Karnataka High Court
State Of Karnataka vs Anneappa S/O Saibanna Jamadar on 23 August, 2016
Author: R.B Budihal
Bench: R.B Budihal
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
KALABURAGI BENCH
DATED THIS THE 3RD DAY OF AUGUST, 2016
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE BUDIHAL R.B.
CRIMINAL APPEAL No.3580/2010
Between
State of Karnataka
Represented by Special
Public Prosecutor (Lokayukta)
Bidar
...Appellant
(By Sri S.S. Kumman, SPP)
AND:
Anneappa
S/o Saibanna Jamadar
Age: 38 years,
Occ: Government Servant
Working as FDA in KGID Branch, Bidar
R/o H.No.140, NGO Colony, University
Gulbarga
...Respondent
(By Sri Shivanand V. Pattanashetti, Advocate)
This Criminal Appeal is filed under Section 378 (1)
& (3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 praying to
grant leave to appeal against the judgment and order of
2
acquittal passed by the Spl. Judge and Prl. Sessions
Judge at *Bidar in Special Case No.3/06 dated
*31.10.09 acquitting the respondent/accused of the
offences P/U/S. 7 and 13(1) read with Section 13(2) of
Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.
This appeal coming on for Hearing this day, the
Court delivered the following:
JUDGMENT
The Judgment and Order of acquittal dated 31.10.2009 passed by the Special Judge & Prl. Sessions Judge, Bidar, in Spl.Case (Corruption) No.3/2006 is called in question by the State in this appeal.
2. By the impugned judgment, the Special Court acquitted the respondent/accused for the alleged offences punishable U/Sec.13(1)(d) R/w 13(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act.
3. The brief facts of the prosecution case as per the complaint Ex.P-9 averments are that PW-9 one Vishal is the complainant in this case, wherein, he has stated that he is working as Electrical Contractor and he *Corrected vide Court order dated 23.08.2016. 3 is native of Bidar. In the complaint, he has mentioned that his mother Smt.Sara working as staff nurse in Bidar District Hospital and she is having one KGID policy bearing No.1121383. In order to take loan on the said KGID policy, on 16.1.2006 application was given to the insurance authority at Bidar and obtained the receipt in that connection. The case worker *A.S.Jamadar was inquired into and he told if Rs.300/- given to him, then he will get the loan sanctioned. Same was informed by the complainant to his mother and on 31.1.2006 the mother of the complainant asked him again to go to the KGID office and again to inquire into the matter. Accordingly, complainant came to the office and inquired with *A.S.Jamadar. The case worker, who told him that if he give Rs.300/-, then only he will get the work done. After coming to the house, he informed the same to his mother. Then the mother told the complainant not to give the bribe amount and asked to go to the Lokayukta office and to give complaint. Accordingly, he has submitted complaint against *A.S.Jamadar and requested to take action against him in *Corrected vide Court order dated 23.08.2016. 4 accordance with law. On the basis of the said complaint, case came to be registered in Bidar Lokayukta Police Station Crime No.2/2006 for the offences punishable U/Sec.7, 13(1)(d) R/w 13(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.
4. The Investigating Officer completed the investigation and filed the charge sheet against the respondent/accused for the said offences.
5. The prosecution in order to prove its case, in all examined 11-witnesses as PWs-1 to 11 and produced documents at Ex.P-1 to 33 and material objects Mos-1 to 7. On the side of the defence, no witnesses examined, but document Ex.D-1 and Ex.D-1(a) got marked.
6. After evaluating the entire materials, ultimately the trial court acquitted the accused holding that prosecution failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt and there are doubts in the prosecution case and benefit of doubt was given to the respondent/accused, and he was acquitted. 5
7. Being aggrieved by the Judgment and Order of acquittal passed by the trial Court, State come up in appeal before this Court and challenged the correctness and legality of the Judgment and Order of acquittal on the grounds as mentioned in the appeal memorandum.
8. I have heard the arguments of the learned Special Public Prosecutor for the appellant/State and also the arguments of the learned counsel appearing for the respondent/accused.
