphthalein. The accused has not disputed acceptance of the currency notes from Pw-2 and thereafter he had kept the tainted currency notes in his trouser pocket. Hence the argument of the accused in this aspect is not sustainable.
24 Spl.C.C.243/2020 12(f). During the cross-examination of Pw.2, 3, 5 to 7 the accused has contended that Pw.2 was continuously remained unauthorized absent to the College. He is financially in very sound position and hence actually not interested in his reinstatement or in attending college for the duty. These facts are not relevant for the present case. Whether PW.2 was actually interested in reporting to the duty before the College is a factor to be decided by the management committee of the college. Pw.7 as the IO has no major role to conduct investigation in this direction to ascertain whether Pw.2 was really interested in his reinstatement to the college. During the cross- examination of Pw.2, he has admitted that he had received series of memo issued by the Principal of the college and the explanations were submitted by him for his unauthorized absence.
12(g). During the cross-examination of Pw.2 in para- 54 and 55, the specific defence of the accused is that Pw.2 had collected M.O.8 currency notes in order to distribute the said amount to the voters in connection 25 Spl.C.C.243/2020 with the assembly election on behalf of the candidate contested under Janata Dal (S )party. During the cross- examination of Pw.2 in para-53 the accused has confronted the witness by producing a visiting card appearing in the name of Pw.2. But the witness has specifically denied the said visiting card belongs to him. As per the evidence of Pw.2 the family members of the husband of his married daughter are the supporters of the above referred political party. It is proper to mention here that once the accused has taken specific defence that MO No.8 cash is the subject matter of assembly election, he has to prove the said defence by preponderance of probability. During the cross- examination of Pw.2 and 7, the accused has failed to show that Pw.2 was actively involved in any of the political party or he had received the money for the purpose of distribution to the voters. The accused has further failed to show that Pw-2 under trust has delivered M.O.8 cash to keep it in his safe custody. 12(h). In the event for the sake of argument the aforesaid defence of the accused that MO NO.8 cash is for 26 Spl.C.C.243/2020 the purpose of distribution among the voters is accepted, the next question accrues is if the accused was aware of the said fact, why he had agreed to receive the said illegal amount from the Pw-2 remains unanswered. If he had aware of the fact that the said money is for illegal distribution to voters, the accused ought to have refused to receive the cash and to retain with him. Hence the imaginary story built-up by the accused that the tainted currency notes relating to the assembly election is apparently false.
12(i). The accused during the cross-examination of any of the prosecution witnesses has failed to prove that M.O.8 cash has been paid by Pw.2 for the purpose of distribution among the voters. He further failed to prove that in order to avoid inspection by the police, Pw-2 had handed over the said cash to him with a request to retain the amount in his custody.
12(j). Ex.P-7 is the explanation statement of the accused given to Pw.7 immediately after the trap. The relevant portion of the document reads:
27 Spl.C.C.243/2020
"ಹಹಚಚ ಪಪಕಕಶ ಪಪಥಮ ದರಹರಯ ನನಕರನಕಗ ಪವಪ
ಪಕಲಟಹಕಕಕಚ, ಬಹಬಗಳಳರರ ಆದ ನಕನರ ಶಪಶ ಎಬ.ಎನಚ. ಶಪಶನವಕಸ, ಸಹಕಯಕ ವರಕಜನ ವಭಕಗ, ಇವರರ ದಶರರಕಕಲ ಅನಧಕಕತವಕಗ ಗಹಗರರ ಹಕಜರಯಕಗರತತದರದ, ದನ ಪತಪಕಹಯಲಲ ಪಪಕಟಣಹ ಹಹಳರಡಸ 07 ದನಗಳಹಳಳಗಹ ಖರದಕದಗ ಹಕಜರಕಗಬಹಶಕಹಬದರ ತಳಸಲಕಗತರತ. ಈ ಸಬಬಬಧವಕಗ ತಕಬತಪಕ ಶಕಕಣ ಇಲಕಖಹಯ ನದಹಶರಶಕರ ಕಛಹಶರಗಹಹ ಪತಪ ಬರಹಯಲಕಗತರತ. ನದಹಶರಶಕರ ಕಛಹಶರ ಆಪತ ಶಕಖಹ ವಭಕಗದ ಶಪಶ ಮಬಜರನಕಥ ಇವರ ರಹಳತಹಗಹ ಮಕತನಕಡ ನಮಮ ಸಬಸಹಸಯಲಲ ಕಹಲಸ ನವರಹಸರತತರರವ ಎಬ.ಎನಚ. ಶಪಶನವಕಸ, ಸಹಕಯಕರರ ಇವರರ ಅನಧಕಕತವಕಗ ಗಹಗರರ ಹಕಜರಯಕಗರತತದರದ, ನಮಮ ಇಲಕಖಹಗಹ ಪತಪ ಬರಹದರರತಹತಶವಹ. ನಮಮ ಇಲಕಖಹಯಬದ ಪತಪವನರಕ ಬರಹಯರವಬತಹ ಮನವ ಮಕಡಕಹಳಬಡದಹ. ಅದಕಹಕ 03 ಲಕಕ ರಳಪಕಯಯಕಗರತತದಹ ಎಬದರ ತಳಸದರರ. ಆ ಮಶಲಹ ಎರಡರ ಲಕಕದ 50 ಸಕವರ ರಳಪಕಯಗಳರ ಆಗರತತದಹ ಎಬದರ ತಳಸರರತಕತರಹ. ಅದಕಹಕ ಸರ ಎಬ.ಎನಚ. ಶಪಶನವಕಸ ಇವರ ಹತತರ ಮಕತನಕಡರತಹತಶನಹ ಎಬದರ ತಳಸದಹ. ಮತಹತಶ ಮಬಜರನಕಥ ಸಕರಚ ಹತತರ ಮಕತನಕಡದಹ. ಇದಕಹಕ ಅವರರ ಸರ ಎಬದರ ತಳಸದರರ. ನಕನರ ಎಬ.ಎನಚ. ಶಪಶನವಕಸ ಇವರಗಹ ಒಟರಟ ಎರಡರಲಕಕದ 75 ಸಕವರ ರಳಪಕಯಗಳನರಕ ಪಡಹದರಕಹಳಬಡರರವವದರ ಸರ ಎಬದರ ಹಹಶಳಬಯಸರತಹತಶನಹ."
