K N Manjunath S/O Nanjappa vs State Of Karnataka on 1 December, 2008

[Cites 2, Cited by 3]

Karnataka High Court

K N Manjunath S/O Nanjappa vs State Of Karnataka on 1 December, 2008

Bench: H N Nagamohan Das

E

 TEE HIGH CGURT {BF KARNATAKA AT BA1\§G:5'L-ORE

DATED THIS "mg 1" DAX' 01: DE(Z'ENmEIL 2003
BEFGRE

THE HO}€'BLE MR. JUSTICE  NASA}:-i0HAN DAS   =  

CREEENAL  K0. 191S!20€}2
BETWEEN 2

Sri. K. N. 'E'v£A}€}L?NATI~1

3:0. NMJAPPA

ASST. ENEf$()NE*.-ENT OFFICER V
KARNATAKA S'1"A"I'E POLLUTIDN  -
CONIROL BOARQ

RU. BUH,,DL\?G

M.G.RQAD  _»   
BANGALCJRE. '    3- V ." "  ';*.sPPELLA3\-?'1"
(BYS1i.C.H.JADI~IA\?_.AD\'.)  <  " '

AND :

n----c--------

STATE: QF K5\.R3<§'é'LTA.'§A'._ , 
BY DEPUJI  SLTPERE-N?I'E}s*DE';V"f

V  ':31?' 901.1165, 13L:a_EAU Q1?' .13s«.?.1z2::s"£1GA1'I<3:~':

g1<.A1«:zs:A.':'.:x1<;;:;ALc}::;;x'yUKm
:::1'*£V.1:;wzV;s1?:32x:%   ._
BANG.e£},OP.E " " , 

  REP. B'z"1$TA'1*E"_?L*BL1c PROSECL?TOR_
' , '*-V' ' = EEGH {5QURT~ BULLQHG
 BANGAI_§ORE,~-- 1;  RESPONDENI'

  mg. G;'R9.;ENDRA Rmm: SPF')

T   ms cﬂmﬂzxm. APPEAL IS mm mmga SECTIOZN1' 374

  '   Cmc. AGAINST um mmmwr DATEE 23.19.2092 PASSED BY

  SPECIAL SLEDGE? BAEQGALORE URBAN  RURAL DIST}
IN SF*L,C.C* N0. i72:"19'99 AND ETC.

01*"



F)

THIS  APPEAL COMEQG ON FOR  THIS
DAY, TEE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLGWING;

J U11 Gs'!/:'}:72\«'}'"

This appeai is directed agahtst the judgment of CGnVi€; Ef€)ﬂ   ' 

23.10.2332

in special c.c. Ne. 17251999 pass+_:;d..b3;_the_'5'§j§té¢iat;i'.';v§tttigt:;aV Bangalare urban and rural districts Bangalare airy. T A

2. The appeliant is the accused and 19é;§p cénd§-Hit is"the C<>:mp£é;i1:ant before: the Special Cam. in this jixci§;:ant,--'_Vfez;-- =:,éz12~ri_e_:t1'%:'1s:.;e_, the partiag are referred to their status befqre the Tzfiai %:E:O.i,11"f. __V '

3. P.W.2 entézﬁd agtfegtriaglt vs_:§1£j; State Peilution Contra! BeardV('tkié'AB'e?§;d'_AftS§ sh9t'i)..to pmdttte two short documentaries an Maximum If:i1isatidn'of 1Water and Rapid Industrial Gmwtlx, its effect on enviroﬁiziextt axtd=sté§3_s to; "be takén by industries far its effects p91luti#§ﬁl~ cf tité the Board has ageed to pay a sum ef the thne ef agaement the Boaré has gait! sf" as advance. On 25.{)3tI998 P.§¥.2 ccmpieted ﬁlm attcl. i'l€tI1t{%'.td ever the cassettas :9 the Beard, Th: Oiﬁcers §oﬁ¢etﬁed"«it1 the Beard pwviewed the twe films and suggested minor ahéagé;-3. éﬂccsréinglyr P.W.2 earriad mt the minor changes suggesteci by ' £136: Btjard and re--presr3nted the cassettes with a hill for the baiamte 50% éttzount. Aceerciing to P.W.2 the ﬁle was with accused No. 1. Since April, 1998 ?.\3/".2 was éraznanciing accused ';\§z3. 1 to precess the ﬁle and to make cw 3 E116 payment but he went on pestgmnizzg the same fer sue reasen at other. Finally on 36.06.1998 aceuged No. 1 demzmcfed Rs.20,{}00f~ frem P.W,2 te process and put 12;} the ﬁk: as bribe. P.W.2 axpressed his inabﬁlity to pay thenbribe aznmmt as éemanded by am:-used N0. 1. Family accused negﬁfiated and settled the bribe amazmnt at Rs.15,!)(}Of~. Since__P§V--1¥'. j"