9. Learned Special Public Prosecutor for the appellant during the course of his argument made the submission that PW-4 is the panch witness who was asked by the Lokayukta Inspector to accompany the complainant PW-9 to the office of the accused and to observe the things, which is happening between the complainant and the accused persons. He made the submission that though in his examination in chief, PW- 4 has not supported the case of the prosecution, but, during the course of cross examination, he clearly admitted that, on that day, he went inside the office of 6 the accused. Hence, it is his contention that this itself clearly goes to show that PW-4 accompanied the complainant to the office of the accused person. Learned Special Public Prosecutor submitted that the trial Court held that on 30th and 31st day of January, 2006, the accused was on leave and the defence established this fact in the course of the trial of the case is the wrong observation made by the trial Court. He made the submission that looking to the materials produced i.e. Ex.D-1 Attendance register, the marking made in the Attendance Register for the State itself goes to show that firstly it was marked by putting X and thereafter it was mentioned as he is on CL. Hence, the learned Special Public Prosecutor submitted that this itself creates doubt in the mind of the Court that if really he as on CL, same thing could have been mentioned in the Attendance Register in respect of putting of X mark. Hence, he made the submission that the wrong observation has been made by the trial Court in holding that on the said two days the respondent/accused was not at all present and he was on leave.
7
10. He also made submissions with regard to complainant PW-9 going to the office of the accused person for the purpose of giving application for getting the loan of his mother on the KGID policy, he has clearly deposed in his evidence that firstly on 16.1.2006, he had been to the accused person and when inquired, the accused demanded Rs.300/- to process the application and he also deposed that again on 31.1.2006 he had been to the office of the accused at KGID Office and at that time also when he inquired with the accused person, he told that if Rs.300/- bribe amount is given, then only his application will be honored by way of loan to him. Learned Special Public Prosecutor made the submission that even the mother of the complainant has been examined as PW-7 and she has also deposed in this connection that application was moved for getting the loan on her KGID policy. Hence, it is his contention that these two material witnesses have clearly deposed about filing such application, seeking the loan on the KGID policy of PW-7 Smt.Sara. Learned 8 Special Public Prosecutor also made the submissions that during the course of the trap proceedings the file was also seized from the office of the accused containing the loan application and other particulars and the xerox copy of the same was furnished by the office to the Investigating Officer. On these, he made it clear that material clearly goes to show that such application was made and the said application was with the respondent
- accused person. Learned Special Public Prosecutor also made submissions that after conducting the entrustment mazhar proceedings under Ex.P-5, 10 and 11, they all went to the office of the accused.
11. Learned Special Public Prosecutor has submitted that with regard to the trap mahazar conducted in the office of KGID, complainant has been examined as P.W.9, who has deposed in his evidence that on 01.02.2006, they went to the office of the accused at about 12.30p.m. and accused was not in the office, he informed the same to the Lokayuktha Inspector over mobile phone. Thereafter, at about 12.45 9 p.m. accused came to his office. He has also submitted that after coming to the office when the complainant met with accused person and enquired about the case and the sanctioning of loan application, the accused demanded and asked him whether he has brought the bribe amount and then, P.W.9 gave the amount of Rs.300, which was received by the accused. Hence, he has submitted that the evidence of P.W.9, so also the shadow witness i.e., P.W.4 and the contents of the complaint, entrustment mahazar and trap mahazar, clearly shows that there was a demand and acceptance of bribe amount by the accused person. He has also submitted that the hand wash of accused was taken in two separate bowls and after washing both the right and left hands separately, the solution in the bowls turned into pink colour and it was put into the bottle, packed and sealed, same was referred to the FSL for examination and report, and the FSL report is marked as Ex.P-32 and the hand wash was marked at item Nos.5 and 6. In Ex.P-32 there is a clear mention about the result as positive regarding the presence of 10 phenolphthalein powder and also the sodium carbonate solution, which also supports the case of the prosecution that the bribe amount was received by the respondent-accused. He has also submitted that when immediately, after the trap, the respondent-accused was asked, what is his explanation and in his explanation also he admitted about the same. He has submitted that even though the prosecution placed cogent and consistent evidence before the Trial Court, the learned Special Judge has wrongly read the evidence and wrongly proceeded to acquit the respondent-accused and hence, he submitted to allow the appeal and to set- aside judgment and order of acquittal passed by the learned Special Judge and to convict the respondent- accused for the said offences.