28 Spl.C.C.243/2020 12(k). In the above said statement the accused has admitted that in connection with reinstatement of Pw-2 to the college as the lab assistant, he had approached Mr. Manjunath working in the office of the Director of Technical Education. He has also stated that the said Mr. Manjunath had demanded Rs. 3.00 lakhs and later agreed to receive for Rs. 2.50 lakhs. The accused had intimated him that he will talk with Pw-2. The contents of Ex.P-7 explanation statement of the accused is in consonance with the allegations made in Ex. P-3 first information statement and evidence of Pw-2. Therefore the argument of the accused that Pw-2 had the intention to falsely implicate him in the case is apparently not acceptable.
12(l). The defence raised by the accused during the trial is that in connection with assembly election Pw.2 had handed over M.O.8 cash and in the event said contention is true, the accused had every opportunity to forward this explanation in Ex.P7 statement. Therefore, in the absence of the accused had failed to take such 29 Spl.C.C.243/2020 defence in Ex.P-7 explanation statement, the only inference to be drawn that the contention taken during the cross-examination of Pw.2 that the M.O.8 cash is related to the assembly election for distribution among the voters is apparently false and it is an after thought defence. The defence of the accused taken during the trial and explanation statement as per Ex.P7 are inconsistent and contradicting with one another. Therefore, from Ex.P7 explanation of the accused the prosecution has derived strength in corroboration to the evidence of Pw-2.
13.(a). The prosecution has produced Ex.P17 the transcript of conversation said to have been recorded by Pw.2 on 6.4.2018. The transcript contains the demand made by the accused for the bribe of Rs.3 lakhs and after negotiation he had agreed to receive Rs.2,75,000/-. Pw.2 in his evidence para-5 has deposed that he had recorded the said conversation in his mobile phone. Pw.7, the IO during the pre-trap proceedings has collected the mobile from Pw-2 and copy of the recorded conversation in Ex.P-23 CD.
30 Spl.C.C.243/2020 13(b). During the cross-examination, Pw.2 in his evidence once admitted that he is not aware of the process how to transfer the data stored in the mobile phone to the CD. But during the cross-examination in para-60 he has specifically stated that he had personally copied the the recorded conversation from his mobile phone to Ex.P.23 CD in his personal computer. Pw.7 during the investigation has secured Ex.P15 certificate issued under Section 65B of Indian Evidence Act. In view of the aforesaid evidence Ex.P17 transcript of conversation and Ex.P23 CD are admissible in the evidence.
13(c). It is the argument of the learned defence counsel that during the investigation Pw.7 has not seized the original instrument i.e. the mobile phone which contained the recorded conversation. In the case on hand Pw.2 has issued the certificate as per Ex.P15 under Section 65B of the Indian Evidence Act. Therefore the recorded conversation contained in Ex.P23 CD, secondary evidence is admissible. Hence the non production of 31 Spl.C.C.243/2020 original mobile phone has no consequence on the merits of the case. In Ex.P17 there is specific conversation to show that the accused had demanded Rs.3 lakhs and after negotiation scaled down the target to Rs.2,75,000/-. The evidence of Pw.2 and the contents of Ex.P-3 first information statement are inconsonance with the transcript of conversation contained in Ex.P17. 13(d). Pw.7 the IO during the trap had furnished the voice recorder to Pw.2 and given instruction to record the conversation. Pw.2 during his examination has once stated that he had recorded the conversation in the voice recorder and in another breath deposed that he recorded it in his mobile phone. However this aspect has been later clarified by the prosecution in the evidence of Pw-2.
