Bangalore District Court
The State By Police Inspector vs Manjunath on 6 October, 2017
IN THE COURT OF LXXVI ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL AND
SESSIONS JUDGE AND SPECIAL JUDGE, BENGALURU.
(CCH-77)
PRESENT: Smt.SHRIDEVI S. ANGADI,
B.A., LL.M.,
LXXVI ADDL. CITY CIVIL & SESSIONS JUDGE
& SPECIAL JUDGE, BENGALURU.
DATED: This the 6th day of October 2017
Spl. C.C.No.33/2012
COMPLAINANT The State by Police Inspector,
Police wing, City Division,
Karnataka Lokayuktha,
Bangalore.
(Rep by Spl.Public Prosecutor)
-Vs-
ACCUSED Manjunath, s/o late
Ramalingaiah, aged 57 years,
Revenue Inspector, BBMP
Office, Ward No.119,
J.C.Road, Bengaluru.
(By Sri.K.Ramanna, Advocate )
1. Nature of Offence Offence punishable under
Sec.7, 13(1) (d) r/w Sec.13 (2)
of Prevention of Corruption Act,
1988.
2. Date of
Commission 18.10.2011
of offence
2 Spl.C.C.33/2012
3. Date of First
Information Report 17.10.2011
4. Date of arrest
18.10.2011
5. Date of
commencement of 31.07.2014
recording of
evidence
6. Date of 21.06.2017
closing of evidence
7. Date of
06.10.2017
pronouncement of
Judgment
8. Result of the case The accused is acquitted under
section 235(1) of Cr.P.C. of the
offence 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 offence punishable under Sections 7, 13(1) (d) r/w Sec.13 (2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.
3 Spl.C.C.33/2012
2. The prosecution case is that:
The accused was then working as Revenue Inspector, BBMP Office, Ward No.119, J.C.Road, Bangalore. The complainant (CW-1) & his son- C.V.Chandan Kumar, had a site No.45, at Chowlagalli, Cubbonpet, Bangalore. On 27.7.2011, the complainant had filed an application before BBMP office, J.C.Road, Bangalore, for making Joint Khata in his name and in the name of his son in respect of the said site. The complainant had approached the accused in connection with the said work for several times personally and also through phone. The accused demanded Rs.10,000/- as bribe for making Joint Khata. Out of the said amount, the accused has already received Rs.7,000/- as advance and demanded for balance amount of Rs.3,000/-. Since the complainant was not willing to pay the bribe amount, on 17.10.2011, he approached CW16- Sri Sanjeevarayappa.T, Police Inspector, Karnataka Lokayuktha, Bangalore, who in turn gave Voice Recorder to record the conversation. On the same day, the complainant along with his friend-T.Rajashekar(CW-4), met the accused and recorded the conversation. On 18.10.2011, the complainant presented the written information as per Ex.P-1 before CW-16, who arranged for the trap. Along with the complaint, he produced the Voice Recorder.
4 Spl.C.C.33/2012
3. CW2-B.V.Harish Kumar & CW3-Sharath Kumar, the employees of BWSSB, Bangalore, were secured to act as witnesses for the trap. The complainant produced Rs.3,000/- (6 currency notes denomination of Rs.500/-), marked at MO-9. The serial numbers of the currency notes were recorded in a white sheet as per Ex.P-5. The currency notes were smeared with phenolphthalein powder. CW3-Sharath Kumar, after verifying & counting the tainted currency notes, has placed it in the left side shirt pocket of the complainant. Both the hand fingers of CW3 were made to dip in sodium carbonate solution. The said solution becomes pink colour. The Voice Recorder produced along with the complaint was played in the presence of the witnesses & the contents of it were converted to CD and transcript into writing as per Ex.P-6. The complainant was instructed to go and approach the accused, speak with him about the work, and to give the money only on demand and not to touch the said currency notes until it was demanded by the accused. He was further instructed to give signal by removing the spectacles and to wipe it with his shirt if the accused received the money. Complainant was provided with Voice Recorder and instructed to switch it on while approaching the accused and to record the conversation. Button Camera was installed to the shirt of CW4-Rajashekar with an instruction to switch it on while approaching the accused and record the scene. CW2- B.V.Harish Kumar was instructed to follow the complainant and to observe what transpires between the complainant & 5 Spl.C.C.33/2012 accused. Step by step all the events were video-graphed, contents of it were converted to CD. Entrustment Mahazar as per Ex.P2 was prepared and obtained the signatures of the witnesses.
