Bangalore District Court
By Police Inspector vs S.Ravikumar on 9 July, 2018
IN THE COURT OF THE LXXVI ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL AND
SESSIONS JUDGE AND SPECIAL JUDGE, BENGALURU
DISTRICT, BENGALURU. (CCH-77)
Present: Sri Sachin Kaushik R.N.,
B.Sc.LL.M.,
LXXVI Addl.City Civil & Sessions Judge
& Special Judge, Mayo Hall Unit,
Bengaluru.
Dated this the 9th day of July 2018
SPL.C.NO.131/2012
The State of Karnataka,
COMPLAINANT By Police Inspector, Karnataka
Lokayuktha Police Wing, City
Division, Bengaluru.
(Rep. by Spl.Public Prosecutor)
-vs-
ACCUSED S.Ravikumar, s/o Shivanna,
43 years, Revenue Inspector,
Begur Circle, Begur Hobli,
Bangalore South Taluk, Bangalore.
R/at No.379, 3rd 'B' Main,
Manjunathanagara, Rajajinagar,
Bangalore.
Permanently r/at Maligegowdana
Doddi Kasaba Hobli, Kanakapura
Taluk, Ramanagara District.
(Rep. by Sri Pradeep C.S.-
Advocate)
2 Spl.C.131/2012
1. Nature of Offence Offences punishable under
Sections 7, 13(1) (d) (i) R/w 13 (2)
of the Prevention of Corruption
Act, 1988.
2. Date of
Commission 29.11.2011
of offence
3. Date of First 29.11.2011
Information Report
4. Date of arrest 29.11.2011
5.Date of
commencement of
recording of 13.03.2014
evidence
6. Date of 20.06.2018
closing of evidence
7. Date of
pronouncement of 09.07.2018
Judgment
Acting under Section 235(2) of
8. Result of the case Cr.P.C., the accused is convicted
for the offences punishable u/s 7,
13(1) (d)(i) R/w 13(2) of Prevention
of Corruption Act, 1988.
3 Spl.C.131/2012
JUDGMENT
The case of the Prosecution is that, the accused being public servant, working as Revenue Inspector in Begur Circle, Bengaluru, on 25.11.2011, has demanded illegal gratification of Rs.50,000/- from complainant for change of khata as per Compromise Decree passed in O.S.No.2153/2006, by Learned VII Addl.City Civil & Sessions Judge, Bengaluru, and on 29.11.2011, at about 6.25 p.m., in front of newly constructed building situated opposite Gali Anjaneya Swamy Temple, Bengaluru- Mysuru Main Road, Bengaluru, has demanded & accepted the illegal gratification of Rs.50,000/- from the complainant. The Lokayuktha Police have filed charge sheet against the accused for the offences u/s 7, 13(1)(d) R/w 13(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act,1988.
2. The accused has denied the charges and claimed to be tried.
3. The Prosecution has examined in all 7 witnesses and got 21 documents and 22 materials marked.
4. The accused has denied the allegations in his S.313 Cr.P.C. statement, and said, he will furnish separate statement, and subsequently, said, he has no separate statement to file.
5. Heard Learned Spl.P.P and Learned Advocate for accused.
4 Spl.C.131/2012
6. The points that arise for determination are as follows:
1) Whether the Prosecution proves beyond reasonable doubt that the accused has committed offence punishable u/s 7 of Prevention of Corruption Act,1988?
2) Whether the Prosecution proves beyond reasonable doubt that the accused has committed offence punishable u/s 13(1)(d)(i) R/w 13(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act,1988?
3) What order?
7. The answers to the above points are:
Point No.1: In the Affirmative
Point No.2: In the Affirmative
Point No.3: As per the final order
for the following :
REASONS
8. Point No.1:- As the Points No.1 and 2 are
interconnected, they are taken together for consideration.