13(e). Ex.P19 is the transcript of conversation recorded during the trap and in the said conversation the accused had assured Pw.2 that his work will be completed within 1-2 days. In the said document there is absolutely no reference either directly or indirectly to 32 Spl.C.C.243/2020 infer that M.O.8 currency notes were collected in connection the assembly election. Instead it shows that the accused in order to reinstate Pw.2 as an assistant in the PVP Polytechnic College, had obtained the illegal gratification. Ex.P24 is the CD related to the audio conversation, Ex.P32 is the certificate issued by Pw.7 under Section 65B of the Indian Evidence Act. Therefore, Ex.P24 CD and Ex.P19 transcript of audio conversation recorded during the trap are admissible in evidence.
13(f). The accused during the cross-examination of Pw.4 by referring to Ex.P37 acknowledgement submitted that there is an endorsement to the effect that two pen drives of 16 GB were received in the Forensic Science Laboratory. However the explanation of Pw-4 is that the receptionist in the counter is the competent person to depose regarding the said note. The evidence of Pw.4 shows that she had not subjected any pen drives for scientific examination. In this regard during the cross- examination the accused has not questioned Pw-7 regarding the two pen drives shown in Ex.P37 33 Spl.C.C.243/2020 acknowledgement. In any of the prosecution documents more particularly Ex.P-5 and 6 mahazars there are no reference regarding seizure of two pen drives. The defence of the accused during the cross-examination of Pw.4 is that the voice can be imitated. But the witness has specifically stated that it can be scientifically ascertained whether it is the original voice of the speaker or the imitated voice of some other person. Therefore, the accused has failed to dislodge evidence of Pw-4 and Ex,P-21 report.
13(g). The prosecution has produced Ex.P21 the report issued by Pw.4, the voice analyst. As per her evidence, the conversation recorded in Ex.P-23 and 24 and the sample speeches contained in Ex.P25 are similar and belongs to the same male speaker. From the oral evidence of Pw.3 and 5 and from Ex.P-21 report coupled with testimony of Pw.4 the expert, the prosecution has proved the conversation recorded during the trap. It is further proved by way of corroborative evidence that in the said conversation the accused has demanded and accepted M.O.8 currency notes as motive for 34 Spl.C.C.243/2020 reinstatement of Pw.2 in the PVP college as the lab assistant.
14. In Ex.P2 first information statement and in the evidence Pw.2 has stated regarding the demand and acceptance of Rs.25,000/- by the accused as the bribe. Pw.2 in his evidence has stated that in the month of February-2018 he had paid Rs.25,000/- to the accused at the time of collecting the documents applied under the RTI Act. In this regard, except the oral evidence of Pw.2 and contents of Ex.P2 first information statement, the prosecution has failed to produce any other corroborative piece of evidence. The recorded conversation between Pw.2 and the accused also does not contain this transaction. Therefore, from the oral and documentary evidence placed on record, the prosecution has failed to prove the demand and acceptance of Rs.25,000/- from Pw-2 as the bribe by the accused in the month of Feb- 2018.
15(a). The accused during the cross-examination of prosecution witnesses has taken main contention that 35 Spl.C.C.243/2020 Pw.2 is financially in a stable position and hence there is no necessity for him to seek his reinstatement for the post of the lab assistant in the college. Secondly while working in the college, Pw-2 was ashamed to do his work. In this background the accused has submitted that the contention of Pw-2 that for his reinstatement to the college, he had offered the alleged payment is false and imaginary. On considering the charge against the accused it is not necessary for the prosecution to investigate the financial status of Pw.2. It is for the accused to prove his defence by showing that Pw-2 was not interested to seek reinstatement in the college but he has failed in his attempt.
15(b). After appreciating the facts and circumstances of the case, it is also not the burden of the prosecution to prove whether the amount received by the accused was for himself or for any other person. In this connection the accused during cross-examination of Pw.7 has tried to elicit the role of Mr. Manjunath referred in Ex.P2 first information statement. Pw.7 in para-72 has 36 Spl.C.C.243/2020 stated that during the investigation he has recorded the statement of the witness by name Mr. Manjunath. According to the contention of the accused that Mr. Manjunath is not empowered to reinstate the suspended officials of the college. Therefore he submitted that the prosecution case is not believable.