4. On 18.10.2011, at about 10.30 a.m., Lokayuktha Inspector along with his staff & CWs-1 to 4, left for BBMP office, J.C.Road in a Government vehicle. CW4-D.Rajashekar made a phone call to the accused, who in turn asked him to come nearby BBMP Ward Office, Dasappa Maternity Hospital Compound. The said mobile conversation was recorded in the Voice Recorder. The raid team reached Dasappa Maternity Hospital at about 11.15 a.m. The complainant & his friend-D.Rajashekar went nearby BBMP Ward office. CW2-Harish Kumar followed the complainant.
5. At about 11.25 a.m., the complainant gave pre- instructed signal. Immediately, the raid party rushed to the spot and apprehended the accused. Both the hand fingers of the accused were washed in the sodium carbonate solution. The said solution turned to pink colour. Thereafter, the tainted currency notes (MO-9) were recovered from the accused through CW2-Harish Kumar. The tainted currency notes were verified & tallied with the currency notes sheet. Thereafter all the raid party came to the BBMP Office, Ward No.119, J.C.Road, Bangalore. The file relating to the complainant was seized from the custody of CW5-Raveesh, Manager of BBMP office. Attendance Register was obtained by the 6 Spl.C.C.33/2012 Investigating Officer. Thereafter the accused was brought to the Lokayuktha Police station, wherein Voice Recorder and Button Camera were played in the presence of the witnesses and CW5- Raveesh-Manager, BBMP Ward No.119. The voice of the accused was got identified through CW5-Raveesh-Manager, BBMP. The contents of the Voice Recorder were converted to CD. Step by step all the events were video-graphed. Trap Mahazar was prepared as per Ex.P-3 and obtained the signatures of the witnesses. The Investigating Officer has recorded the statements of the complainant & the witnesses and incorporated the material substance of it in the Trap Mahazar. The Investigating Officer has obtained the explanation of the accused in writing as per Ex.P-4, Chemical Examination Report-Ex.P-15 & Spot Sketch-Ex.P-16. After completion of the investigation, the Investigating Officer sent the Final Report to the Competent Authority seeking for sanction to prosecute the accused. On 14.2.2012, he received the Sanction Order as per Ex.P-8 and submitted the charge sheet before the Court on 21.2.2012, for the offence punishable u/s 7, 13(1)(d) & 13(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act,1988.
6. My Predecessor-in-Office took cognizance of the offence and issued process against the accused. In pursuance of the summons, accused appeared before the Court. The accused is enlarged on bail.
7 Spl.C.C.33/2012
7. After hearing, the charge was framed for the offence punishable under Sections 7, 13(1) (d) r/w13 (2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. The Charge was read over and explained to the accused. The accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.
8. During the trial, the prosecution has examined in all 6 witnesses as PWs1 to 6 and got marked 16 documents as Ex.P1 to Ex.P16 and 12 Material Objects as MO1 to MO12. The accused was examined under section 313 of Cr.P.C. for the purpose of enabling him to explain the circumstances existing against him. The accused denied all the incriminating evidence available against him. The accused has not chosen to lead any defense evidence. I have heard the arguments and perused the records.
9. 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 Revenue Inspector, BBMP Office, Ward No.119, J.C.Road, Bengaluru, on 18.10.2011 demanded and accepted illegal gratification of Rs.3,000/-from the complainant as a motive or reward for showing an official favour in the matter of making Joint Khata in the name of the complainant & his son and thereby committed 8 Spl.C.C.33/2012 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 Revenue Inspector, BBMP Ward No.119, J.C.Road, Bangalore, on 18.10.2011 in his office by abusing his position as public servant and by corrupt or illegal means and without public interest obtained Rs.3000/- from the complainant as a pecuniary advantage and thereby committed Criminal mis-conduct punishable under section 13(1)(d) r/w 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act 1988?
3. What order?
10. My answer to the above points is 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
11. 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.