12. Per contra, learned counsel for respondent- accused during the course of his arguments has submitted that Ex.D-1, the attendance register, shows that on two dates i.e., on 30.01.2016 and 31.01.2016, the respondent accused was on leave and the same is 11 mentioned in the attendance register for the said two dates. He has further submitted that the responsible officer of KGID Office has been examined as P.W.2, who in his oral evidence, has deposed on oath that on two dates the respondent-accused was on leave and he has not come to the office. Hence, it is his contention that the said evidence clearly shows and falsifies the case of the prosecution that on 31.01.2006 when the complainant went to KGID Office, the accused demanded bribe amount of Rs.300/- from the complainant. He has further submitted that prosecution has to establish that there was a demand and acceptance of bribe amount by the accused, but there is no cogent and satisfactory material produced by the prosecution for the same. He has also submitted that the evidence of complainant-P.W.9, Shadow witness-P.W.4 and even the co-panchas will not inspire confidence of this Court that such offence has been committed by the respondent-accused. He has also submitted that evidence of the prosecution is inconsistent, contradictory with each other and it is not 12 worth believable. He has also submitted that when the demand and acceptance of bribe amount is not established properly, only on the basis of the solution of hand wash turning into pink colour, is not sufficient to hold that the respondent-accused has committed the alleged offence. He has further submitted that regarding the explanation said to have been offered by the accused, neither the prosecution has produced the same before the Court nor got it marked in the evidence. In the absence of the same, again it raises doubt in the mind of the Court whether really the respondent- accused was present in the office on that day. He has submitted that looking to the evidence of P.W.9- complainant and his mother-P.W.7, again there are contradictions in their versions. Hence, he has submitted that the Trial Court appreciated all these materials i.e., oral and documentary, extensively and rightly came to the conclusion to hold that prosecution failed to proved its case beyond reasonable doubt and there are reasonable doubt arises and the benefit of doubt has to be given to the accused person. Neither 13 any illegality has been committed nor there is any perverse or capricious view taken by the Trial Court in coming to such conclusion. He has further submitted that even in case of acquittal of the accused by the judgment of the Trial Court, but the appellate court has to be slow in reversing the findings of the Trial Court. Hence, he has submitted that no merits in the appeal and same may be dismissed.
13. I have perused the grounds urged in the appeal memorandum, oral evidence of the prosecution witnesses and the other documents produced in the case. It is the case of the prosecution that there was a demand and acceptance of bribe amount of Rs.300/- by the respondent-accused for processing the loan application of P.W.7-Smt.Sara, which application was presented to KGID Office through P.W.9-complainant. Regarding the demand of bribe amount of Rs.300/-, it is specifically mentioned in the complaint that firstly, it was on 16.01.2006, when P.W.9 had been to the KGID Office to submit the application the respondent-accused 14 demanded bribe of Rs.300/- and on 31.01.2006, again when the complainant had been to the KGID office, the respondent-accused demanded bribe amount of Rs.300/-. The further case of the prosecution that trap was conducted in the office of the accused on 01.02.2016 at about 1.00 p.m., and the respondent- accused received the bribe amount from the complainant, which he has produced before the Lokayukta Police and then, his hand wash is taken. With the help of these materials, the prosecution wanted to prove its case.
14. Let me examine the relevant portion in the evidence of prosecution witnesses i.e., P.W.4 and P.W.9, so far as the demand and acceptance of bribe amount is concerned.