9. PW1, Sri Krishnappa M., the complainant, has deposed that a decree was passed in his favour, wherein, he and his brothers were granted 6 guntas of land and to that effect, he had approached the accused who was working as Revenue Inspector 5 Spl.C.131/2012 in Begur Hobli, Bangalore South, for necessary mutation, by filing application on 16.6.2011. The accused reluctantly disclosed that the file is with him and after several visits, he asked the complainant to pay Rs.50,000/- for the said purpose. On 25.11.2011, PW1 told the accused, he cannot pay Rs.50,000/- and to reduce it, and the accused said that it was not possible to reduce it. PW1 told his friend Narayana/PW3, and he advised him to complain to Lokayuktha Police. The complainant/PW1, lodged the complaint and as per the instructions of the Lokayuktha Police Inspector, Puttaswamy, got the entire demand and conversation recorded in the Voice Recorder, on 28.11.2011. The complaint dated 29.11.2011 is marked as Ex.P1 and the preparations were made for the trap. The complainant/PW1 was asked to bring Rs.50,000/- and he brought the same, having denomination of Rs.1000/- x 39 and Rs.500/- x 22. The list containing the numbers of the currency notes is marked as Ex.P2. Phenolphthalein powder was smeared on the currency notes and the witness CW3, Beeresh was asked to count the same and was asked to keep the currency notes in the left side shirt pocket of the complainant/PW1. Sodium carbonate solution was prepared and sample taken in a bottle and sealed and the witness/CW3's hands were washed with the said solution which turned into pink colour. The coloured solution was sealed in a bottle. The Voice Recorder was played and the data was transmitted to CD and it was sealed.
6 Spl.C.131/2012
10. One Beeresh/CW3 was designated as shadow witness. The complainant was instructed to flash signal by wiping his head in case the amount was demanded by the accused and received by him. The complainant/PW1 told the police that if any person comes along with him, the accused will get doubt, and so CW3 was instructed to remain with Trap Team. The proceedings were reduced to writing and the same is marked as Ex.P3.
11. The complainant/PW1 went to Taluk Office and accused was not present. The police gave the Digital Voice Recorder and asked PW1 to call the accused. The accused instructed to come at 5.30 PM to Saw Mill at Chamarajpet. At 5.00 PM the complainant/PW1 telephoned the accused which was heard through Digital Voice Recorder by the Lokayuktha Police, and on the say of the accused, the complainant/PW1, witnesses and Lokayuktha Police, CW13, Ramaiah moved from there, in the complainant's vehicle. The complainant/PW1 was reminded to pay the money only on demand, and signal by switching on parking light. On the way, the complainant telephoned the accused and he told him to come near Gali Hanumantharaya temple. The complainant alone reached there at 6.00 PM, in his car, Maruti K10. The Team were following at a gap of long distance. The accused came in a two wheeler, Honda Activa. The accused saw the complainant/PW1 and the complainant asked him to come inside the car. The accused sat by his side seeing everywhere and then demanded money. The 7 Spl.C.131/2012 complainant/PW1 gave money and accused accepted and told that he will put report and clear the file from his side, and PW1 then switched on the parking light. The police came to the spot, held the accused, and the said currency notes, MO1, were removed from his shirt pocket. The hands of the accused were washed in the solution and the solution turned into pink colour. All this was videographed. The amount, MO1, was seized. On enquiry, the accused said he has kept file in his car. The police then went to the car where the accused had kept the file of the complainant. The car was parked near T.R.Mill of Chamarajpet, Bangalore. The shirt and pant of accused were also seized, and marked at MO11 & MO8. The voice in the Voice Recorder and contents of spy camera was transmitted to CD. Metal seal was handed over to CW4 Nandeesh. The Trap Mahazar is marked as Ex.P6. The bottle containing the sample solution is marked as MO3. The bottle containing the hand wash of CW3 is marked as MO4. The bottle containing the sample solution for the purpose of Trap Mahazar is marked as MO5. The bottle containing the right hand finger wash of accused is marked as MO6. The sealed cover with the pant of the accused is marked as MO7 and MO8. The bottle containing the left hand finger wash of accused is marked as MO9. The sealed cover with shirt of accused is marked as MO10 and MO11. The sealed cover with cotton in which the driver's seat of the car is rubbed is marked as MO12 and MO13. The sealed cover with CD is marked as MO14 and MO15. The sealed cover with CD of Pre-Trap proceedings is 8 Spl.C.131/2012 marked as MO16 and MO17. The sealed cover with CD of contents of hidden camera is marked as MO18 and MO19. The sealed cover containing the CD of trap proceedings is marked as MO20 and MO21.