15(c). As per Section 7 of the PC Act any public servant who accepts or obtains any gratification as a motive or reward for himself or for any other person for showing in the exercise of his official functions, any favour or disfavour to any person or for rendering the service is an offence. As per explanation (d) if a person who receives a gratification as a motive or reward for doing what he does not intend or is not in a position to do, comes within this expression. Therefore, in view of the aforesaid explanation whether the accused or Mr. Manjunath were in a position to do any official favour to Pw-2 or whether the accused has obtained the illegal gratification for himself or for any other person is immaterial.
37 Spl.C.C.243/2020 15(d). The further argument of the accused is that in the PVP Polytechnic college he was not looking after the documents relating to non-teaching staff including that of the accused and it was looked after by Ms. Mangalamma. Pw.2 in Ex.P2 first information statement itself and during his evidence has not disputed this fact. As per the prosecution evidence the accused was maintaining the files relating to teaching staff of the college. In this regard, during the cross-examination of Pw.7 in para-45 to 47 by referring to Ex.P41, the accused tried to show discrepancy in the document. But on careful perusal of the said document it can be ascertained that the evidence of Pw.7 in para-46 pertains to the document for year 2008-09 to 2011 much prior to the date of incident.
15(e). In the above background whether the accused can avoid his liability from the charges framed against him, this Court finds it necessary to refer the judgment reported in (2012) 8 SCC 527 in case of Syed Ahmed Vs. State of Karnataka. In the said decision the Hon'ble Supreme court observed that in view of Section 7(d) of 38 Spl.C.C.243/2020 the PC Act, a public servant who is not in a position to do any favour to a person could also be deemed to commit an offence if he demands and accepts illegal gratification. There was demand for gratification and the gratification was given to the accused are the basic points to be proved to hold the accused is guilty. In view of explanation (d) to Section 7 of the Act whether the public servant could or could not deliver results becomes irrelevant. Therefore in the case on hand the accused was working as the FDA in the college and whether he is empowered to show any official favour or he was not in charge of the files relating to Pw-2 are immaterial. The ratio of the decision is aptly applicable to the case.
15(f). The accused in his defence and during cross- examination of Pw.2 contended that the lecturer by name Mr. Umesh and Mr. Ravi Kumar were in good terms with Pw.2. There was dispute regarding the appointment of Mr. Umesh and an enquiry was initiated against him. The accused has referred this fact in his written argument and in the written statement filed at the time of examination 39 Spl.C.C.243/2020 under Section 313(5) of the Cr.P.C. Even if the said contention of the accused is accepted, the enquiry was held way back in the year 2012-13 and in the case on hand, the incident occurred in 2018. Moreover, the aforesaid Mr. Umesh and Mr. Ravi Kumar were working as lecturers and the accused is nothing to do with their appointment eligibility, educational qualification etc. Therefore, at the instance of the aforesaid lecturers Mr. Umesh and Ravi Kumar Pw.2 has implicated the accused in this trap case is apparently false and unacceptable. 16(a). The prosecution has produced Ex.P43 customer application form and Ex.P-44 call detail register of the accused for the period 1.4.2018 to 12.4.2018. Similarly Ex.P46 is the CAF of the Pw-2 and Ex.P47 is call details register pertaining to the very same period. The prosecution has produced Ex.P45 and 48 the certificates issued by the Nodal Officers under Section 65-B of the Indian Evidence Act. Therefore, Ex.P43, 44, 46 and 47 are admissible in the evidence. The call detail register of the accused as well as Pw.2 show that Pw.2 has made in 40 Spl.C.C.243/2020 all 12 phone calls to the accused in turn the accused during the same period has made only one call. It is not necessary to determine who has made more number of phone calls. It appears since Pw.2 was interested in his reinstatement to the post in the college he had made more number of phone calls to Pw.2 cannot be ruled out. But the evidence of Pw.2 and contents of Ex.P2 and other documents show that he was making sincere efforts for his reinstatement to the college. In the absence of the said fact there was no occasion for the accused to consult Pw.2 by giving an assurance for his appointment. The accused had assured with Pw-2 that he will consult Mr. Manjunath and other officials in the department and as a motive for showing the official favour he demanded the bribe.