15. P.W.4-Vijaykumar is the shadow witness, who was asked by the Lokayukta Inspector to go along with the complainant to the office of the accused to observe what is going to happen in between the complainant and the accused person. In the 15 examination-in-chief, P.W.4 has deposed that on 31.01.2006, he was called to the Lokayukta office at about 4.00 p.m. At that time, complainant-Vishal, one Devidas (P.W.5) and the Lokayukta staff were present. Lokayukta Police received six currency notes of denomination of Rs.50/- from the complainant and smeared the sodium carbonate powder and the amount was given to P.W.5-Devidas and then, the amount was taken back from Devidas, then his hand wash was taken, which turned into pink colour. Then, lokayukta Police explained about the chemical reaction. The entrustment mahazar proceedings were conducted at 6.00 p.m. on 31.01.2006. He has further deposed that as the time was over, they were asked to go and come on the next day at 10.00 a.m. Again, on the next day, he went to the Lokayukta office at 10.00 a.m., the complainant, Devidas and Lokayukta Staff, were also present. Police took out the amount from the almirah and given it to Vishal and they were all taken in the Police Jeep and went nearby Akkamahadevi College and asked him and the complainant to go to the office of the 16 respondent. He has further deposed that complainant- Vishal went inside the office of the accused much earlier, 15-20 minutes later himself and others went inside the office of the accused. When they went inside, complainant told them that the amount is in the drawer, Police taken out the said amount from the drawer and the hand wash of the accused was taken, which turned into pink colour. The panchanama was conducted in the office of the KGID and the same is marked as Ex.P- 6, he has also signed the same and identified his signature.
In the cross-examination, P.W.4 has deposed and admitted as true that he went inside the office of the accused person along with Vishal, but denied the suggestion that accused demanded the bribe amount from the complainant, the complainant gave the amount to the accused and he has seen the same. He has denied the suggestion that he has given the statement as per Ex.P-7.
In the cross-examination by the learned counsel for the accused, P.W.4 has deposed that they went to 17 Lokayukta office at 4.00 p.m. The complainant-Vishal was also there and he was introduced, who came to Lokayukta office to give the complaint. He has not gone through the contents of the said complaint. He does not know what was the work Vishal was having with the respondent. When they went to the KGID office it was 12 or 12.30 p.m., and when they went inside, the other staff of the said office were also present. He has not seen that who took the money from the drawer. He deposed that he is seeing the accused for the first time before the Court and he again deposed that he has seen the accused in his office. He has denied the suggestion that Ex.P-6 was prepared in Lokayukta office.
16. P.W.9-Vishal, who is the complainant in this case, has deposed in his evidence in the examination-in- chief that since 25-30 years his mother Smt.Sara was working as Nurse in the Government Hospital at Bidar. On 16.01.2006 his mother gave one application to get the loan from the KGID and she obtained the receipt in that regard. He has further deposed that on 24.01.2006 18 he went to the KGID Office, where the accused was the case worker. He enquired with the accused about the further steps to be taken in connection with the loan application, accused demanded a sum of Rs.300/- and assured that he will get the loan amount sanctioned. He informed the same to his mother, but his mother told him that they cannot give the amount as such and asked him to wait. On 31.01.2006 he went to the KGID office as instructed by his mother and enquired about the sanction of the loan, accused told that unless and until a sum of Rs.300/- is given to him, the loan amount will not be sanctioned. He informed the same to his mother, he also informed the mother not to give the bribe amount and he was instructed to give the complaint. On the same day, he went to Lokayukta Office, Bidar, and lodged the complaint, which is marked as Ex.P-9. In the evening the Inspector called the witnesses i.e., P.Ws.4 & 5 and told about the complaint of the complainant and requested them to act as panch witnesses, for which they agreed. Then complainant produced a sum of Rs.300/- i.e., six 19 currency notes of denomination Rs.50/- and the entrustment mahazar proceedings were conducted and then, they were asked to come on the next day as the office time was over. P.W.4-Vijay Kumar was instructed by the Inspector to accompany him and to observe what is going to happen in between himself and the accused. They went to the office of the accused person, but the accused was not present in his office. He informed the same to the Police Inspector over mobile, they were waiting there only. At 12.45p.m. accused came to the office, then he enquired the accused about the work for which the accused asked whether the complainant has brought the amount, which he has told. Then he gave Rs.300/- to the accused person, firstly he kept the amount on the table, then the accused took that amount and kept it in the right side table drawer. Thereafter, he came outside and gave the signal as instructed by the Lokayukta Police and then they all came and went inside the office, but the accused told that he has not received any amount. He has further deposed that when the Inspector asked the accused 20 person that where is the amount, accused took out the amount from the table drawer and kept it on the table. The photographs were taken about the trap proceedings and the videography was also made. Then Inspector enquired P.W.4-Vijay Kumar has also confirmed what he had told. Then panchanama was prepared in the office of KGID and the notes were seized, numbers were compared, to know whether they were the very notes, which were produced before the Police in the Lokayukta office. He has also deposed about the photographs which are marked as Exs.P-12 to P-17, six photographs, and further photographs under Exs.P-18 to P-23.