12. In the cross-examination of PW.1, the accused at Paragraph No.7, Page 13, has admitted that PW1 had filed application on 16.6.2011 for change of khata in respect of Sy.No.8/12 of Bilekahalli Village, Begur, as per the Compromise Decree in O.S.No.2153/2006. At Page No.14, 4th, 5th lines, the accused admits that PW.1's name was to be entered with respect to 6 guntas of land alongwith Ramaswamy & Rathnamma as per the said Decree. At Page No.20, Paragraph No.22, the accused admits that on the said date, time & place, the accused was present, and the money was in his shirt pocket, and the accused threw it in the car of PW1. With these admissions, it becomes clear that accused met PW1 in a different place than his office, sat in his car. Accused and PW1 are not friends. Accused met PW1 on the subject of khata change. The Compromise Decree is admitted. The filing of application dated 16.6.2011, is admitted, and the accused, despite, more than 5 months, had passed, from the date of application, does not bother to obey & honour the Decree. The amount of Rs.50,000/- in shirt pocket of accused, is also admitted. What the accused says, is that, it was thrust. The service and duty of accused of putting Report is not in dispute. At page No.6, last paragraph, PW1 has also identified the said notes, MO1, shown in Ex.P2 i.e., List of currency notes. The 9 Spl.C.131/2012 documents of complainant/PW1 were also seized from car used by accused. It is in Ex.P6, Trap Mahazar, and this has not been denied by accused, and all this, points the guilt of accused, and makes the story of accused as MO1 thrust into his pocket, unbelievable .
13. PW2, Sri M.K.Ayappa has deposed that he was working as Deputy Commissioner then and he received letter dated 3.2.2012 from ADGP, Karnataka Lokayuktha, Bangalore for grant of sanction. As he is the Officer empowered to remove the accused from job, he has gone through the entire set of documents i.e. complaint, FIR, Entrustment Mahazar, Trap Mahazar, Report of Chemical Examiner, statements of witnesses, copy of Order in O.S.No.2153/2006 and all other documents. Finding prima facie materials, he has accorded sanction. The same is marked as Ex.P4 and the Commissioner's letter is marked as Ex.P5.
14. In the cross-examination, nothing useful has come out, and this court finds the Sanction, Ex.P4, legal and valid, accorded, after due application of mind.
15. PW3, M.Narayan, has deposed that PW1 is from his village. In November 2011, PW1 had told him that the accused has demanded bribe for effecting change of Khata of land of PW1. On 28.11.2011, he had gone along with PW1 to Lokayuktha to lodge complaint. CW16, i.e., Police Inspector of Lokayuktha, Sri 10 Spl.C.131/2012 Puttaswamy has given him the Voice Recorder and asked him to produce the bribe amount of Rs.50,000/-. On 29.11.2011, he and PW1 went to the Lokayuktha office with cash of Rs.50,000/-. Phenolphthalein powder was applied to the notes and CW3 placed the notes, MO1 in the left side shirt pocket of PW1. The solution was prepared and hands of CW3 were got washed. The solution turned to pink colour and the same was taken in a bottle and sealed. PW1 was instructed to go to the office of accused and give the notes on demand. PW1 was also instructed to switch on the parking light after giving notes. Pre-Trap Mahazar was conducted in the office of CW16. They went to the office of accused in three vehicles and the complainant went ahead and found that the accused was not there. PW1 contacted the accused over phone and the accused asked PW1 to come near T.R.Mill at Chamarajpet at 6.00 PM. All proceeded towards T.R.Mill. The accused was not there. On contacting, the accused asked PW1 to come near Gali Anjaneya Swamy temple at Mysore Road, Bangalore. On reaching there, after some time, he noticed a person coming having worn a white shirt. The person occupied the seat by the side of PW1. They all suspected that person may be the accused. The parking light was switched on and all the officers and he went near the car. CW16, Police Inspector disclosed his identity to the accused. The accused threw the notes, MO1 on the seat of PW1. Both hands of accused were got washed in the solution and it turned into pink colour. The same was seized. The right side seat of the driver was rubbed with 11 Spl.C.131/2012 cotton and dipped in the solution and the same also turned to pink colour. The cotton was also seized. MO1 are the same notes mentioned in the Pre-Trap Mahazar. The accused told that the documents relating to the work of the complainant is in his car parked near T.R.Mill. All of them went there and the accused produced the documents relating to PW1. All these proceedings were videographed. The pant and shirt of accused were seized. The Trap Mahazar was drawn.