9 Spl.C.C.33/2012
12. The prosecution has examined CW1-Chindi Venkatesh as PW1. PW1 is the complainant. PW1 has deposed that on 27.7.2011, he had filed an application with the accused for making Joint Khata. He approached the accused nearly 40 times in connection with that work. 2-3 months later he filed an application and the accused demanded bribe of Rs.10,000/-. He paid Rs.7,000/- to the accused in his office. Despite the same, the accused has not obliged to do the work. Few days thereafter, the accused once again demanded for balance amount of Rs.3,000/-. He approached CW16-Sanjeevarayappa, Police Inspector, Lokayuktha, Bangalore, who in turn gave mobile hand set to record the conversation with the accused. He recorded the conversation in the mobile hand set, and produced it before CW16 along with the complaint. He appeared before CW16 along with CW4- D.Rajashekar, on 18.10.2011. CW2-B.V.Harish & CW3-Sharath Kumar were secured. He produced 6 currency notes denomination of Rs.500/- each. The serial numbers of the currency notes were recorded. The said currency notes were applied with some powder. CW3 placed the tainted currency notes in his left side shirt pocket. He was instructed by CW16 to give those currency notes to the accused in case of demand and to give signal by wiping his spectacles. Pre-Trap Mahazar was prepared as per Ex.P2.
10 Spl.C.C.33/2012
13. PW1 has further deposed that, they left for the office of the accused in a Maruti Omni vehicle and the vehicle was parked nearby the office at some distance. After getting down from the vehicle, he along with CW-4 went to the office of the accused. Accused was not present. CW-4 contacted the accused over phone, who in turn asked him to come to the building in which Dasappa Maternity Hospital is situated. Thereafter, they proceeded to the said place along with the Lokayuktha Police. After getting down from the vehicle, along with CW-4, he went to the Revenue Office. Accused was getting down from that office. He spoke to the accused, who in turn asked for money. He gave the tainted currency notes to the accused, who in turn received it from his right hand and kept the same in his right side pant pocket. Thereafter he gave pre-instructed signal. Immediately, Lokayuktha Police rushed to the spot and apprehended the accused. The accused took out the tainted currency notes from his pant pocket and produced it before CW-16. Thereafter his hands were washed in the solution. The said solution turned to orange colour. Photographs were taken during trap proceedings. Afterwards accused was brought to the Lokayuktha Police station. Trap Mahazar as per Ex.P3 was prepared and obtained the signatures of the witnesses.
14. During the cross-examination, PW-1 has stated that, proposal for change of Khata will be processed by the concerned 11 Spl.C.C.33/2012 Revenue Inspector and orders will be passed by the Assistant Revenue Officer. He does not know whether the accused has processed the papers relating to issue of Joint Khata. His oral complaint was reduced into writing in the office of CW-16 with the help of computer. At the time of alleged demand, nobody was with him except, CW4-D.Rajashekar. PW-1 has further stated that he has paid Rs.3,333/- on 19.4.2010 towards tax for the purpose of effecting Joint Khata, and he was under the obligation to pay tax in the month of April 2011. PW-1 has denied the suggestion that the accused has not demanded the bribe amount, but he forcibly thrust the amount in the pant pocket of the accused which was towards balance tax.
15. The prosecution has examined CW2-B.V.Harish Kumar as PW-2. According to the prosecution, PW2-B.V.Harish Kumar is a shadow witness. PW-2 has deposed that, on 17.10.2011 he was secured to the Lokayuktha Police station, to act as witness in the trap. CW3-R.Sharath Kumar was also present along with him. The complainant has produced 6 currency notes denomination of Rs.500/- each, which were smeared with phenolphthalein powder. Before that, the serial numbers of the currency notes were recorded. CW-3 has counted those currency notes and placed it in the left side shirt pocket of the complainant. Both hand fingers of CW-3 were washed in the sodium carbonate solution. The said 12 Spl.C.C.33/2012 solution turned to pink colour. He was instructed to follow the complainant while he was going to the office of the accused to give the money and to observe what transpires between the complainant & the accused. PW-2 has further deposed that, CW-4 spoke to the accused over phone. He was informed by the accused to come to the BBMP office near Dasappa Hospital. They proceeded to the said office. PW-2 has further deposed that complainant & CW-4 proceeded to the office of the accused. He followed them. Complainant & CW-4 were talking with the accused. He was watching them at the distance of 50-100 feet. He could not overhear the conversation between the complainant, accused & CW-4. He saw the complainant giving money to the accused, who in turn received it with his right hand, counted and kept it in his right side pant pocket. The complainant gave pre-instructed signal. Immediately, Lokayuktha Inspector rushed to the spot and apprehended the accused. Both the hand fingers of the accused were washed in sodium carbonate solution, the said solution turned to pink colour. He removed the tainted currency notes from the right side pant pocket of the accused and the said currency notes were seized. Thereafter, the accused was brought to BBMP office, J.C.Road, wherein the file of the complainant was seized. The accused was brought to the Lokayuktha Police station. Pant of the accused was seized. Trap Mahazar was prepared as per Ex.P-3 and obtained his signature. The accused gave an explanation in writing about he being in possession of money as per Ex.P4.