not interested in paying the bribe amount ta accused No. L he the Laka Ayuktha poiice and gave a complaiﬁt £133' 'V j_ Gffances punishabla under Section 13(i)_(d) of Pf§§'¢ﬁtion Cerruptiun Act ('tbs Act' for shert). Accér:ii:§tg1y'the'VL=:{¥:a organised a trap on the accused en 30.06.1998;-.At abgut 25%}. thé Leka Ayukﬂxa police: cenducted the trapfin thé: ac§;u:§eé._U!las Hotel situatad in first ﬂoor of Iftility Building, this trap the hands of acc€;sed__ E~3e ."iT::né'accuséti...§a. .2 turned pink in col-aur W'h¥3I1 their hands aré wgzésized' in VSc.:'c1iz:r£i'-..C£1fB9nate saluticm. The police 315::

seized the; t3'i;1,t§:d c~£1x*re,:g¢'§""fr<3ﬁ1 iixe ﬂoor of the hotel building. After :'V'.i;t:»;es:ig.}".:fi1:).r: ielga A}»*:ﬁ;'i§ia police ﬁled charga sheet against the ac%iL:s;s.=::{:._T"£'§£>;T's,.. the offences punishabie under Section i3(1}(<;1) '§£ﬂd 13{3}__ cf sf Cerrugtion Act befare the Special Couit in

-. 1'?.Z!_1.999. Befere the Special C'-eurt the prosec-utien examined 'P.V§€:;.A1'vtg P§",'EX:'.1G and get marked Ex.P.1 ta Ex.P.28 and 34.0.1 te Evi{.O.11. "-111 £116 hoarse of cmss-e:»;aminati0n sf prasecution witnesses accused got fﬁarieed E33,} $9 EX.D,3. The Special Caurf framed the foilewing paints for its censideraiien and determinatistm.

'y'LV.x\.

Whether the presecution pmves be}-'end reasonable doubt that the Accuseé No.1, being public servant, While werkiug as Assistant Envirenrnent Crﬁeer, in Karnataka Sta__te Pollution Centroi Beard, RU. Building, MG.

Bangalozte, on 36.06.1998 demanded and ac_<tr:3§t'eti' --'= iilegai gratiﬁcation of Rs.1S,Q§}0s'- frcrry w .4 Raghavendra S39 Ahebalappa as éaA_motiveA (Far fewa;d;~-fcir£iae_ ;, e purpose 0)? showing an offieigl fav"£5v1f; tc the for releasing the amount taV'tWe'_VV:deeun;e§ntary' ﬁims per£ain2'ng te» :.,'eC--;§1;sed {hereby A}. has committed any Prevention 0f conup::en"£<g§i; ::9:§__8? § 1Vi:e:¥1er'tE1e.«.pfGsecu§£én.. proves beyond reasonable dézgbi zfeas'0z1;éfh'%e"d%:§ii'aet:V" tiiet A1, being pubiie servant, by ' ~ meaneof ecarriépt (Sr iilegai means or by otherwise abusing . ihis ﬁe-aﬁition aéwa public servant, 0b£a'med a pecuniazy ' Rs.15,0{)G:'- from the cemplainant, C.f\¥I, on 958 at about 2.35 pm. in Uilas Restaurante in Public " Building and thereby committed an offence under Sec.13(1)(d) punishable under Se<:.13(2) ef Pi'6Vﬁ§lEii£)B ef Cotruptien Act, 1988?