16. In the cross-examination, nothing useful to defence of accused, is elicited.
17. CW3, Beeresh has expired, and hence not examined by Prosecution.
18. PW4, Pancha, Sri S.Nandeesh, Work Inspector in BBMP then, has deposed that CW3, Beeresh was working in his office. On instructions of Assistant Commissioner of BBMP, he along with CW3 had gone to Lokayuktha office on 29.11.2011. PW1 & 3 and officers of Lokayuktha were there. CW16, Lokayuktha Police Inspector told him that he is secured to assist as panch witness. PW1 placed cash of Rs.50,000/- before CW16. The list was prepared i.e., Ex.P2. The solution was prepared and sample of the solution was taken in the bottle. Phenolphthalein powder was applied to the currency notes. CW3 placed the same before CW16. The finger wash of CW3 turned to pink colour. The said 12 Spl.C.131/2012 wash was taken in a bottle. Pre-Trap Mahazar was drawn i.e.Ex.P3. The Voice Recorder was given to PW1 by CW16.
19. At about 5.30 PM, all of them with the Lokayuktha Police went near Gali Anjaneya Swamy temple at Mysore Road. The accused came and sat inside Maruti K10 car of PW1. Cash was found in the front seat of the car. The accused came out of the car along with the cash. He counted the cash. The fingers of the accused were washed in the solution. The solution turned to pink colour. Trap Mahazar was drawn i.e.Ex.P6. The police recovered the records from the accused. The seal is marked as MO22. The contents of the Voice Recorder were transmitted to 3 sheets of papers and the same are marked as Ex.P7. PW1 was instructed to switch on parking light after the accused accepts the notes. The contents of the Voice Recorder are marked as Ex.P8.
20. In the cross-examination, he has stated that, no proceedings were drawn in chamber of CW16 and contents of Voice Recorder were not made known to him. However, it is not the case of Prosecution that proceedings were drawn in chamber of Investigating Officer, but in Lokayuktha office, nor the entire contents of Voice Recorder. It is only Ex.P7 to P9, Transcriptions, that were made known to him. Hence, the court finds nothing doubtful in evidence of this witness.
13 Spl.C.131/2012
21. PW5, Harishilpa J.R. working as Special Tahsildar, Bangalore then, has deposed that on 29.11.2011 at about 7.45 PM, the Tahsildar of Bangalore South, Sri D.Puttegowda had called her to the Lokayuktha Police to identify the voice of the accused. At about 8.30 PM, she reached the office and listened to the audio clippings and identified the voice of the accused who was working as Revenue Inspector and is subordinate to her. The accused is a Field Officer and therefore has not put his signature on the attendance register. He verifies the check list given from Bhoomi Section and then he accepts the same or if there are objections, rejects the Khata. Her written statement is marked as Ex.P13.