13 Spl.C.C.33/2012
16. During the cross-examination, PW-2 has stated that he did not accompany the complainant when he approached the accused but he was standing at a distance of 60 ft. away from the complainant & the accused. He has further stated that first the tainted currency notes were recovered from the accused and thereafter, hand wash of the accused was taken. He has further stated that he has not dictated the contents of Trap mahazar.
17. The prosecution has examined CW3-R.Sharath Kumar as PW-3. PW-3 is co-panch witness. PW-3 has deposed that, on 17.10.2011, he along with PW-2 appeared before CW-16. He was requested to assist as witness in the trap. Complainant produced 6 currency notes denomination of Rs.500/- each. The said currency notes were smeared with phenolphthalein powder. He counted the tainted currency notes and placed it in the left side pocket of the complainant. CW-16 has explained the chemical reaction when the sodium carbonate solution comes into contact with phenolphthalein powder. Thereafter, both the hand fingers were washed in the sodium carbonate solution, which turned to pink colour. The Voice Recorder was played in his presence and transcript into writing. Pre-Trap Mahazar was prepared as per Ex.P-2. Thereafter, they left for BBMP office, J.C.Road. When CW-4 contacted the accused over phone, he was informed to meet in the BBMP office situated in the premises of Maternity Hospital. Accordingly, they proceeded to 14 Spl.C.C.33/2012 the said place. PWs-1 & 2 and CW-4 proceeded to the BBMP office in the premises of Maternity Hospital. He along with CW-16 & his staff were standing at some distance from the BBMP office. Then 5-10 minutes thereafter, PW-1 gave pre-instructed signal. Immediately, they rushed to the spot. On seeing them, the accused attempted to take out tainted currency notes from right side pocket of his pant. Both hand fingers of the accused were washed in the sodium carbonate solution. The right hand wash of the accused turned to pink colour. The left hand wash has not turned to any colour. The tainted currency notes were recovered from the accused through CW-4. The accused was brought to BBMP office, J.C.Road, wherein Attendance Register & the documents relating to the complainant were seized. The pant of the accused was seized. The contents of the camera were converted to CD & transcript into writing. CW-5 identified the voice of the accused recorded in the CD. The accused gave written explanation as per Ex.P-4. All the seized articles were sealed with Metal Seal and handed over to him. Trap Mahazar was prepared as per Ex.P-3 and obtained their signatures.
18. During the cross-examination, PW-3 has stated that, on the day of trap, he saw the accused from a distance of 200ft. He has not seen the accused receiving tainted currency notes from PW-1. PW-3 has further stated that he has not dictated the contents of Trap Mahazar.
15 Spl.C.C.33/2012
19. The prosecution has examined CW-10- M.K.Shankarelingegowda, the then Commissioner of BBMP as PW-4. PW-4 is the Sanctioning Authority. PW-4 has deposed that, after verifying the records and satisfying himself about the existence of prima facie case, has accorded sanction to prosecute the accused. The Sanction Order dated 27.01.2012 is produced and marked as Ex.P-8.
20. During the cross-examination, PW-4 has stated that Assistant Revenue Officer is the Authority empowered to effect Joint Khata. The records maintained by BBMP office pertaining to PW-1 were not placed before him. Compact Disc was not placed before him along with the records.
