Karnataka High Court
State By Lokayukta Police vs V Venkatesh S/O Venkataswamy, on 7 March, 2012
Author: V.Jagannathan
Bench: V.Jagannathan
the prosecution was successful which is reflected in
Ex.P4 the trap mahazar. Ex.P9 is the sanction"-,order
obtained before filing of the charge sheet.
the accused pleaded not guilty.
examined 7 witnesses and produced: '
along with 9 M.Os. The accused astatemenl; 'Twas?
recorded and defence of that, the
money was forciblyy:«thrunstg by the
complainant. Av'MOI'€3Q.\,_/'€3i'_,:--.Vtfi.'1l'3VVA» already done
200 worl; allotments were
cancelled authority. Therefore, the
against the accused and
eVeryt'hi.ngVwas. to trap the accused.
A. On"b'e'ha1f of the accused, Ex.Dl to D3 were
The learned trial judge after evidence
A' appreciation, acquitted the accused on the following
if " E grounds.
The first one is that, the sanction order EX.P9 was
held to be invalid in law because it was not issued by
9%
-/
Government holidays and on those days the
complainant could not have met the accusedvVvlslra.sl~.also
found to be probable by the trial court
higher authorities had cancelled_ a1l'"i.w0rl{»c4
awards given to PW~l and his ;'ass1o_'ciates~_an_:d
when the accused ha(l._V"issued" 200 l'n.a°ward's'
between 3.6.06 and accused
demanding bearing Nos. BR
100 and lO.vl_:also probable one.
Therefore;" took the view that
the the prosecution stood
rebha/fled , for the aforesaid reasons the
accused' Wasv
have heard the learned counsel Sri.
fxorlvldthe appellant and learned counsel Sri.
for the respondent and perused the
" rvcecordls of this case.
8. Learned counsel for the appellant took me
'uthrough the evidence of the material witnesses PW-l
the complainant, PW~3 the shadow Witness and PW-4
9»
z//"
the investigating officer and argued that the trial court
was not justified in acquitting the accused the
hand wash of the accused had turned
solution into pink colour. The notes the p
pocket of the accused and as soony1as,.thle"- l
police came, the notes were throvvn vori.'vVtii§¢.,4_tVablle
were picked up by PW--3 evidence of
the prosecution unotvfl'p1'operly appreciated
by the trial court andas. be set aside.
9. 'learned counsel for the
vdnce the sanction order is
heldlto be whole trial gets Vitiated and
the acquitted the accused. Even
c_{:r_41'7<rr)_e.rit,_s alslo;'v---the view taken by the trial court is a
V =p.os_sib:le :vie:W'«.and the learned trial judge has considered
the evr_1tire:_ evidence in proper perspective by analysing
the " evidence of the material witnesses and found no
if '.c_o:'r,roboration between PW-l and PW--3 on the one
hand, and PW--3 and PW--7 the investigating officer on
the other hand. Therefore, the View taken being a
92
possible view, interference of this court in appeal
against the order of acquittal is not called for.
10. Having thus heard both
considering the material on record, in .iny'vi'eW',"V.the trial .p
court has rightly held
rebutted and it has con_si~dered'v~ of the
material witnesses sanction
order itself was issued by the
competent alone, the trial
gets is not liable to be
iI1t€17f€I'€ClT:V'fllltll:.33;: the evidence of PW-1
thatl"--.the'l_ to the accused has been
reb'utteld"--«by"thev._ by placing his defence version
.,y_thelleXpl-anation given by him that the money
V "thrust into his pocket and immediately he
'took money, threw it on the table. PW 4 has
confirmed that the money was found fallen on the
x ground and it was picked up by PW--3. Merely because
the hand wash of the accused turned the chemical
solution into pink colour, that itself will not be sufficient
9:/
to hold that the prosecution has proved the demland.V_and
acceptance of the bribe amount by the
PW-1 was alone in the chambermof the .
3 was found outside the chamber ..an'cl._c'o_uld" nQt°1See
what transpired between "the if the
accused, the evidence .pth:eréfOr€_H_1'W4g;eé carefully
examined by the of the other
evidence on record. theory that the
money of the accused
appears. tobe a probable o'ne,....
trial court has also found
that even the panchanama Ex.P4 was not drawn at the
it said to have been drawn. Though the
that it was drawn on 15.6.06
b"e--tW€:en'v:4.45 and 6.45 p.m in the chamber of the
is accused, the evidence of PW--1 is that, EX.P4 the trap
l7.:p'anchanama was drawn at the police station. This also
"gives rise to doubt the authenticity of the investigation.
Therefore, the trial court took the view that the whole
trap was a preplanned one at the behest of the
%~/.
complainant because the accused had refused to do the
subsequent work of allotting the contract to
fact that PW~1 was also found to be a
obtained the Contract i11ega1i_y_is .a'1's0~i:'_e,sta1j'1isi1f3Ci; p
inasmuch as, the work a11ot.ted::"'t0i' .
cancelled.
12. Thus, OvI.1__the 'the inateriaiii on record
had led the trial that it is a fit
case for being a possible
view, this interfere in appeal
against' the 'of'ac'quittai';" V
the ab<5".fe the appeal is dismissed.
.....
JUDGE D"vr: i