16(b). Therefore, from the documentary and oral evidence produced by the prosecution and from the oral evidence of Pw.2, 3, 5 and 7 the prosecution is able to show that the accused has demanded Rs.3 lakhs as the bribe from Pw.2 informant. It is also proved from the 41 Spl.C.C.243/2020 foundational facts that on 11.4.2018 the accused has obtained M.O.8 the tainted currency notes from Pw.2, counted the currency and thereafter kept it in his trouser pocket. In Ex. P-7 explanation statement, during examination under Section 313 of Cr.P.C., in the written statement and in the defence during the trial the accused has admitted acceptance of the amount from Pw.2. From the evidence of Dw.1 and 2 the accused has failed to prove that M.O.8 cash is not the illegal gratification. From the aforesaid documentary and oral evidence the prosecution has proved the demand and acceptance of M.O.8 of Rs.2,75,000/- illegal gratification by the accused. 17(a). The learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the accused has relied following judgments. In the judgment of the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka, Kalaburagi Bench decided in Crl. Appeal No. 200104/2015 in the case of State of Karnataka Vs. Ramesh, as per the facts of the said judgment shadow witness has not seen or heard the conversation between the complainant and 42 Spl.C.C.243/2020 the accused during the trap, and the work of the complainant was not pending with the accused. 17(b). In the judgment reported in Criminal Appeal No.639/2004 in the case of A. Subair Vs. State of Kerala, the Honorable Supreme Court considering the facts of the said case noticed that the complainant was not examined and in the absence of substantive evidence held that mere recovery of the amount from the possession of the accused is not sufficient.
17(c). In the judgment in Appeal (Crl.) 970/2000 in case of V.Venkata Subbarao Vs. Andhra Pradesh the Honorable Supreme Court acquitted the accused after noticing there was delay of 15 days in filing the complaint, there was lot of improvements in the evidence, the IO interpolated the documents, Pw.3 was in inimical towards the accused, the right hand finger wash only rendered the positive result even though the accused had counted the notes with both of his hands.
43 Spl.C.C.243/2020 17(d). In the judgment in Appeal (Crl.) 82/2004 in case of the State of A.P. Vs. K.Narasimhachary the Honorable Supreme Court noticed when two views are possible the prosecution has failed to prove the case and proceed to acquit the accused by extending the benefit of doubt.
17(e). In the case on hand, Pw.3 the shadow witness was present along with Pw.2 during the trap. The work relating to Pw.2 for his reinstatement to the college was pending. Pw.2 the informant has supported the prosecution case and his evidence is corroborated by two independent witnesses. Therefore, the ratio of the aforesaid judgments relied by the learned defence counsel and the facts of the case on hand and the nature of the evidence placed on record are totally different. The accused has failed to make out any such circumstance to avail the benefit of two views regarding the charge framed against him. In the result the judgments relied are not applicable to the facts and circumstances of the case.
44 Spl.C.C.243/2020 The Presumption of Law 18.1 As per Section 20 of the PC Act, there is a statutory presumption wherein if it is proved that a public servant accused of an offence has accepted or obtained for himself or for any other person any undue advantage it shall be presumed, unless the contrary is proved, that he accepted or obtained that gratification as a motive or reward for performing or to cause performance of a public duty either by himself or by any other public servant.
18.2. The Hon'ble Supreme court in the judgment reported in (1995) 3 SCC 567 M.W. Mouhiuddin vs State of Maharastra held that once the complainant parted with the tainted money and the same comes under the control and possession of the accused, the requirement is satisfied and the only inference to be drawn is that the accused has obtained the pecuniary advantage. In the absence of satisfactory explanation from the accused regarding the currency notes obtained by him, the irresistible inference must follow that he has voluntarily accepted the amount.
45 Spl.C.C.243/2020 18.3. In the recent constitutional bench judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court reported in 2022 SCC OnLine SC 1724 in the case of Mr. Neeraj Dutta Vs. State, in para-68 held that in order to bring home the guilt of the accused the prosecution has to prove the fact of demand and acceptance of illegal gratification either by direct evidence or by circumstantial evidence. The prior demand by the public servant and bribe giver tenders the demanded illegal gratification has been received by the public servant has to be proved by the prosecution. When the foundational facts are proved, the presumption of facts by way of inference may be drawn. On proof of the fact in issue, Section 20 mandates the court to raise the legal presumption that the illegal gratification was received for the purpose of a motive or reward. The accused is required to show that the gratification was legally due to him or it is lawful. The burden resting on the accused would not be as light where a presumption is raised under Section 114 of the Indian Evidence Act. The reasonable and probable explanation offered is not sufficient. The presumption 46 Spl.C.C.243/2020 has to be rebutted by proof and not by plausible explanation. In the case on hand from the documentary and oral evidence of Pw-2,3,5,and 7 the demand and acceptance of the illegal gratification of Rs. 2,75,000/- by the accused is proved.
18.4. The presumption under Section 20 of the Act is obligatory and it is a presumption of law and cast an obligation on the court to apply in every case under Section 7 of the Act. In the present case it is proved from the evidence that the accused had obtained MO.8 cash from Pw-2. Therefore on application of the above principle to the facts of the case on hand, from the proved facts, this court proceeds to legitimately draw a presumption that the accused had demanded and obtained Rs.2,75,000/- illegal gratification from Pw-2. Accordingly, the presumption as prescribed under law is drawn against the accused. The accused has miserably failed to rebut the presumption appearing against him. Hence it is held that the prosecution has proved that 47 Spl.C.C.243/2020 the accused has obtained the illegal gratification as motive for the performance of public duty.
