Bangalore District Court
The State Of Karnataka vs A.Govindaraju on 1 September, 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 1st day of September 2017
Spl. C.C.No.16/2011
COMPLAINANT The State of Karnataka,
By Police Inspector, Karnataka
Lokayuktha Police Wing, City
Division, Bengaluru.
(Rep. by Spl.Public
Prosecutor)
-Vs-
ACCUSED A.Govindaraju
s/o Appanna,
Excise Inspector-Vijayanagara,
22nd cross, Govindaraja
Nagara, Bengaluru-40
(Rep.by Sri R.B.Sadasivappa-
Advocate)
1. Nature of Offence Offence punishable under
Sections 7, 13(1) (d) r/w 13 (2) of
the Prevention of Corruption Act,
1988.
2 Spl.C.C.No.16/2011
2. Date of 08.09.2010
Commission
of offence
3. Date of First 08.09.2010
Information Report
4. Date of arrest 08.09.2010
5.Date of 25.04.2013
commencement of
recording of
evidence
6. Date of 27.06.2017
closing of evidence
7. Date of 01.09.2017
pronouncement of
Judgment
8. Result of the case The accused is acquitted under
Sec.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.
3 Spl.C.C.No.16/2011
JUDGMENT
The accused is charge sheeted for the alleged offence punishable under Sections 7, 13(1) (d) r/w 13 (2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.
2. The prosecution case is that:
The complainant-Mr.B.Ramaiah is doing liquor business, for the last 30 years. He owns three liquor shops in Nagarabhavi Main road, Bangalore. The accused being a Public servant was then working as Excise Inspector, Vijayanagara, Bangalore. One month prior to filing of the complaint, the accused visited "Millennium Bar & Restaurant" belonging to the complainant and demanded periodical bribe of Rs.25,000/- for renewal of license of each shop, or otherwise, he would register 5-6 cases and make him to pay fine to the Government. 2-3 days thereafter, once again the accused visited "Maruti Wine Shop" belonging to the complainant and registered a case alleging that the complainant use to sell the liquors for the price exceeding the M.R.P rate. After one week, the accused once again, visited the same shop and registered another case alleging that the complainant use to sell the liquors beyond the prescribed hours. When the complainant questioned the accused about registering of 4 Spl.C.C.No.16/2011 cases one after the other, he told him that until the complainant pays the periodical bribe, he will see that 5-6 cases would be registered against each shop from various Excise Sub-Divisions. After bargain, the bribe amount was reduced to Rs.20,000/- for each shop, totally Rs.60,000/-. Since the complainant was not willing to pay the bribe amount, on 8.9.2010 he presented the written information as per Ex.P2 before CW19-K.C.Lakshminarayana-Police Inspector, Karnataka Lokayuktha, Bangalore, who arranged for the Trap. Along with the complaint, he produced the CD containing the recorded conversation. CW6-H.M.Shivaram & CW7-Elia, the employees of Joint Director of Commercial Taxes, were secured to act as witnesses for the Trap. The complainant produced 60 currency notes denomination of Rs.1000/-(Rs.60,000/-) marked at MO2. The serial numbers of the currency notes were recorded in a white sheet as per Ex.P5. The currency notes were smeared with phenolphthalein powder. CW6- Shivaram after verifying and counting the tainted currency notes placed it in the left side pant pocket of the complainant. Both hand fingers of CW6-Shivaram were made to dip in the sodium carbonate solution. The said solution becomes pink colour. The CD containing the conversation produced along with the complaint was played 5 Spl.C.C.No.16/2011 in presence of the witnesses. The contents of the CD were transcript into writing as per Ex.P6. The complainant was instructed not to touch the tainted currency notes till it was paid to the accused. The complainant was further instructed to approach the accused, speak with him about the work and to give the tainted currency notes only on demand. He was further instructed to give signal by wiping his head by hand if the accused received the money. Button camera and Digital Voice Recorder were given to the complainant with an instruction to switch it on while approaching the accused to give money and to record the scene/conversation. CW6-Shivaram (shadow witness) was instructed to follow the complainant and to observe what transpires between the complainant and the accused. Step by step all the events were video-graphed and the contents of it were converted to CD. Entrustment Mahazar was prepared as per Ex.P4 and obtained the signatures of the witnesses.