Whether the preseeutien ﬁiﬁher proves that A2, being 3 pubiic servant working as Assistant Enviremnent Gﬁcer 5 | 5 (C.ontrac:t Basis} in Karnatatka State: Peiiution Control Board, RU. ﬁuilding, M.G. Road, Bangalera, on 30.36.1998 at about 2.35 pm. krwwing fully welt that 31 has received an amount of Rs.15,£}£)()s'- from CW1 as iligegiaf. gratificatiqn to shew an oﬁicial favour in faveur Qf A. in order to faciiitate the cummissicn ﬁf {ﬁance i;lyﬁ."iAf.;'t$1i'. Manjunatil, A2 ygceived ﬁts: said amount _~cf"1?{s;.3'_$,0{30g;:

AI and wanted the same aizd iigépt l2'i,~3._p'o§'ket'é1::§§ii-..¢ Tr ' thereby A1 abated the offetgc-e u.%'1;«;,_?' and of 3 Prevention cf Cczmzption z5gi;t.V:V"'i988 a:1d._th::;<e:?;=3= committed an eﬂbn-:::e ufs. V35.-'?;--:>f 'P1'év¢ntiou "(5fviZI.o11='.iption Act,1988'E' t , V IV. VK_¥¥'11ctherV ti?;:"E.§1ict§é1:.§£d5r'sbtained in this case against the zzctrtzsed pefS*9n§ :«ali'd and proper'?

\»-"V.__%:' 'V '3f11at0t&x31f_':._?VVV' V. A fit; aﬁer hearing argtnnernts on botii the Sidﬁ and 90:1 appreuiatiegi' 'cf the entire material. an retard passed the iitlpiiﬁléd " " 'T cotxtiﬁting the accused No. 1 fer the 9ﬂ%nces pttnishahle under Setftitsn' -1' 13 (1)31) of I216 Act. Further accused NQ2 saints to: be Aﬁer hearing accused N0. 1, the Speciai Caurt passed an Ofdﬁf trf sentence sentencing the: ascuseci N0. 1 to undergo simpie imprisonment " fer two years and to pay a fine of R3.2,{}OO!~ fat the offences purnishable dvm under Section 'I and the same sentence in respect of oﬁeoces punt:-ghabie under Section 13(2) of the Act, Hence this appeai by accuseé No. 1.

5. Sri. Jadhtw, teamed counsei for the accused No. 1 contencl3«~t¥i3t4»t'-..

as on the date of trap the tile was not pending with accused No, -1- there was no occasion for him to extend any officiai favo?;1i*'in --.'f:avoi1:<cofA ' complainant m~ P.W.2. It is contended that there no-emﬁtlcticc "to.'c'sta'bti;s-h_ .' the demand and acceptance of ozibe by.»ac-cased "1. The.»et1e.eo_ce . P.W.2 is an interested testimony and the sa{t:3e_'is not coﬁ*obcrated by any other evidence on record. Even the. "recon-=.'er3{_o;Aft"izr;';:teti*-- x2.1iIT€7I1C};'A notes are not ﬁom the accused No, 1 but the ﬂooif ofailie' ~f1_'ote.'t buiicﬁng. He further contends that the 'police wile'Esmeafeci.";:~h.c;1oIphthalein oowder are the persoizc who cV;zVo:gI:tattold7of_ecco_sed No. I and thereby the hands of accused No. I ze1,sw*erec1"wsociﬁ1:.:1 'catiiooate solution on account of that contact. "31:«.ccia1V}'tz(1g§e'i¥§rithout properly appreciating the evidence on V' Itccoici .coiomitted. error tn passing the impugned judgment convicting accueedﬂol 1: pieced on the following judgments.