19. The evidence placed on record by the prosecution is consistent with the guilt of the accused and inconsistent with his innocence. The minor discrepancies and contradictions appearing in the evidence which do not affect the merits of the case require to be ignored. The courts do not merely discharge the function to ensure that no innocent man is punished, but also that a guilty man does not escape and both these aspects are the duty and the responsibility of the court. After appreciation of the entire prosecution evidence, it is cogent, corroborative and trustworthy. The evidence clearly shows that the accused has demanded and obtained the illegal gratification of Rs.2,75,000/- from Pw-2. The demanding and obtaining the illegal gratification constitutes an offence both under Section 7 and Section 13(1)(d) of the P.C. Act. There is evidence to the effect that the accused had obtained the pecuniary advantage from Pw-2 by corrupt and illegal means by 48 Spl.C.C.243/2020 abusing his position as FDA in the PVP Polytechnic college. The ingredients to bring home the act of the accused within the ambit of Section 7, and 13(1)(d) of the PC Act are fulfilled.
20. After considering the aforesaid evidence and defence of the accused, this court arrived to the definite conclusion that the prosecution has proved the charges framed against the accused under Section 7, and 13(1)
(d) of the PC Act. The prosecution has failed to prove the charge regarding the demand and acceptance of Rs. 25,000/- illegal gratification. In the result, point No.2 and 3 are answered partly in the affirmative.
21. Point No.4 :- In view of the above findings on point No.2 and 3, the accused is liable to be convicted of the offence under sections 7, and 13(1)(d) of the PC Act. Accordingly this court proceed to pass the following:
ORDER Acting under Section 248(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1973, the accused is convicted of the offences punishable under 49 Spl.C.C.243/2020 Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of The Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.
The bail bond and surety bond executed by the offender and his surety are hereby stand discharged.
M.O. No.8 cash of Rs.2,75,0000/- (Rupees two lakhs seventy five thousand) is confiscated to the State after expiry of the appeal period. Office is directed to return M.O. No.1. metal seal to the Karnataka Lokayukta Police Bengaluru Urban.
Office is directed to destroy M.O. No. 2, trouser, M.O. No. 3 to 7 sodium carbonate solution bottles as they are worthless after completion of the appeal period.
(Dictated to the judgment writer, transcribed and computerized by him, corrected, signed and then pronounced by me in the open Court on this the 10 th day of February, 2023.) (LAKSHMINARAYANA BHAT K) XXIII Addl.City Civil & Sessions Judge & Special Judge (PCA), Bengaluru.
50 Spl.C.C.243/2020 The judgment is pronounced and it is held that the offender is guilty under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) of the PC Act.
2. Heard the offender in person and the learned advocate appearing on the point of sentence to be imposed in the case. The learned defence counsel has submitted that the offender is having two unmarried daughters and he is the only bread earner of the family. He is aged 59 years and his wife is suffering from ill- health. Therefore he prayed for an order to pass minimum sentence as prescribed under the law.
3. In the case of The State vs Parthiban reported in 2006 Crl.L.J. 4772 the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that demanding and accepting the illegal gratification constitutes an offence both under Section 7 and 13(1)(d) of the PC Act and the offence being single transaction but falling under two different sections, the offender cannot be liable for double penalty. It is further held that the 51 Spl.C.C.243/2020 benefit of the Probation of Offenders Act cannot be extended for the offenders under the PC Act.
4. In the decision reported in AIR 2015 SC 2678 in the case of Shanthilal Meena vs State of NCT Delhi, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that the punishment for the offences under the PC Act, there is no scope for reforming of the convicted public servant.
5. As per the facts of the case, the offence was committed on 11-4-2018. Thus, as per the Amended Act No.1 of 2014, which came into effect from 16-01-2014, the offence under section 7 of the PC Act was punishable with imprisonment for seven years and the minimum sentence of not less than three years. Similarly the offence under Section 13 (2) of the PC Act was punishable with imprisonment for ten years and the minimum punishment of not less than four years.
6. In the light of the facts and circumstances of the case the quantum of sentence to be imposed has to be determined. The offender is presently aged 59 years. At 52 Spl.C.C.243/2020 the relevant period of the commission of the offence he was working as the first division assistant in PVP college. He had demanded and accepted Rs.2,75,000/- as the bribe by assuring reinstatement of Pw-2 for the post of the assistant in the college. Hence he should be punished by apposite sentence of imprisonment, after taking into consideration the submission of the offender, his age and other mitigating factors.