3. On 8.9.2010, at about 12.05 p.m. the complainant, two panch witnesses, Lokayuktha Inspector, and his staff (totally 7 members) left for Office of Excise Inspector, Vijayanagar Division, Govindarajanagar, where the accused was working, in a Government vehicle. The 6 Spl.C.C.No.16/2011 vehicle was parked nearby BDA Complex, Vijayanagara. The complainant alone went inside the Office. Since the complainant informed the IO that the accused may get a doubt if any person is sent along with him, he did not send the shadow witness along with the complainant. All the Trap Team Members were standing in front of Sai Sudha Clinic & Brahmalingeshwara Condiments situated in the ground floor of the building, waiting for signal from the complainant. At about 1.05 p.m., the complainant came out of the Office of the accused and gave pre- instructed signal, whereupon the raid party rushed to the place where the complainant was standing. The complainant led the raid party to the Office of the accused situated in the first floor of the building. The complainant pointed out the accused by saying that he is the person who demanded and accepted the bribe amount of Rs.60,000/- from him. CW19 has disclosed his identity, informed the purpose of visit and apprehended the accused. On an enquiry the accused disclosed his name, designation & address. Both the hand fingers of the accused were made to dip in the sodium carbonate solution. The right hand wash solution becomes pink colour. The left hand wash solution has not turned to any colour. 60 tainted currency notes denomination of Rs.1000/-(Rs.60,000/-) marked at MO2 kept in the space 7 Spl.C.C.No.16/2011 just above the table drawer was recovered. The said tainted currency notes were verified and tallied with the currency notes sheet. The place where the tainted currency notes kept was wiped with piece of cotton cloth and the same was dipped in the sodium carbonate solution. The said solution becomes pink colour. The file relating to the complainant was seized from the custody of the accused. Since, there was lot of nuisance in the Office of the accused and it was not congenial to prepare the Trap Mahazar, the accused was brought to the Lokayuktha Police station to conduct further proceedings. The Digital Voice Recorder and button camera given to the complainant at the time of Trap was played in the presence of the witnesses. The contents of it were converted to CD and transcript into writing. CW8- Chandru- Deputy Superintendent of Excise after seeing the CD containing the scene/conversation recorded in the Digital Voice Recorder and button camera has identified the accused and his voice. He also identified the voice of the accused after hearing the conversation recorded in the CD produced along with the complaint and the CD containing the conversation recorded in the mobile phone of the complainant during Entrustment Mahazar. CW8-Chandra Deputy Superintendent of Excise has given Report as per Ex.P17 about he identifying the accused and his voice. The 8 Spl.C.C.No.16/2011 accused gave his explanation in writing about he being in possession of the tainted currency notes as per Ex.P16. CW9-Mohammed Faziuddin, Deputy Commissioner of Excise, has given a Report-Ex.P18 about the statement of the accused wherein he denied of having given instructions to collect the bribe amount from the public for doing an official favour. The IO obtained the spot sketch showing the scene of offence (Ex.P11), service particulars of the accused (Ex.P20), Chemical Examination Report from FSL (Ex.P21) & Call details of the mobile phone of the complainant & the accused (Ex.P22). The IO, after completion of the investigation, sent a Final Report to the Competent Authority through proper channel seeking for sanction to prosecute the accused. After receiving the Sanction Order from the Competent Authority, CW19 has filed the charge sheet against the accused on 3.1.2011 for the offence punishable under Secs.7, 13(1) (d) r/w 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.
4. 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. Accused was enlarged on bail.