In the cross-examination, P.W.9 has deposed that earlier to Ex.P-9 his mother had not given any application seeking loan from the KGID office. He admitted as true that in Ex.P-2-application form on page No.3, policy number 1121383 is mentioned and on 21.01.2001 loan was taken. He also deposed and admitted as true that as per the information furnished and as he know, in connection with old loan, an amount of Rs.13,900/- and the interest on the said loan was 21 due. He has also admitted as true that accused was working as clerk in the KGID office and he was not having the authority to sanction the loan. He further deposed that the old loan amount was still due. He has admitted that he not contacted the concerned officers to confirm whether the loan was sanctioned or not and he enquired only with the accused. He admitted that he does not know clearly what is the loan amount his mother applied for in her second application. The concerned officers has told that unless and until the earlier loan is discharged, again loan amount will not be given. He agreed and accepted that from 2001 till 2006 in connection with the earlier loan, his mother has not paid even a single installment. When it was suggested to him that on 31.01.2006 accused was on leave, for that he deposed that when they all went to the office of the accused in the morning, the accused was not in the office, but the accused came to the office in the afternoon. He has further deposed that on 31.01.2006 in the morning himself, panchas, Police and the staff altogether went to KGID office. At that time KGID 22 officers were present. He further deposed that on 31.01.2006 when accused came to the office, they were all in the KGID office from 1.00 p.m. to 3.30 p.m. or 4.00 p.m. and panchanama was written in the KGID office. He has further deposed that when he gave the bribe amount to the accused person, P.W.4-Vijay Kumar was with him. When the amount was given, accused told to keep it on the table, accordingly, he kept it on the table. Thereafter, accused kept it in the table drawer. P.W.4-Vijay Kumar has seen him giving the bribe amount to the accused and then the accused keeping the same in the table drawer. When they went to Lokayukta office, the loan application of his mother was still with the accused. The concerned KGID officer himself told that the loan application has to be processed from the accused himself. When the Lokayukta Police came inside and enquired about the bribe amount, accused denied the same. When Inspector enquired with him, he told that he has given the amount to the accused, accused kept it in the table drawer. He denied the suggestion that when the earlier 23 loan is still due, unless and until it is discharged, it is not possible to give second loan and when it was informed by the accused, he quarreled with the accused, but he deposed that he questioned the accused person why the second loan cannot be sanctioned.
17. I have perused the contents of Ex.P-6, the trap mahazar. Looking to the oral evidence of P.W.4- shadow witness and P.W.9-complainant, there is no specific statement in their evidence that after the complainant gave the amount, through which hand the accused received the said amount, whether the accused person handled the tainted currency notes with both the hands. The evidence is only to the effect that complainant gave the bribe amount and the accused received the same and kept it in the table drawer. This evidence assumes importance because it is the case of the prosecution as per Ex.P-6 trap mahazar, so also as per Ex.P-32-FSL report that the solution of the hand wash of both the hands i.e., right and left, turned into pink colour. Unless and until there is a positive 24 evidence placed by the prosecution that the accused received the amount with one particular hand and then, he exchanged it through another hand then there is no possibility and the contention of the prosecution that both the hand wash turned into pink colour cannot be accepted at all. Therefore, the evidence of the prosecution under Ex.P-32-FSL report alone will not come to the aid and assistance of the prosecution case, unless specific positive case has been made out that the tainted currency notes were handled by the accused. I have carefully examined the evidence of P.W.4-shadow witness and P.W.9-complainant, nowhere they have stated about handling of the currency notes by both the hands by the accused person.