7. In the judgment reported in (2006) 8 SCC 693 State of M.P. Vs. Shambhu Dayal Nagar, the Hon'ble Supreme Court expressed its concern against passing of lenient sentence on conviction of public servants under the P.C Act.
8. After the 2018 amendment of the PC Act the offence under Section 13(1)(d) has been deleted. Therefore, after the amendment, the demand and acceptance of the bribe by the public servant is punishable only under Section 7 of the PC Act. In this regard, whether the offender is entitled to avail the benefit of the aforesaid amendment it is apposite to refer 53 Spl.C.C.243/2020 the judgment reported in (2020) 10 SCC 763 in the case of Trilokchand Vs. State of Himachal Pradesh. In the said decision the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that if the amendment is beneficial to the accused it could be applied with respect to earlier cases as well as which are pending in the Court. If the amendment of the Act reduces the punishment for an offence, the accused should have the benefit of such reduced punishment. The rule of beneficial construction requires that even ex post facto law of such a type should be applied to mitigate the rigor of law. The aforesaid ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court is applicable to the facts and circumstances of the present case on hand.
9. The minimum punishment prescribed for the offence under Section 7 of the PC Act is imprisonment for 3 years and the maximum punishment is for 7 years. After considering the above aspects this Court finds that it is just and proper to strike the balance between the maximum and minimum punishment as prescribed under the law. The sentence imposed upon him is having 54 Spl.C.C.243/2020 an impact on his remaining service and on the other public servants involved in the corruption.
10. After considering the age of the offender it is just and proper to sentence him to undergo simple imprisonment for four years and he is also liable to pay a fine of Rs.25,000/- for the offence under Section 7 of the PC Act. In view of extending the benefit of the 2018 amendment of the PC Act, this court is not inclined to sentence the offender separately for the offence under Section 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of the PC Act. Accordingly, proceed to pass the following:
ORDER The offender is sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of four years and to pay fine of Rs.25,000/- (Rupees twenty five thousand) for the offence under Section 7 of the PC Act. In default of payment of fine, he shall undergo simple imprisonment for further period one month.
Acting under section 428 of the Cr.P.C the period of detention undergone by the offender during investigation from 11.04.2018 to 07-06- 55 Spl.C.C.243/2020 2018 shall be set off as against the sentence of imprisonment.
Free copy of the judgment be furnished to the offender forthwith.
(Dictated to the judgment-writer directly on computer, typed by him, corrected, signed and then pronounced by me in the open Court on this the 13 th day of February, 2023.) (LAKSHMINARAYANA BHAT K) XXIII Addl.City Civil & Sessions Judge & Special Judge (PCA), Bengaluru.
ANNEXURE List of witnesses examined on behalf of the prosecution:
PW 1 : A.R.Krishna Murthy
PW 2 : M.N. Srinivasa
PW 3 : Vijaya S.C.
PW 4 : Chandrika G.
PW 5 : Lokesh Naik S.H.
PW 6 : Vajir Ali Khan
PW 7 : G.S.Anil Kumar
PW 8 : Ayusha S.
PW 9 : Stanley Agnelo
PW 10 : Rajesh K.
56 Spl.C.C.243/2020
List of documents marked on behalf of prosecution:
Ex P1 : Sanction order dtd.17.1.2019 Ex P2 : Attested copy of order dt.10.4.2017 Ex P3 : Complaint Ex P3(a) : Signature of PW 2 Ex P4 : Sheet containing currency note numbers Ex P5 : Pre-trap mahazar Ex P5(a) : Signature of PW 2 Ex P5(b) : Signature of PW 3 Ex P5(c) : Signature of PW 5 Ex P5(d) : Signature of PW 7 Ex P6 : Trap mahazar Ex P6(a) : Signature of PW 2 Ex P6(b) : Signature of PW 3 Ex P6(c) : Signature of PW 5 Ex P6(d) : Signature of PW 7 Ex P7 : Explanation statement of accused Ex P7(a) : Signature of PW 3 Ex P8 to : 7 Photos Ex 14 Ex P15 : Certificate u/S.65-B of Indian Evidence Act given by complainant -Pw.2 Ex P16 : Requisition Ex P17 : Transcript of conversation Ex P18 : Document pertaining to unauthorised absent Ex P18(A) : Page-53 Ex P19 : Transcript of conversation Ex P20 : Sample seal 57 Spl.C.C.243/2020 Ex P21 : FSL report dtd.3.7.2019 Ex P21(a) : Signature of PW 4 Ex P21(b) : 65-B Certificate Ex P22 : Sample seal of FSL