9 Spl.C.C.No.16/20115. After hearing, the charge was framed against the accused for the offence punishable under Sections 7, 13(1)
(d) r/w 13 (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.
6. During the trial, the prosecution has examined in all 5 witnesses as PWs-1 to 5 and got marked 22 documents as Ex-P1 to Ex.P-22 and 16 Material Objects as MO-1 to 16. 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.
7. 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 the public servant, working as Excise Inspector on
8.9.2010 at about 1.05 p.m., in his office demanded and accepted illegal gratification of Rs.60,000/- from the complainant-B.Ramaiah, for showing an official favour in the matter of renewal of license of the liquor shops of the complainant and not to register cases and 10 Spl.C.C.No.16/2011 thereby committed 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 the public servant, working as Excise Inspector on 8.9.2010 at about 1.05 p.m., in his office by abusing his position as public servant and by corrupt or illegal means and without public interest obtained Rs.60,000/- from the complainant-B.Ramaiah, as 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?
8. 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
9. Point No.1 & 2: For the sake of convenience and to avoid repetition of facts, I have taken both the points together for consideration.
10. PW1 is the Sanctioning Authority who accorded sanction to prosecute the accused. The Sanction Order 11 Spl.C.C.No.16/2011 dated 21.12.2010 is produced and marked as Ex.P1. During the course of cross-examination it was elicited from the mouth of PW1 that, he was aware about the registering of cases by the Excise Department against the complainant.
11. The prosecution has examined CW1-B.Ramaiah as PW2. PW2 is the complainant. PW2 has deposed that he is doing liquor business for the last 30 years. The accused being the Excise Inspector used to visit his shop and expected periodical bribe. On 16th day of particular month in the year 2011, the accused came to the shop at Nagarabhavi road and uttered abusive words against the cashier. Because, the accused demanded Rs.30,000/-for renewal of license for each shop, he gave information to the Lokayuktha Police and lodged a complaint as per Ex.P2. PW2 further deposed that Lokayuktha Police gave him some instructions. At about 12.50 p.m. or 1.00 p.m., they rushed to the office of the accused. He alone went inside the office of the accused. The accused was present in his office. There was no conversation between the accused and him. He gave Rs.60,000/- to the accused. The accused received the said amount and kept the same in the drawer of his table. Thereafter, Lokayuktha Police entered the 12 Spl.C.C.No.16/2011 office of the accused and questioned him about the money. The accused has denied of receiving money. The accused produced the tainted currency notes before the Lokayuktha Inspector. Thereafter, both the hand fingers of the accused were washed in the solution. The said solution becomes red colour. The accused was brought to the Lokayuktha Police station. The contents of the pen drive were converted to CD and transcript into writing. A Mahazar was drawn in the Lokayuktha Police station as per Ex.P3. PW2 has further deposed that no witnesses were secured to the Lokayuktha Police station before leaving for the office of the accused and no Entrustment Mahazar was prepared in the Lokayuktha Police station.
12. PW2 who is a material witness to prove the demand and acceptance of bribe by the accused has turned hostile. He has not supported the prosecution case. The Spl.P.P. cross-examined PW2 at length. During the course of cross-examination PW2 has admitted regarding securing of two Government officials to the Lokayuktha Police station to act as witnesses in the Trap and drawing of Entrustment Mahazar. He also admits that after he entered into the office of the accused there was conversation between the accused and himself about the 13 Spl.C.C.No.16/2011 payment of bribe, demanding of bribe by the accused, he gave money to the accused only on demand, acceptance of the money by the accused, he counted and kept it in the space just above the drawer portion of the table.