18. Perusing the complaint averments, the demand for the bribe amount was on two dates i.e., on 16.01.2006 and 31.01.2006, but looking to the oral evidence of the complainant, wherein he has deposed that when his mother asked him to go to KGID office and enquire, accordingly, he went to the office on 25 24.01.2016 and at that time, the accused was the case worker and when he enquired with him about the sanction of the loan and the further steps to be taken at that time, accused demanded a sum of Rs.300/- for getting the loan sanctioned. Looking to this evidence of P.W.9-complainant it is all together different evidence placed before the Court during the course of oral evidence. As per the complaint, it is not the case of the prosecution that accused demanded bribe amount of Rs.300/- on 24.01.2016. Hence, this also goes to the very root of the matter and falsify the case of the prosecution regarding the demand of bribe amount of Rs.300/- by the accused from the complainant for sanction of KGID loan amount.
19. Even with regard to the evidence of prosecution witness, one witness i.e., shadow witness is deposing that Lokayukta Police asked the accused, and the accused took out the amount from the drawer and produced before the Lokayukta Police; another version of the prosecution witness is that the Police themselves 26 took out the amount from the drawer. Therefore, there is no consistency and cogent evidence produced by the prosecution with regard to who has actually produced the amount.
20. It is the case of the prosecution that immediately after the trap proceedings are completed, the accused was asked by the Lokayukta Inspector that what is his explanation, then the accused gave his explanation in his own hand writing in a separate sheet of paper and gave it to the Lokayukta Police, as it is mentioned in Ex.P-6 trap mahazar. On page 19 of the trap mahazar Ex.P-6, it is mentioned that thereafter, the accused was questioned that how he came into the possession of Rs.300/- bribe amount and he was asked to give it in writing, accordingly, the accused person gave his explanation in Kannada language in his own hand writing, which is culled out in Ex.P-6. When it is the contention of the prosecution that accused has given his explanation in Kannada language in a separate sheet, the prosecution ought to have produced the said 27 explanation before the Court, but looking to the exhibited documents produced before the Court, said explanation is not at all produced by the prosecution. Therefore, this also raises reasonable doubt in the mind of the Court that whether really on that day the accused was present in the office, whether he received the bribe amount and when asked, whether he gave his explanation in writing. With regard to these aspects, the Court has to draw adverse inference as against the case of the prosecution that accused given his explanation in his own hand writing in Kannada language. It is no doubt true the explanation and its contents, said to have been culled out in the trap proceedings, but that itself is not sufficient, that too, when the specific defence of the accused that on two dates i.e., on 30.01.2006 and 31.01.2006, he was on leave and not attended his office. In view of this defence of the accused, non-production of the explanation of the accused, which is said to have been given in his own hand writing assumes much importance.
28
21. It is the consistent defence of the accused in this case that on two datess he was on leave. Defence got marked attendance register of the office of the KGID in which office he was working as FDA. Perusing the said exhibit it is no doubt true firstly it was marked as 'x' thereafter, it is mentioned that he was on 'CL'. For this it is the contention of the Special Public Prosecutor that if he really on 'CL' something could have been mentioned but why they marked it as 'x' firstly and subsequently mentioned that he was on 'CL'. But regarding this it is not only the entry in Ex.D1, but the prosecution itself examined the Officer from the KGID office wherein this accused was working as FDA.
22. Let me refer to the evidence of the responsible Officer from the KGID office who deposed in his evidence in the examination-in-chief in the year 2002 February he was working at Bidar as District Insurance Officer. As requested by the Lokayuktha police he has given some documents from his office to the police. He has seen the loan application it is as per 29 Ex.P2 and his signature is Ex.P2(a) on the said application and KGID policy is marked as Ex.P3 and the receipt given by the police is as per Ex.P4.
23. In the cross-examination he deposed that in the year 2006 January he was working at Bidar. There is attendance register in their office. In the year 2006 on January 30th and 31st accused was on leave. He is giving the answer after going through the attendance register. The attendance register was marked as Ex.D1 and the entries pertaining to the accused marked as Ex.D1(a). The Court also put the questions to this witness wherein he deposed that accused has not come to the office for two days because of that reason they have mentioned as 'x' and thereafterwards, they have mentioned as 'CL'. Looking to the evidence of this witness who is examined on the side of the prosecution itself also supports the case of the prosecution that on 30th and 31st January the accused was on leave.