Ex.P23 : CD containing conversation between accused and complainant Ex P23(a) : Cover Ex.P24 : CD containing conversation between accused and complainant during trap Ex P24(a) : Cover Ex.P25 : CD containing sample voice of accused Ex P25(a) : Cover Ex.P26 : CD containing sample voice of complainant Ex P26(a) : Cover Ex.P27 : Seal acknowledgement letter Ex.P28 : FIR in Crime No.11/2018 Ex.P29 : Chit containing denomination of currency notes Ex P29(a) : Cover Ex.P30 : Sheet containing transcript of conversation available in Ex.P25 Ex.P31 : Sheet containing transcript of conversation available in Ex.P26 Ex P32 : Certificate u/S.65-B of Indian Evidence Act given by Pw.7 Ex P33 : Certificate u/S.65-B of Indian Evidence Act given by Cw.12/Chandramma Ex P34 : Certificate u/S.65-B of Indian Evidence Act given by Cw.16/Pradeep 58 Spl.C.C.243/2020 Ex P35 : Copy of file pertaining to the accused given by Directorate of Technical Education Ex P36 : Chemical examiners report dtd.28.4.2018 Ex P37 : Acknowledgment dtd.4.5.2018 given by FSL, Madiwala Ex P38 : Letter dtd.16.5.2018 of Pw.7 Letter dtd.21.5.2018 of PVP Polytechnic Ex P39 : Engineer sketch with covering letter etc. Ex P40 : Service details of accused Ex P41 : Covering letter dt.21.5.2018 of PVP Polytechnic with certified copy of documents Ex P42 : Letter dt.21.5.2018 of PVP Polytechnic to ACB Ex P43 : Copy of CAF of Airtel Mob.No.9008457805 Ex P43(a) : Signature of Pw.9 Ex P44 : CDR of Mob.No.9008457805 Ex P44(a) : Signature of Pw.9 Ex P45 : Certificate u/S.65-B of Indian Evidence Act given by Pw.9 - Mr.Stanley Agnelo Ex P45(a) : Signature of Pw.9 Ex P46 : Copy of CAF in the name of complainant with ID proof Ex P47 : CDR of Mob.No.9880130253 standing in the name of the complainant Ex P48 : Certificate u/S.65-B of Indian Evidence Act given by Nodal Officer, Idea Cellular Ltd.
Ex P49 : Letter dt.2.6.2020 of the Secretary, PVP Welfare Trust to Pw.8 59 Spl.C.C.243/2020 Ex P50 : Letter of ACB to Airtel List of material objects marked on behalf of the prosecution:
MO 1 : Brass Seal MO 2 : Pant MO.2(a) : Cover MO 3: Bottle containing sodium carbonate solution (Article-2) MO 4: Bottle containing hand wash of witness-2 (Art.3) MO 5: Bottle containing sodium carbonate solution (at the time of trap) (Article-4) MO 6: Bottle containing right hand wash of the accused (Article-5) MO 7: Bottle containing left hand wash of the accused (Article-6) MO 8: Cash of Rs.2,75,000/- MO.8(a) : Cover List of witnesses examined on behalf of defence side:
D.W.1 - G.P. Manjunath D.W.2 - Murthy Chikkasiddaiah List of document marked on behalf of defence side
- Nil -
XXIII Addl.City Civil & Sessions Judge & Special Judge (PCA), Bengaluru.
60 Spl.C.C.243/2020 Judgment pronounced in the open Court vide separate Judgment. The operative portion of the Judgment reads as under:
ORDER Acting under Section 248(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1973, the accused is convicted of the offences punishable under Sections 7 and 13(1)
(d) read with Section 13(2) of The Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.
The bail bond and surety bond executed by the offender and his
surety are hereby stand discharged.
M.O. No.8 cash of Rs.2,75,0000/- (Rupees two lakhs seventy five thousand) is confiscated to the State after expiry of the appeal period.
Office is directed to return M.O. No.1.
metal seal to the Karnataka Lokayukta Police Bengaluru Urban.
Office is directed to destroy M.O. No. 2, trouser, M.O. No. 3 to 7 sodium carbonate solution bottles as they are 61 Spl.C.C.243/2020 worthless after completion of the appeal period.
(LAKSHMINARAYANA BHAT K.), XXIII Addl.City Civil & Sessions Judge & Special Judge (PCA), Bengaluru.
62 Spl.C.C.243/2020 Order on sentence pronounced in the open Court vide separate order.
The operative portion of the order reads as under:
ORDER The offender is sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of four years and to pay fine of Rs.25,000/- (Rupees twenty five thousand) for the offence under Section 7 of the PC Act. In default of payment of fine, he shall undergo simple imprisonment for further period one month.
Acting under section 428 of the Cr.P.C the period of detention undergone by the offender during investigation from 11.04.2018 to 07-06-2018 shall be set off as against the sentence of imprisonment.
Free copy of the judgment be furnished to the offender forthwith.
XXIII Addl.City Civil & Sessions Judge & Special Judge (PCA), Bengaluru.