13. During the course of cross-examination made on behalf of the accused, PW2 has stated that the license of the Bar & Restaurant has to be renewed on or before 1st July of every year. The accused has renewed the license in the month of July itself. At the time of renewal of license, the accused did not demand any money as bribe and he did not pay the money directly to the accused. During the month of September 2010, there was no application pending before the Excise Department for renewal of license of Bar & Restaurant. PW2 has further stated that the accused has filed several criminal cases against him for having violated the license conditions, he pleaded guilty and remitted the fine and as such, he was unhappy with the accused. PW2 has further stated that he does not remember the date when he visited the office of the accused in connection with the complaint. Nobody was present when he went to the office of the accused. No digital camera or voice recorder was given by the Lokayuktha police while he visiting the office of the accused. PW2 has 14 Spl.C.C.No.16/2011 further stated that he does not remember about the drawing of Mahazar in the office of the accused, obtaining his signature on any of the proceedings, giving of tainted currency notes of Rs.60,000/- to the accused, taking of hand wash of the accused in any solution, wiping the place with cotton where the tainted currency notes were kept, dipping of said cotton in the solution, the said solution turning to pink colour, etc.
14. PW2 has half heartedly deposed before the court. The evidence of the PW2 will not help the case of prosecution to prove the demand and acceptance of bribe for showing an official favour in the matter of renewal of license of Bar & Restaurant.
15. The prosecution has examined CW7-Elia G as PW3. He is one of the Panch witnesses to the Entrustment Mahazar and Trap Mahazar. PW3 has deposed about preparing of Entrustment Mahazar as per Ex.P4. He further stated that he does not remember where they went and what happened thereafter and seeing of the accused. Further he deposed that the Lokayuktha Inspector has obtained his signature on some documents in the Lokayuktha Police station. PW3 has also further deposed 15 Spl.C.C.No.16/2011 that the Lokayuktha Inspector has not recorded his statement. But he deposed about recovery of the amount.
16. PW3 who is a material witness to prove the Trap Mahazar has turned hostile. He has not supported the prosecution case. The Spl.P.P. cross-examined PW3 at length. But nothing useful to the case of the prosecution is elicited during the course of cross-examination.
17. During the course of cross-examination made on behalf of the accused, PW3 has stated that he does not have any information about the case, except the fact that he put his signature on some of the documents in the Lokayuktha office. He also admits that in his presence, no proceedings have taken place.
18. The prosecution has examined CW6- H.M.Shivaramu (shadow witness) as PW4. PW4 deposed that, on 8.9.2010, he was secured to the Lokayuktha Police station to act as witness in the Trap in Crime No.39/2010. The complainant was present in the Lokayuktha Police station. The contents of the complaint were made known to him. The complainant produced Rs.60,000/-(60 currency notes denomination of Rs.1000/-) which were 16 Spl.C.C.No.16/2011 smeared with phenolphthalein powder. Before that, the serial numbers of the currency notes were recorded as per Ex.P5 and his signature was obtained. After verifying & counting the said currency notes, he placed it in the right side pant pocket of the complainant. Thereafter, both his hands were washed in sodium carbonate solution. The said solution turned to pink colour. The CD produced along with the complaint was played in his presence. The conversation recorded in the CD was transcript into writing. All the events were video-graphed. The complainant was instructed to approach the accused and to pay the amount only on demand and to give signal by wiping his hair if the accused received the money. He was instructed to follow the complainant and to observe what transpires between the complainant and the accused. Entrustment Mahazar was drawn as per Ex.P4 and his signature was obtained. PW4 further deposed that thereafter he along with all the Trap Team Members, complainant & CW7-Elia, left for Govindrajanagar in Maruti Omni car and motor bike. Digital Voice Recorder & button camera were given to the complainant with an instruction to switch it on while approaching the accused and to record the conversation/scene. PW4 further deposed that the office of the accused is situated in the first floor of 17 Spl.C.C.No.16/2011 the BDA complex. The complainant alone went inside the office of the accused. He was told by the complainant not to accompany him on the ground that the accused may get doubt if he goes along with him. Therefore, he was standing in front of the shop situated opposite to BDA complex. At about 1.00 p.m., the complainant gave pre- instructed signal. All the Trap Team Members, CW7-Elia & he rushed to the spot where the complainant was standing. The complainant led them to