22. PW6, Sri D.Puttegowda, working as Tahsildar, Bangalore South then, has deposed that PW2 has identified the voice of the accused on 29.11.2011 at about 7.00 PM and he also suggested that the voice again be verified through CW5. The accused informed the Lokayuktha Inspector that the file is in his Swift car bearing No.KA-02-ME 1892 parked near T.R.Mill burial ground, Chamarajpet. At about 8.00 PM, Lokayuktha Inspector along with him, accused, complainant and other witnesses have gone to the spot and recovered the file. The same was videographed. At about 9.15 PM, they reached back to Lokayuktha office and CW5 also identified the accused and his voice in the clippings. The accused was on duty on 29.11.2011. The arrest of accused was informed to this witness and the original file after giving the certified copies to the Lokayuktha Inspector was handed over to 14 Spl.C.131/2012 CW5 for necessary work. He has given Report and the same is marked as Ex.P14.
23. In the cross-examination of PW5 & 6, other than denials, nothing has come out and PW6, in cross-examination too, has answered that, the file was recovered from Swift Car used by accused. Recovery of file from car used by accused, has not been denied in evidence of PW1.
24. PW7 Sri Puttaswamy H, Police Inspector in Lokayuktha then, has deposed that on 29.11.2011, he received the written complaint along with the Voice Recorder. The accused had demanded bribe of Rs.50,000/- for change of khata as per decree passed in O.S.No.2153/2006. He registered the complaint. He secured the presence of CW3 & 4 to act as panch witness. The complainant produced Rs.50,000/- that had 39 currency notes of Rs.1000/- denomination and 22 currency notes of Rs.500/- denomination. The list containing the serial numbers of these notes was prepared. CW3 counted the currency notes that were subjected to application of phenolphthalein powder and kept the same in the left shirt pocket of the complainant. The hands of CW3 were washed in sodium carbonate solution and the solution turned to pink colour. The said solution was sealed and labeled as Article No.2 and the sample of the said solution was labeled as Article No.1.
15 Spl.C.131/2012
25. The Voice Recorder produced by the complainant was played in the presence of witnesses and its contents were saved in CD and transcript into writing. The said transcription is marked as Ex.P7 and CD is labeled as Article No.3. The entire pre-trap proceedings were videographed and the CD is marked as Article No.4. Article No.1 to 4 was sealed with Metal seal by an English letter 'J'.
26. The complainant/PW1 was instructed to pay the amount only on demand and gave signal by wiping his hair after the accused receives the money. He gave the complainant/PW1 Button Camera and Voice Recorder for the said purpose. All of them got their hands washed in clean water. Pre-trap proceedings were reduced into writing and Entrustment Mahazar drawn which is Ex.P3.
27. On 29.11.2011 at about 2.50 PM, all of them left to Lokayuktha office and proceeded to Tahsildar office, Bangalore South where the accused was working. The complainant informed that the accused is not in office and after contacting on the mobile No.9448371958 of the accused, the accused asked the complainant to come near T.R.Mill at Chamarajpet at about 6.00 PM. This conversation was heard by everyone on the loud speaker and was even recorded.
28. At about 5.25 PM, all of them proceeded towards T.R.Mill, Chamarajpet in two Government vehicles. The complainant was 16 Spl.C.131/2012 moving ahead with Lokayuktha staff, Ramaiah towards T.R.Mill in complainant's car. On reaching the spot, the complainant contacted the accused and he asked him to come near Gali Anjaneya Swamy temple. This witness instructed the complainant to give signal by switching on the parking light of the car if the accused has received the amount. At about 6.10 PM, the accused came near the complainant's car and sat in the car. At about 6.25 PM, the complainant gave signal by switching on the parking light. This witness i.e. staff and other witnesses rushed to the spot and disclosed his identity to the accused. The accused removed the currency notes from his shirt pocket and kept it in front right side pocket of the pant and then threw it on the edge of the driver's seat. This witness arrested the accused and the accused was pleading to leave him. The hands of the accused were made to dip in the solution and the solution turned to light pink colour. The solution was sealed and labeled as Article No.6 and 7 which comprises of dipping of right hand and left hand respectively. The sample of the solution was sealed and labeled as Article No.5. The seized currency notes were labeled as Article No.8 and are marked as MO1. The driver seat of the car was wiped with cotton piece and sealed as Article No.9.