\;.'i.5¢11'1<ea Sobbarao Vs. State, zoo'; (1)KLJ 227 kg;

.--~ Morena Balwant Hemke Vs, State of Maharashtra, AIR so 337?

tt 3. State of Kemataka Vs. Kit. Hanumentitaialt, 2086 {3} KCCR Olvvk 1445 accused N0. I --« Manjunath to bring the file pertaining to the cemelainant. Accused No. I brought the file and told me that the documentary film submitted by P.W.'.?, requires S . some modiﬁcatiens. Then I called one Mr. Raju Whe L' then Deputy Environrnental Gfﬁcer £1; ear oﬁice attached . "tt to Chairman Section. He tcld me that had7éli"e"3df;r':V. "

rectified the mistake and suizxnitted the $336 eastsiettets,' t' I instruc-ted accused 1%.} that tiyebiil e};ott1£i_ be " ° Vt . within 24 hears and he sheuld plé1ee__:fiieMf11e Eefere me'-.gnd.;""

I atse asked P.W.2 ta came to our eﬁfzee three. _ctays. E Thereafter I also 'xz'ieWe{i'£1_teV~eass-iittes euhrnitted. by P.W.2A and feund themin order." ' V t t _ .

9. This evidence cf }E§.X¥.é'a'"1'et1xaiVt;:ed'uﬁehaﬂenged; This evidence of P.W.4 mattifestly the L'-fggct .;§1.':ft {in date ef tray anal itzuneéiately i2tio{_t<3 - E. teas.' incharge cf the file reiating to PIIWIE2 and it em in his'veﬁs'tet§3e"'1'tterefore the first eentention ef the accused is Iiabte to be rejeeted. '-

g V " ' Se§e:idfy'*leamed eounsei for the as:-c-useei contends that except theAtt1te£.6etet£~vtesv£t:i1OIAi3'. P.W.2 there is no ether evidence an recsrd to "':errobere;te the egtngnd anci acceptance of illegal gatiﬁeation by the

4. jgjaceiiseci Ne.";.,f£4em P.W.2. P.w.2 is the cempiainant. As such P.W,2 is anv'iit§e:e»sted Wimﬁﬁﬁt It is setﬁeé pesiiion of iaw that it is net eafe to rely ' the testimony ef the cemeiainant witheut there being any eormbemtive 19 evidence. in the instant case P.W.1 «M the shadow witness in his eviéonac doposes as under:

"I could not hear the COI1VBI'S£i'€i0Ii between accuse_d..__"' »V No. 1 and the complainant. Then the complainant remoyotl 'T the amount from his pockat and paid the some to V. ' i No. I. Then he received the amount ﬁomziﬁs -ian--d.__.: '- handed over the amount to accused No. 2.Vwt1-oiiétas siiti; ig~ _ , "

by the side of one Vasu. Accusioo'~--._}z*€o. 2=.rocciver;i'v:

ainount from his right homo and 'sigma coi1i:tiAr_i'g'Vti1e cutrency notes from ho-:h__ of * Theo ' "the'"v complainant stood up f1*ofn'"13is the: pre-

instructed signal tothe Loka;..i3s§u}t<tha--polico:"'. V = "

The; Vqtifestionod the accused poisons 'aﬂoat. c1.ii:'i§:i1cty"':1£):t'as b3? thotitne accused No. 2 had aim; the.o1ii:c%i1:§j?oote3::iiii;dorthe table. Then myself and anothgéfi wiﬁieso ":too§:{' those currency notices. Accosod No"? §ut.d;o3'v1i':hé'citxrcncy notes under the tahie '_ 'loka tt§§!ukth;;__«;3.olice came and caught hold the No. 2. 'We verified the serial numbers of we found them taﬂied with the serial 'é'éi.i;!:i}"I;. f2i}t€dt"

itffn atiditioo to this evidence of P.W.1, there is the evidence of s~ tho Vimtestigating Officer. RW10 in his evidence deooseo as "EVitI1in 3 or 4 minutes two persons came near the table where P. W} and P. W12 were oitting and {hay also sat aw 11 svit.§1 P.W.}. and P.W.2. Later I came :0 knew those two pcrscns by name \«"asu3<i and accused '$30. 2 Santhcsh. About 15 minutes later accused N0. 1 aise came to the said place and he sat to the right side of the ccmpiainanz in same table. The place cf incident was completely visib?-c E0 V akl cf us. The talks that were taking plgcc between b accuccd and thc complainant were also ;;udibi_c tq thc place: "

where we were sitting. The complainant §}€?ﬂ.S:i&.ﬂiiI1g !c'»:1_t:¥l§:. «. V' at that timc.