the office of the accused and pointed out the accused by saying that he is the person who demanded and accepted the money. The Lokayuktha Inspector has apprehended the accused. Thereafter, on being questioned, the accused told the Lokayuktha Inspector that he kept the money in the space just above the drawer portion of the table. CW7-Elia has removed the said tainted currency notes and produced it before the Lokayuktha Inspector. The said currency notes were tallied with the currency notes sheet. Thereafter both the hand fingers of the accused were made to dip in sodium carbonate solution. The right hand wash solution turned to pink colour, whereas the left hand wash solution has not turned to any colour. All the relevant records were seized from the office of the accused. Thereafter the accused was brought to the Lokayuktha Police station. The Digital Voice 18 Spl.C.C.No.16/2011 Recorder and the button camera was played & the contents of it were converted to CD and transcript into writing. All the seized articles were sealed with metal seal by using the English letter "Q". Thereafter, the Lokayuktha Inspector has recorded his statement and also of the complainant. The accused has given his explanation in writing about he being in possession of the money. The entire event was video-graphed. The Trap Mahazar was prepared as per Ex.P3.
19. PW4 was cross-examined on behalf of the accused. He stood to the test of cross-examination. Nothing contrary was elicited during the course of cross- examination so as to disbelieve the oral testimony of PW4.
20. The prosecution has examined CW19- K.C.Lakshminarayana as PW5. PW5 deposed regarding registering of complaint, securing of two Government officials, preparing of Entrustment Mahazar, laying of Trap against the accused, recovery of tainted currency notes from the space just above the drawer portion of the table of the accused, turning of resultant hand wash of the accused to pink colour, seizure of the file relating to the complainant from the office of the accused, recording of 19 Spl.C.C.No.16/2011 statement of the witnesses, obtaining of Sanction Order from the Competent Authority and submitting charge sheet before the Court.
21. It is well settled that demand of illegal gratification by the accused and acceptance of the same is sine-qua-non for constituting the offence under Sec.7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. The prosecution is required to prove that there was demand and acceptance 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 complaint and the accused was the Competent Authority to do an official favour to the complainant.
22. In the present case, PW2 who is the best person to say regarding demand of illegal gratification and acceptance of the same by the accused for showing an official favour, has turned hostile. He has not supported the prosecution case.
23. PW4 being an independent witness has not played his role as instructed and in the manner as required in law. The impartial shadow witness to the Trap 20 Spl.C.C.No.16/2011 proceedings is taken with an object of proving the case of demand and acceptance of bribe by independent corroboration. According to PW4, the complainant alone could go and meet the accused in his office and he stood outside the office along with the other Trap Team Members. He has not over heard the conversation between the complainant and the accused nor seen the complainant giving money to the accused. Absolutely there is no evidence to prove the theory of demand and acceptance of bribe by the accused.
24. From the evidence of PW2, it is clear that license of the Bar & Restaurant has to be renewed on or before 1st July of every year. During the month of September 2010 there was no application pending before the Excise Department for renewal of license of Bar & Restaurant. The accused has renewed the license in respect of the Bar & Restaurant of the complainant in the month of July itself. At the time of renewal of license, the accused did not demand for bribe. Even PW5-Investigating Officer, during his cross-examination has categorically admitted that as on the date of the complaint, the license in respect of the Bar & Restaurant of the complainant was renewed. From this it 21 Spl.C.C.No.16/2011 is clear that, no work of the complainant was pending with the accused as on the date of complaint.
25. Further, it is clear from the evidence of PW2 that, the accused has filed several criminal cases against him for having violated the license conditions. In all the said criminal cases, he pleaded guilty and remitted the fine. He was unhappy with the accused because of filing of criminal cases against him. PW5-IO admits that, during investigation he came to know that the accused has registered 4 cases against the complainant for having violated the terms and conditions of the Bar license, the complainant has pleaded guilty in all 4 cases and remitted the fine. Under the circumstances, the complainant having animosity & vengeance against the accused, in order to harass him, has filed the complaint against the accused before the Lokayuktha police, appears to be more probable and acceptable.