29. This witness called the Tahsildar, Bangalore South and reached the Lokayuktha office at about 7.30 PM. CW6, Sri Puttegowda, Tahsildar Bangalore South was present and said that he is newly transferred two days back and may not be in a 17 Spl.C.131/2012 proper position to identify the voice of the accused. Hence, CW5 Smt.Harishilpa, Special Tahsildar was called to the office.
30. The accused on enquiry informed that he has kept the documents pertaining to the complainant in Swift car bearing No.KA-02-ME-1892 which belongs to his sister and that the car is parked near the burial place of T.R.Mill. This witness with all other witnesses reached the said spot at about 8.30 PM and the accused removed the documents from the car dickey and gave it to the witness. The said documents are marked as Ex.P15. All of them reached Lokayuktha office and the complainant produced the spy camera and Voice Recorder. The spy camera was played in the presence of the witnesses and CW5. It was not clear as it was recoded in dark. The Voice Recorder was played and the contents of the Voice Recorder were saved in CD and transcript into writing. The said transcription is marked as Ex.P8 and the CD as Article No.12. The shirt and pant of the accused, MO11 & MO8, were seized and labeled as Article No.1 and 11. The videograph of the trap proceedings was saved in CD and the said CD is sealed and labeled as Article No.13. Articles No.5 to 13 were sealed with Metal seal by English letter 'J' and the Metal seal was handed over to CW4 Nandeesh and the acknowledgment was obtained and the acknowledgment is marked as Ex.P16.
31. This witness has recorded the statement of CW3 Beeresh and statement of the accused. It is marked as Ex.P17. The Trap 18 Spl.C.131/2012 Mahazar is Ex.P6. He has recorded the statements of all other witnesses. The spot sketch is marked as Ex.P18. The call details of the complainant and the accused is marked as Ex.P19. The Forensic Science Laboratory Report is marked as Ex.P20. The FIR is marked as Ex.P21. The seized articles are marked as MO1 to 21 and the Metal seal is marked as MO22.
32. In the cross-examination of PW7, the non-filing of Certificate u/s 65B of Indian Evidence Act pertaining to CDs, M.O.Nos.15, 17, 19 & 21 is asked and witness has replied that he has produced the same.
33. Learned Advocate for Accused has argued that demand and acceptance is not proved, S.65B of Indian Evidence Act, is not complied, and Investigating Officer has started investigation, prior to registration of complaint, Ex.P1; and, the presence of PW1, when MO1, was thrown on driver's seat, is not shown by Prosecution, and therefore, the accused is entitled to benefit of doubt, and accused be acquitted.
34. Learned Advocate for accused has relied upon 9 decisions:
i) Order dated 11.2.2016 passed by the
Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka in
Criminal Petition No.3750/2013
ii) Order dated 12.12.2017 passed by the
Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka in
Criminal Appeal No.1342/2017
19 Spl.C.131/2012
iii) AIR 1979 Supreme Court 119
iv) AIR 1977 Supreme Court 666
v) AIR 2014 Supreme Court 3798
vi) (2009) 6 Supreme Court Cases 587
vii) 2014 AIR SCW 2080
viii) (2015) 1 Supreme Court cases (Criminal) 24
ix) (2015(3) Supreme Court cases 123 The first 2 decisions say that the part of investigation done prior to registration of complaint, should not be considered, as it is not in law that is done. The other decisions say that the Prosecution has to prove the guilt beyond reasonable doubt, demand and acceptance should be proved, and then only the presumption follows to only Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act. The Explanation of accused should be considered with other evidences. This ratio laid down in these decisions is considered by this court, in appreciation of evidence.
35. Ex.P17 is the Explanation of accused, wherein he says that false complaint is filed against him, as he has not effected the khata change, due to non-production of documents by Kantilal, and at 8th, 9th line of Page No.2 of Explanation, he further says, that the parties have got the Decree done. At 2nd page, last 2 to 4 lines of Ex.P17, he says, MO1, money was kept in his hands by PW1, and in cross-examination of PW1, he says, money was thrust into his pocket. This also clearly shows the falsehood of accused, and shows that, he has demanded & accepted MO1.