The complainant cn.quiredVAaccV{,iscd'EsEuc. 1 §a}§<3ut_}:1i§,.:§ wcrk. Then accused Nah 1'-..._;§skcd5_thc;_c-<§rn;3ia.iiiaI1t whether he has tzrcught the mane? tz:u3 :c1i" the complainant r3.¥7*'73:':$§'§~gI_ £'igi;t sidc pant 330$-i<@'i aI1d'gJ&§iE€j same': tc iaccusgii fiﬂiho teak the amount ﬁzim higilcft tiansfe1Tcd"'ﬂ1c same to his rightﬂhangi. ai:c:c.cg.afeccrhcjs;aid_% amaunt to the hands cf accused. ?:~Ec_. 2 "A_c<':uscd No. 2 startcci ccunting thc said afrzcgzni. $hat.tii:t:c, {he complainant gave the garc- iigsitlicfcd sigma} IQ £13." V « Ti{Li%"c»%i:c§c.t_1cc cf P.W.1 and P.W.19 is suﬂicicnt £0 corroborate ﬂzé.§§.'s§ﬁ2.,--:"Mcrci§* bccaucc the shadow wimcss M P.Xk-7.} dcpescstilat fact heard the conversation bctwccn the complainant ?

W " ' P'..'$¥.Z and cccaccd N0. 1, it caxmct be said that thczfc is no ccrroborativc A "c"agi§cncc _f§:§s;' demand sf ﬂicgai gatification by the accused N0. 1 from "P E2}. in idcnticai circumstances the Supremc Court in the case cf State "J5. Zakauliah, AIR 1998 SC 14%» hcid as unécr:

0'*W' "14. The twe remaining reasens ta. nobedy averheard tha demand made: by the respondsznt fer bribe and that the amount was found not in the tight pocket but _ only in the teft packet, are fiippant gnunés which shou1:f'.;«~~-. ' ' never have merited consideratien. It is disquieting that teamed single judge has chosen to advan_ce..st1ch untéttablé-:1» reasoning tn find fault with the evidence PWST 4' supported by witnesses like PW-'4~I)_SP." l' L " "

13. Again the Supreme Court in th§4:'t«is::§z'se cf H3241:

Stata (Deihi Aetmng, AIR 1980 3C~3_73 h1eiltlll3S'ttttd:%i":t'.._' "8. After éxitltldiilgliIlf§§fi€V321lf7£'t§&i*3t'i2il_ '=z§e"'are left with thélllévidgzzitice lhtharlof P.W.4 whese evicieﬁiea \'i't3t'i'{}?}i(il.l'c1l7§:."6._A:t)l.i2¥,l'V?~.'W.3 'at several material particul2ifs._ ltéllsay that the evidence 0f P.W._8_ is entirely kind them is :10 need to seek a1_13;"~;.:.c<3:1ji'{;i>§:ratitsi21" «W¢__' are net prepared to accept the it ttf Frank Anthony that he is the very Pelice trap slmuld be gufficient for us ta insist cortoligrzttien. We do: wish tit 53:: that there is no rule of éthich has crystallized into 3. rule. ef law; not nitidee.§:1'v._s,i13z rule of prudence, which requires that the:

of such oﬂicers should be treated an the same as evidenee ef accomglices and there should be Vittsistence an coirebaratien. In the facts and cirottmstanees of a «particular case 3 Ccurt may be éisinclined ta act tiger: the evidence of such an oﬁicer without ceircbaratien, but, ecgualiy, 'm tha facts and circumstances of ancther case, the a\v\)!\ "N46, 13 Court may unhcsitatingly act:-cot thc evidence of such an ofﬁccr. It is ail a matter of appreciation of evidence and on such matters there can be no hard and fast mic, nor can there be any preccdcntial guidance. We are forced to sa}:...._'''» 2 this because of late We have come across sevcrai judgnczits' of Courts of Sessions and sometimes €'V€1J'lM§)f , where reference is made to decisions of Coast": " matters of appreciation of cvidcncc and tie.cisioiis of ii)t2tc'~ . question of fact. While on the si£b__icct.. of a;Ai1.~rccistici§_vo'A£:._"'~v-- evidence we may also refer to an of Shzti Anthony based on the ot§sc1jvation's"of.:';t Icsrncd siiigtc Judge in Kharaiti Lal Vs. The 'State; _i:A;,i%.d§[v5) ijieiijiigr 362 that persons holding clc1icai~--;:osts~ sndA«t1ie"iik_s s§io'uid not be cailcd as paiiciiisﬁitncsscs, siuchi ssitiicssésfcould not realiy be cgslicda. as thcy would always if the}; did not support the do not think we can accept ihc *subxnissiofit._»iiof Frank Anthony. The respectability-..Viai1dV 'tiicA'.y9ci;3s.iity of a witness is not necssssrily dcpahdciityupaiu his status in life sad we are not " .pi"c'psrééi'Ato"i'ss}F ttxatviiiftcrizs are lcss truthful and more i V'Va:i1cns§~I.¢'tiis:t tliciz' superior oﬁiccrs." t&~'t..""It1. sics2'ci% the law' declared by the Apes: Court in the decisions suﬁis sad in thc light to evidence of 1=>.w.i - the shadow siié;P.W .19 ~« the Investigation oﬁiccr it cannot be said that the VT of the compiainant ~ P.W.2 is not corroborated. Tltcreforc I it 9' iiécliiis to accept tits contention of this accused that the evidence of P.W.2 is not corroborated by other cvidcncc on record. O1 LFu'\--«' E41

15. Third13*Eeamed counsei for the accused centends that tha Loiia Ayuktha palice whe smeared gahenolphthaleira powder to the curren;--;"§:._» notices at the firm 0f preyaring far the trap are the very same persqnéi--3§:i;$5L:' - ..

eaught bald cf the hands of accused No. I at the time: ef trap the hands sf accused No, I are contacted with the phe;:.oiph';;!1al_é§1iT géiavwdetj. which uitimately resulted the hand Wash. Again éﬁfztéhtiéin QT " A . i A No. I is unacceptabie to me. P.W.1 in }zis'§:t{{cia1}ce démses as "We ali washed vc2*i:r..V.1aa:1c;1s;V"'ii:--A tha~ };o}§;a efﬁcef' P.w.10inhis egaidéneg degé§é§ 3 ~ "WE _;1H-:j_§£%;;shé'd' uuf ég Strap and water {3efare5:VIeavii_i5g"t;f 3 I,§)in;}av'A}%§ii€f§1a 9ol§cé'stati0n."