24. I have perused the photographs at Exs.P18 to P23. It is no doubt true accused is also seen in the 30 photograph. But the photographer is not examined before the Court and looking to the photographs there is no mention as to on which particular date they were taken. As I have already observed that even the explanation given by the accused is also not before the Court. All these materials put together and appreciated homogeneously it clearly gives an impression that as the accused was not present in his office because of that reason in the attendance register it is mentioned as he was on 'CL' and his explanation is also not produced by the prosecution.
25. I have also perused the earlier evidence of PW.7 the mother who deposed in her evidence in the examination-in-chief that on 16.01.2006 she had given one application to her son Vishal, with a direction to him to give that application in KGID office. It was application for loan on her KGID policy. At about 3 o' clock Vishal came back and told her that one Jamadar in KGID office demanded Rs.300/- as bribe to sanction the loan on her KGID policy. She told him not to make 31 any hurry in the matter and to wait and the matter may be settled. Thereafterwards, he went to KGID office on 31.01.2006. He came back and told her that in that office he was told that loan cannot be granted unless bribe is paid. He advised him to approach the Lokayuktha office and some help would be made from them. On the same date at about 9 o' clock her son Vishal came and told her that he had given a complaint in the Lokayuktha with a request to take appropriate legal action. He also told her that Lokayuktha officers directed him to come to the office on the next day i.e. on 01.02.2006. On the next day i.e. on 01.02.2006 at about 9 o' clock in the night, Vishal came back and told her that Lokayuktha police had apprehended one Jamadar. She had given statement before the police. In the cross-examination she deposed that earlier to submitting this application for loan, she had often been applying for loan. When the present loan application was given, she had cleared all the earlier loans. Looking to this evidence of PW.7-the mother it is quite contrary to the oral evidence of her son Vishal-PW.9. He has 32 admitted in his evidence that the payment of the amount in respect of the earlier loan was due. He further deposed in respect of the loan amount from 2001-06 his mother not at all paid even a single installment. This clearly goes to show that PW.7 though she was due in making repayment of the earlier loan amount still she is deposed falsely before the Court that she has cleared all the earlier loan amount. Apart from that, looking to the evidence of PW.9 the son he has clearly admitted in his evidence that the KGID officer told him that unless and until the earlier loans are cleared, this loan will not be sanctioned. Not only that the evidence of PW.9 also goes to show that the trap proceedings are not at all conducted on 01.02.2006. If we perused the evidence of PW.9 at paragraph 2 during the course of cross-examination he deposed that on 31.01.2006 they all went to the office of the accused in the morning and he was not in his office and he came afternoon. He further deposed that on 31.01.2006 in the morning himself, panchas, Lokayuktha police and their staff they all went to KGID office. In paragraph 3 33 he further deposed that on 31.01.2006 when accused came to the office, they all were in the KGID office from 1:00 p.m. to 3:30 or 4:00 p.m. and panchanama was drawn. This evidence of PW.9 goes to show that this trap proceeding was conducted in the office of the accused at KGID on 31.01.2006, whereas, it is the case of the prosecution that the trap proceedings were conducted on 01.02.2006.
26. Looking to all these materials placed on record through the evidence of the prosecution witnesses it will not inspire the confidence of the Court that accused demanded bribe amount of Rs.300/- and he received the bribe amount from PW.9 complainant and thereby he has committed offence. The evidence of PW.9 also goes to show that the accused was working as a clerk in the KGID office and he was not having authority to sanction the loan. When that is so, question of giving bribe amount to the accused does not arise at all. The Trial Court appreciated each and every aspect of the matter extensively and rightly comes to the 34 conclusion that the prosecution failed to prove its case beyond all reasonable doubt. The reasonable doubt arises in the mind of the Court as to the case of the prosecution and the benefit of doubt will have to be given to the accused persons. The view taken by the Trial Court is one of the possible views. Looking to the materials placed on record no illegality has been committed, nor there are any perverse, capricious view taken by the Trial Court. Therefore, there are no grounds to interfere into the judgment and order of the acquittal. Hence, the appeal is hereby dismissed.
Sd/-
JUDGE sgs/BSR/sdu