26. It is relevant to note that the Trap Mahazar- Ex.P3 was not drawn on the spot, but according to the I.O it was drawn in the office of the Lokayuktha. Drawing up of Trap Mahazar at the place far away from the place of incident, give rise to doubt about the prosecution case.
22 Spl.C.C.No.16/201127. It is well settled that in the absence of evidence regarding demand and acceptance of bribe by the accused, mere recovery of tainted currency notes and positive result of the phenolphthalein test, is not sufficient to convict the accused.
28. It is well settled that electronic record like CD, VCD, pen drive, etc. which contains the statement 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 Hon'ble Supreme Court of Anwar P.V -v- P.K.Basheer; (2014) 10 Supreme Court Cases 473.
29. In the present case, MO12,13,14 & 15 are the CD said to have contained the conversation, MO16 is the CD containing the video of the trap proceedings, 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.
23 Spl.C.C.No.16/2011Further, the Investigating Officer has not collected the sample voice of the accused and sent it to Forensic Science Laboratory for voice testing. On this ground also, MO12 to 15 cannot be admitted in evidence.
30. The Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka in the case of Sri Hanumanthappa -v- State of Karnataka; 2012 (2) KCCR 1157 held that:
"Shadow witness evidence is not supported by complainant with any material particulars. Further no work was pending with the accused as on the date of the trap.
(The Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka was pleased to set aside the conviction order by giving benefit of doubt)
31. The Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka in the case of R.Malini -v- State of Karnatak; 2012 (1) KCCR 414, held that:
"Mere possession of the amount by the accused cannot be taken as receipt of the amount by the accused after demand made by him as the evidence of demand is totally lacking."24 Spl.C.C.No.16/2011
Further it was held that:
"In the absence of any evidence of demand and acceptance of the amount as illegal gratification- Mere acceptance of money by the appellant will not be sufficient to fasten the guilt."
32. The Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka in the case of Suresh Kumar -v- State of Karnataka, Lokayuktha Police, Tumkur, held that:
"Prevention of Corruption Act,1988- Secs.7 & 20- Allegation that accused accepted bribe for change of khata- Prosecution failing to establish demand and acceptance- recovery of money alone will not give rise to presumption in absence of proof- Accused entitled to benefit of doubt.
33. The Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka in the case of Srinivas -v- The State through Lokayuktha Police Station, Bijapur; 2016(4) KCCR 3783 held that:
"Prosecution required to prove both demand and acceptance - shadow witness did not assert that he had heard demand being made by accused and payment having been made by complainant.
(The Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka was pleased to set aside the conviction order) 25 Spl.C.C.No.16/2011
34. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of C.Sukumarn -v- State of Kerala; 2015 AIR SCW 951 held that:
"Since complainant has turned hostile, neither the demand aspect nor acceptance of bribe money can be verified from any other witnesses- Prosecution failed to prove demand and acceptance of bribe money by accused".
35. In the present case, absolutely there is no evidence to prove the demand and acceptance of illegal gratification by the accused. There was no work of the complainant pending with the accused as on the date of the complaint. Under the circumstances, mere recovery of tainted currency notes and positive result of the phenolphthalein test, in the absence of evidence of demand and acceptance of the amount as illegal gratification, is not sufficient to convict the accused. The prosecution has miserably failed to prove the alleged charges leveled against the accused. Hence, I answer Point Nos.1 & 2 in the negative.
36. Point No.3: In the result, I proceed to pass the following:
26 Spl.C.C.No.16/2011ORDER 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.
Bail bond executed by the accused stands cancelled.
MO-2- Currency notes are ordered to be confiscated to the State after expiry of appeal period.