16. In éﬂditim: to '3-xgidence, EX.P.20 ~ the Mahazar drawn in the Lek; Ayukthé' ~:&fﬁueVs:2cci1'ies"*£1*Liat before leaving the Laka Ayuktha glam; all wasfﬁezi--their hands. It is not suggestad in the crass- e§{at;'1in:%t:iGa1 cf and P$W.16 that without Washing- hanés they =.._VV._c0nduét~e§{'ii1e Vééicéused No. 1. Iherefsre the evidence cf P.W,1 and H P.W.IQ sﬁéarif Aezgsféfyiish the fact that after completing the preparatian of »»gfe5e:¢m§s they ali washed their hands in the Lolea Ayuktha pelica I 31:5'-:*i<}AA:'1'§ai':ciA tha same is evidenced by mahazar -- EX.P.2{? and thereafter the}; ' ':x;§1.éi:¢ted the trap. Therefore I decline to accem this C-Gﬂtﬁmiﬁfi of the f§ accused that by touching the hands of Loka Ayuktha police otﬁciais the accused came in contact with phenolphthalein oowdet. 1?. Lastly it is contended that the recovery of tainted notes on: not from the accused E0. 1 and that the same was fro_m:._tl'1§e5 ._ 'V' of hotel where tho trao was conducted. The €Vid€1}9€§ of 11'. ¥5«"'.'i'; Pt; $33.?-;'ond_ '4 P.1V.1£} tzioarly establishes the fact that accusod 3 r:€»€t¢t»'od'-toitttozt :, AA currency' notos from P.W.2 and handed.ovo_§.tt1o §a:t_té" to 3C'C'i§1::S€§t Accused No. 2 on gooﬁng the Loko Agnzkﬂztttétpotico uhadt'tt1z*ot%atv':tho':§;:i11ted cuzrency notes on the ﬂoor. *--P,W'.13VVt5.'3tV.2 and P.\§,¥,19 rotnainod ut1queVstioned._V_It"'ts' in the cross. examination of these s?¥ittis;ssés that the oocu'soci"E'$.o.««1__h§id not-received the noteo aod intam not hVa:i:1er1V_o"aser é£os;uaed_No. 2* G11 the other hand theta is the o1.:idenco--ofP.E'?.6 taotol supplier brought the bill and on the question ofottjonoot of bitl attiount P.W.2 and accused No. 1 were ﬁﬁsisting oayment b§"'e.aoh of them and at that time the currency notes oocigzet of P.W,2 fa}! down on the ﬂoor, But surprisingiy tlié -:;1ot'::;at:-7o" accused 3550. 1 is that P.W.2 forcibly tried to tltntstttoiﬁtéd czt1*ré;tio§"o:'notes into the pocket of accused No, 1. Though the o:'oseoutio"o ea"onot' socoeoé on tho inconsistent stand taken by the accused, ' Atiiero *':F§: ,zt:r:pto" ovidence on record in the instant case that the police 'roooxforoé the currency notes handed over has P.Wt2 to aoousod 2\§o. 1 and ..,§'iiihlt*;i'§;o accused No. 2, This fact £3 further oﬁeﬂishod when the hands of 'V ac-cased Nos. 1 and 2 are Washed in sediurn. carbonate solutien. Thus the groseeution has proved :he recavery cf tainted currency' notes frezn i:ﬁe_ accused.

18. For the reasons stated above, I find no justifiab1e.A''g:V¥di1§i:§--. :"

interfere with the impugxed judgment sf ~::{>n\:ic_tJio11»passec_i'b§*"1I:%é_':Sﬁés:i31.. Court.

cf Andhra Pradesh R. zecvaratnam, 2{;"a;§"';';CC (Cr;}_'1:%*?9f%'.Ma1{a_ig{éhe case of State {represented by Insgéctgr 0ﬂP6liéé§j";'Vs\§ Partf1ib'an;'VV(20G7) 1 SCC (Cri) 520 modiﬁed the order of senﬁéizﬁinﬁ '$31: accused. In the facts anéi circumstzimé:-s ¢::=f_ fiiisﬁase, E am of the opinisn that the sentence i1npesed--i3y€he Speéi2{1C{iG:t4féqui1*es modiﬁcation. The order of sentence yéjpasaed by $pec iai Court is modiﬁed sentencing he «tgnderge simpie irngzrisonznent for a term of one year ~£e:*pay fme amount 0f Rs.4,G{)(}:*- on bath the counts ' in cA1¢fau1€v_to~p$jé'f§1e fine amcnmn ta undergo simglc imgsrisenment fer " Q ' Qftixf'esJh'1onths. Ordered accordingly. Sd/-

Judge LRSKZSE 1 2098.

19. In identical circumstances, theﬁpex Cs:r;1ft'in the jcé'>;».§:cf State

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Karnataka High Court