20 Spl.C.131/2012
36. This accused has no right to check the propriety of Decree. It is for the parties to challenge, if they desire. Ex.P15, Page Nos.62 to 99 are the documents of this case, seized from Swift Car No.KA-02-ME-1892 of the accused. The Compromise Decree, part of Ex.P15, is at Page No.69 to 84, alongwith Sketch. Said Kantilal is Plaintiff and this complaint/PW1 is Defendant No.2. The accused though having the application dated 16.6.2011 (produced at Page No.67) and Compromise Decree dated 22.11.2010, has not bothered to obey the Decree though 5 months 13 days had passed, but tries to make illegal money, by demand of gratification, which comes out, out of his own admission in cross of PW1 and all other evidences. Hence, the explanation of accused cannot be believed at all. The accused is supposed to put Report as early as possible, after verification, and not sit over file for 5 months 13 days, and demand bribe to do his duties.
37. The decisions reported in 2001 Cri.L.J. 515, (2007) 1 SCC(Crl.) 520 are applicable as demand and acceptance is proved by Prosecution, and that, it further says that Sections 7, 13(1)(d)(i) make distinct offences, when demand is proved.
38. From above evidences, it can be seen, as reasoned in Paragraph No.10, the accused has admitted his presence at the spot, filing of application for khata change based on Compromise Decree by the complainant on 16.6.2011, recovery of file from 21 Spl.C.131/2012 Swift Car used by accused, recovery of illegal gratification of Rs.50,000/-, MO1, from his shirt pocket, and that he touched the same. The defence of accused that notes were thrust, cannot be believed under the light of evidence on record. The Sanction, Ex.P14, contains reason and this Court finds it legal and valid. The Prosecution has been able to prove the guilt of accused, and presumption u/s 20 for offence u/s 7 also follows, and the accused has not been able to rebut the presumption u/s 20 of Prevention of Corruption Act, by explaining why he was present there at spot, and why the file was not in his office. Even if the C.Ds, MO.17, 19 & 21, and transcriptions, Ex.P7 to P9, are not considered due to non-compliance of Section 65B of Indian Evidence Act, and part of this done prior to registration of crime, the admissions of the accused alongwith evidence of PW1 to 7, and the Trap Mahazar, Ex.P6, and other documents, MO1, currency notes of Rs.50,000/- obtained as illegal gratification, and other materials, clearly establishes the guilt of the accused, beyond reasonable doubt, and therefore, for all the above reasons, Points No.1 & 2, are answered in the Affirmative.
39. Point No.2:- For the aforesaid reasons, this Court proceeds to pass the following :
ORDER Acting u/s 235(2) of Cr.P.C., the accused is convicted for the offences punishable u/s 7, 22 Spl.C.131/2012 13(1)(d)(i) R/w 13(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act,1988.
MO1 to 22, shall be disposed as per law after appeal period.
(Dictated to the Judgment writer directly on the computer, corrected and then pronounced by me in the open court on this the 9th day of July 2018) (Sachin Kaushik R.N) LXXVI Addl.City Civil & Sessions Judge & Special Judge, Mayo Hall Unit, Bengaluru.
HEARING ON SENTENCE The accused is present at 3.00 p.m. Learned Spl.P.P has submitted that, the accused has demanded & accepted illegal gratification of Rs.50,000/-, which is quite a heavy amount, and not bothered to obey the Compromise Decree, and therefore, maximum sentence be imposed.
Learned Advocate for accused submits that, the accused is aged 49 years, and has wife, two children and a bed-ridden mother, who is widow, aged 70 years, and hence prays for leniency. Taking into consideration the above submissions, this court sentences the accused to undergo Simple Imprisonment for a period of 1 (one) year, and to pay a fine of Rs.30,000/-(Rs.thirty thousand only), in default, to undergo S.I. for a further period of 2 (two)months, for the offence punishable u/s 7 of Prevention of Corruption Act,1988. The accused is sentenced to undergo Simple Imprisonment for a period of 2 (two) years, and to pay a fine of Rs.40,000/-(Rs.forty thousand only), in default, to undergo S.I. for a further period of 3(three) months, for the offence punishable u/s 13(1)(d)(i) R/w 13(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act,1988.