21. The prosecution has examined CW-4-D.Rajashekar as PW-5. According to the prosecution, PW-5 was present all along with the complainant right from the time of filing of complaint till the accused was trapped and witnessed the incident. PW-5 has deposed that, he came to know that since the accused had not attended the work of the complainant in the matter of making Joint Khata, complaint was lodged in Lokayuktha Police Wing. About 4-5 days thereafter, he went to the office of the accused at about 3.00 p.m., wherein he found the accused in front of his office. The 16 Spl.C.C.33/2012 accused asked PW-1 to pay the balance amount towards tax. PW-1 placed the cash of Rs.3,000/- in the right side pant pocket of the accused. Thereafter, the accused was trapped by the Lokayuktha Police, and the amount was recovered.
22. PW-5 has turned hostile. He has not supported the prosecution case. The learned Spl.P.P. cross-examined PW-5 at length. But nothing useful to the case of the prosecution is forthcoming during the course of cross-examination.
23. During the cross-examination on behalf of the accused, PW-5 has stated that, as per the request of the complainant, on 18.10.2011, he went to the BBMP Office, J.C.Road. The complainant took him to first floor of the building to see the accused and thereafter to Dasappa Hospital compound. When the complainant asked the accused about his work, the accused told him that he has already put up the file and sent it to his higher authorities. PW-5 has further deposed that, the complainant has given Rs.3,000/- to the accused towards balance tax. The complainant forcibly placed the currency notes in the right side pant pocket of the accused and when he tried to remove it from his right hand, by that time, Lokayuktha Police rushed to the spot and apprehended him. PW-5 has further stated that before trap, two 17 Spl.C.C.33/2012 times he heard the complainant talking with the accused on his mobile about the balance amount of tax.
24. The prosecution has examined CW-16- Sanjeevarayappa T. as PW-6. PW-6 is the Investigating Officer. PW-6 has deposed about registering of FIR, drawing of Entrustment Mahazar, laying of trap, resultant hand wash of accused turning to pink colour, recovery of currency notes of Rs.3,000/- from accused, playing of Digital Voice Recorder and Button Camera containing the conversation/scene, converting into CD and transcript into writing, identification of voice of accused through CW-5, recording of statement of witnesses, incorporating material substance of the statements of witnesses in the Trap Mahazar, collecting service particulars of accused, receipt of Chemical Examination Report, obtaining spot sketch & receiving Sanction Order from the Competent Authority to prosecute the accused, etc.
25. During the course of cross-examination, PW-6 has stated that, his investigation reveals that on 13.7.2011, A.R.O., BBMP has issued an endorsement to the complainant to submit copy of the Tax paid receipt. He does not know that as on the date of the trap, the complainant has not paid upto date tax in respect of the property which he sought for change of khata. His investigation further reveals that on 17.9.2011, the accused submitted a Note to 18 Spl.C.C.33/2012 the A.R.O with a proposal to make Joint Khata in the name of the complainant & his son. A.R.O is the Competent Authority and empowered to make an Order for change of Khata/Joint Khata.
26. It is well settled that demand of illegal gratification by the accused, and acceptance of the same, is sine-qua-non for constituting the offences u/s 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. The prosecution is required to prove that, there was demand and acceptance of bribe to bring home the guilt of the accused. The prosecution is also required to prove that, the work of the complainant was pending with the accused as on the date of the Trap and the accused was the Competent Authority to do an official favour to the complainant. The burden to prove the accusation for the offences punishable under Sections 7, 13(1)(b) r/w 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act,1988 with regard to demand and acceptance of illegal gratification by the accused from the complainant to do an official favour, lies on the prosecution.
27. According to PW-1, his friend-Rajashekar was with him at the time of alleged demand by the accused. But the evidence of PW-5-Rajashekar reveals that, the accused demanded the complainant to pay the balance tax amount and not the bribe amount. The next evidence relied on by the prosecution to prove the theory of demand is of the shadow witness-B.V.Harish Kumar-
19 Spl.C.C.33/2012 PW2. But his evidence reveals that, he did not accompany the complainant when he approached the accused and he was standing at the distance of 60 feet away from the complainant, he did not overhear the conversation between the complainant & the accused. Absolutely there is no independent corroboration to prove the theory of demand & acceptance of bribe. It is well settled that mere recovery of tainted money and positive result of phenolphthalein test is not sufficient to establish the guilt of the accused, unless there is corroboration of testimony of complainant regarding demand and acceptance of bribe by the accused. Under the circumstances, only on the basis of interested testimony of PW-1-complainant, it is not safe to base conviction.