MO-1- Metal Seal shall be handed over to the Karnataka Lokayuktha Police.
Mos-3 to 16 being worthless is 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 1st day of September 2017) (SHRIDEVI S. ANGADI) LXXVI Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge & Special Judge, Bengaluru (CCH-77) 27 Spl.C.C.No.16/2011 ANNEXURE List of witnesses examined on behalf of the prosecution:
PW1 Aravind Ramachandra
Jannu
PW2 Ramaiah
PW3 Elia G
PW4 H.M.Shivaramu
PW5 K.C.Lakshminarayana
List of documents marked on behalf of prosecution:
Ex.P-1 Sanction Order
Ex.P-1(a) Signature of PW1
Ex.P-2 Complaint
Ex.P-2(a) Signature of PW2
Ex.P-2(b) Endorsement with signature of PW5
Ex.P-3 Trap Mahazar
Ex.P-3(a) Signature of PW2
Ex.P-3(b) Signature of PW3
Ex.P-3(c) Signature of PW4
Ex.P-3(d) Signature of PW5
Ex.P-4 Pre-Trap Mahazar
Ex.P-4(a) Signature of PW2
Ex.P-4(b) Signature of PW3
Ex.P-4(c) Signature of PW4
Ex.P-4(d) Signature of PW5
Ex.P-5 Currency notes sheet
Ex.P-5(a) Signature of PW3
Ex.P-5(b) Signature of PW4
Ex.P-6 Transcription of CD
Ex.P-6(a) Signature of PW5
Ex.P-7 Transcription of CD containing
28 Spl.C.C.No.16/2011
conversation of complainant &
accused
Ex.P-7(a) Signature of PW5
Ex.P-8 Copies of four files relating to the
complainant
Ex.P-9 Attendance Register
Ex.P-10 Rough spot sketch
Ex.P-11 Spot sketch
Ex.P-12 Transcription of CD containing the
conversation of complainant &
accused
Ex.P-13 Transcription of CD containing the
question & answer of accused
Ex.P-14 Sample seal sheet
Ex.P-15 Acknowledgment
Ex.P-16 Written statement of the accused
Ex.P-16(a) Signature of the accused
Ex.P-17 Report given by CW8
Ex.P-18 Report given by CW9
Ex.P-19 Report relating to the detail
particulars of cases registered
against the liquor shops
Ex.P-20 Service particulars of accused
Ex.P-21 Chemical Examination Report
Ex.P-22 Call details of mobile phone of the
complainant & accused
List of material objects marked on behalf of the prosecution:
MO.1 Metal Seal
MO.2 Tainted currency notes
MO.3 Sample solution Article No.1
MO.4 Hand wash of CW6 Article No.2
MO.5 CD-containing video taken at Article No.3
the time of Entrustment
29 Spl.C.C.No.16/2011
Mahazar
MO.6 Sample solution Article No.4
MO.7 & Right hand wash solution of Article No.5 & 5A 7A accused MO.8 & Left hand wash solution of Article No.6 & 6A 8A accused MO.9 Sample solution Article No.8 MO.10 Solution containing cotton Article No.9 & & 10A cloth 9A MO.11 Piece of cotton cloth Article No.10 MO.12 CD Article No.11 MO.13 CD Article No.12 MO.14 CD Article No.13 MO.15 CD Article No.14 & & 15A 14A MO.16 CD Article No.15 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) 30 Spl.C.C.No.16/2011 Judgment pronounced in open court(vide separate orders) ORDER Accused present.
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.
Bail bond executed by the accused stands cancelled.
MO-2- Currency notes are ordered to be confiscated to the State after expiry of appeal period.
MO-1- Metal Seal shall be handed over to the Karnataka Lokayuktha Police.
Mos-3 to 16 being worthless is ordered to be destroyed after the appeal period is over.
(SHRIDEVI S. ANGADI) LXXVI Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge & Special Judge, Bengaluru (CCH-77)