Both the sentences shall run concurrently, and the period already undergone, shall be given set off.
(Sachin Kaushik R.N) LXXVI Addl.City Civil & Sessions Judge & Special Judge, Mayo Hall Unit, Bengaluru.
23 Spl.C.131/2012 ANNEXURE List of witnesses examined on behalf of the prosecution:
PW1 M.Krishnappa PW2 M.K.Aiyappa PW3 M.Narayan PW4 S.Nandeesh PW5 Harishilpa J.R PW6 D.Puttegowda PW7 Puttaswamy H.
List of documents marked on behalf of prosecution:
Ex.P.1 Complaint
Ex.P.1(a) Signature of PW1
Ex.P.1(b) Signature of PW7
Ex.P.2 Currency notes sheet
Ex.P.2 (a) Signature of PW4
Ex.P.2(b) Signature of PW7
Ex.P.3 Pre-trap Mahazar
Ex.P.3(a) Signature of the PW1
Ex.P.3(b) to (i) Signatures of PW4
Ex.P.3(j) Signature of PW7
Ex.P.4 Sanction Order dated 8.3.2012
Ex.P.4 (a) Signature of the PW2
Ex.P.5 Covering letter dated 8.3.2012
Ex.P. 5(a) Signature of the PW2
Ex.P.6 Trap Mahazar
Ex.P.6(a) Signature of the PW1
Ex.P.6(b) to (l) Signatures of PW4
Ex.P.6(m) Signature of PW7
Ex.P.7 Transcription of Voice Recorder
Ex.P.7(a) to (c) Signature of the PW4
Ex.P.7(d) Signature of PW7
Ex.P.8 Transcription of Voice Recorder
Ex.P.8(a) & (b) Signatures of PW4
Ex.P9 Transcription of conversation
24 Spl.C.131/2012
between complainant & accused
Ex.P.9(a) Signature of PW4
Ex.P.10 Relevant portion of statement of PW4
Ex.P11 Relevant portion of statement of PW4
Ex.P12 Relevant portion of statement of PW4
Ex.P13 Written statement given by Tahsildar
Ex.P.13(a) Signature of PW5
Ex.P14 Report given by PW6 to Lokayuktha
Inspector
Ex.P.14(a) Signature of PW6
Ex.P15 Documents of the complainant
Ex.P.16 Acknowledgment
Ex.P.17 Statement of accused
Ex.P.17(a) Signature of accused
Ex.P.18 Sketch of the spot
Ex.P.19 Call details of complainant's mobile
phone
Ex.P.20 FSL Report
Ex.P.21 FIR
List of material objects marked on behalf of the prosecution:
MO.1 Currency notes of Article 8
Rs.50,000/-(Rs.500/- x 22,
Rs.1000 x39)
MO.2 Cover
MO.3 Sample solution bottle(pre- Article 1
trap)
MO.4 Hand wash of Beeresh Article 2
MO.5 Sample solution bottle(trap) Article 5
MO.6 Right hand wash of accused Article 6
MO.7 Cover Article 10
MO.8 Pant -"-
MO.9 Left hand wash of accused Article 7
25 Spl.C.131/2012
MO.10 Cover Article 11
MO.11 Shirt -"-
MO.12 Cover Article 9
MO.13 Cotton -"-
MO.14 Cover Article 3
MO.15 CD(digital voice recording) -"-
MO.16 Cover Article 4
MO.17 CD pre trap video -"-
MO.18 Cover Article 12
MO.19 CD(button camera video) -"-
MO.20 Cover Article 13
MO.21 CD of trap proceedings -"-
MO.22 Metal Seal with letter 'J'
List of witnesses examined on behalf of the accused:
-Nil-
List of documents marked on behalf of the accused:
-Nil-
(Sachin Kaushik R.N) LXXVI Addl.City Civil & Sessions Judge & Special Judge, Mayo Hall Unit, Bengaluru 26 Spl.C.131/2012