28. In the present case, the official favour sought for is issue of Joint Khata in the name of the complainant & his son in respect of the site No.45 situated at Chowlagalli, Cubbonpet, Bangalore. The evidence of PW4-Sanctioning Authority reveals that, the Assistant Revenue Officer is the Competent Authority and empowered to make an order for change of Khata/Joint Khata. The evidence on record reveals that on 17.9.2011 i.e, one month prior to date of trap, the accused submitted a Note to the A.R.O with a proposal to make Joint Khata in the name of the complainant & his son. Further it is relevant to note that at the time of trap, the file pertaining to the complainant (Ex.P10) was with the A.R.O. and it 20 Spl.C.C.33/2012 was seized from the custody of A.R.O. Since the accused had no authority or empowered to issue Joint Khata or to process the file, the question of demand of illegal gratification by the accused and acceptance of the same for issue of Joint Khata, is legally & factually does not arise.
29. It is well settled that electronic record like CD, VCD, Pen- drive, etc. which contains the statement and which is sought to be given as secondary evidence, has to be accompanied by a certificate as specified in Sec.65-B(4) of the Indian Evidence Act. In the absence of such certificate, secondary evidence of electronic record cannot be admitted in evidence. This view of mine, is supported by the decision of Supreme Court in the case of Anwar P.V. -v- P.K.Basheer and others; (2014) 10 Supreme Court Cases 473.
30. In the present case, MOs-4 & 11 are the CDs said to have contained the conversation, MOs-5 & 12 are the CDs containing the video-graph of Pre-Trap Mahazar & Trap Mahazar which is sought to be given as secondary evidence are not accompanied by a certificate as specified in Sec.65-B(4) of the Indian Evidence Act. In the absence of such certificate, these material objects cannot be admitted in evidence. Further, the Investigating Officer has not collected the sample voice of the 21 Spl.C.C.33/2012 accused and sent it to Forensic Science Laboratory for Voice Analysis Test. On this ground also, MOs-4 & 11 are not admissible in evidence.
31. The evidence on record reveals that, the complainant- PW1 was under the obligation to pay the tax for the year 2011 before effecting Joint Khata. Even the evidence of PW5- Rajashekar also reveals that, the amount paid by the complainant to the accused was towards tax and not as bribe. Further the evidence of PW-5 reveals that the complainant voluntarily put the tainted currency notes in the pant pocket of the accused and when the accused tried to remove it, by that time, Lokayuktha Police rushed to the spot and apprehended him. In the present case, the essential ingredients of demand & acceptance of bribe in order to attract Sec.7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act,1988, is lacking. Further the accused was not the Competent Authority to do an official favour in the matter of making Joint Khata in respect of the site. Under the circumstances, the allegation of demand & acceptance of bribe and recovery of the amount from the accused must be viewed with suspicion. When there is doubt regarding prosecution case, the benefit of doubt should be given to the accused.
22 Spl.C.C.33/2012
32. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Mukhtiar Singh (since deceased) through his L.R, -v- State of Punjab; 2017 SCC Online SC 742 held that:
"Public Accountability and Prevention of Corruption- Illegal gratification- Demand and acceptance- Proof- Trap- Stray query by accused whether money had been brought or not, can by no means constitute -"demand", unless there is corroborative and cogent evidence."
33. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of N.Sunkanna -v- State of Andhra Pradhesh; (2016) 1 SCC 713, held that:
"It is only on proof of acceptance of illegal gratification that presumption can be drawn under S.20 of the Act that such gratification was received for doing or forbearing to do any official act- Unless there is proof of demand of illegal gratification, proof of acceptance will not follow- Primary facts on basis of which legal presumption under S.20 can be drawn, are wholly absent."
(The Hon'ble Supreme Court was pleased to set aside the Conviction and sentence)
34. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of P.Satyanarayana Murthy -v- District Inspector of Police, State 23 Spl.C.C.33/2012 of Andhra Pradesh; (2015) 10 Supreme Court Cases 152, held that:
"Mere acceptance of any amount allegedly by way of illegal gratification or recovery thereof, dehors the proof of demand, ipso facto, reiterated, would not be sufficient to bring home the charge under Ss.7 and 13 of 1988 Act."
(The Hon'ble Supreme Court was pleased to reverse the Conviction Judgment.)
35. Keeping in view the ratio laid down in the aforesaid decisions, I have come to the conclusion that the prosecution has failed to prove the demand and acceptance of bribe by the accused beyond reasonable doubt and thus, vitally essential ingredient of the offence both under Ss.7 & 13 of the Act being conspicuously absent. Therefore, I am holding that it would be wholly unsafe to convict the accused under Ss.7, 13(1)(d) r/w 13(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act,1988. In view of the above discussions, I answer Point No.1 & 2 in the Negative and proceed to pass the following:
ORDER The accused is acquitted under section 235(1) of Cr.P.C. of the offence punishable under Ss. 7, 13 (1) (d) r/w 13 (2) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and set at liberty.
24 Spl.C.C.33/2012 Bail bond executed by the accused stands cancelled.
MO 1- Metal Seal shall be handed over to the Karnataka Lokayuktha Police.
MO-9- Currency notes are ordered to be confiscated to the State after expiry of appeal period.
Mos-2 to 12 being worthless are ordered to be destroyed after the appeal period is over.
(Dictated to the judgment writer directly on the computer, after transcription, corrected by me and then pronounced by me in the open court on this the 6th day of October 2017) (SHRIDEVI S. ANGADI) LXXVI Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge & Special Judge,Bengaluru (CCH-77) ANNEXURE List of witnesses examined on behalf of the prosecution:
PW1 Chindi Venkatesh
PW2 B.V.Harish Kumar
PW3 R.Sharath Kumar
PW4 M.K.Shankaralinge Gowda
PW5 D.Rajashekar
PW6 Sanjeevarayappa T.
25 Spl.C.C.33/2012
List of documents marked on behalf of prosecution:
Ex.P.1 Complaint
Ex.P.1(a) & (b) Signatures of PW1
Ex.P.1(c) Signature of PW6
Ex.P.2 Pre-Trap Mahazar
Ex.P.2(a) Signature of PW1
Ex.P.2(b) to (g) Signature of PW2
Ex.P.2(h) to (m) Signature of PW3
Ex.P2(n) Signature of PW6
Ex.P.3 Trap Mahazar
Ex.P.3(a) Signature of PW1
Ex.P.3(b) to (j) Signature of PW4
Ex.P.4 Written information by the accused
Ex.P.4(a) Signature of PW1
Ex.P.4(b) Signature of PW2
Ex.P.4(c) Signature of PW3
Ex.P.5 Currency notes sheet
Ex.P.5(a) & (b) Signature of PW2
Ex.P.5(c) & (d) Signature of PW3
Ex.P.5(e) Signature of PW6
Ex.P.6 Voice Recorder transcription
Ex.P.6(a) to (c) Signature of PW3
Ex.P.6(d) Signature of PW6
Ex.P.7 Button Camera data transcription
Signature of PW3
Ex.P.7(a)
Ex.P.8 Sanction Order
Ex.P.8(a) Signature of PW4
Ex.P.9 Portion of statement of PW4
Ex.P.10 Documents seized from BBMP
office
Ex.P.11 Report
Ex.P.12 Spot sketch
Ex.P.13 Acknowledgment
26 Spl.C.C.33/2012
Ex.P.14 Sample seal
Ex.P.15 Chemical Examination Report
Ex.P.16 Spot sketch
List of material objects marked on behalf of the prosecution:
MO.1 Metal seal MO.2 Sample solution Article 1 MO.3 Hand wash solution of CW3 Article 2 MO.4 & 5 CD Article 3 & 4 MO.6 Sample solution Article 5 MO.7 Right hand wash solution Article 6 of accused MO.8 Left hand wash solution Article 7 of accused MO.9 Currency notes -denomination of Article 8 Rs.500/- x 6= Rs.3,000/- MO.10 Pant of accused Article 9 MO.11 & 12 CD Article 10,11
List of witnesses examined on behalf of the accused:
-Nil-
List of documents marked on behalf of the accused:
-Nil-
(SHRIDEVI S. ANGADI) LXXVI Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge & Special Judge,Bengaluru (CCH-77) 27 Spl.C.C.33/2012