Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

19. The prosecution case is that the accused was the Secretary of the Ravoor Village Panchayat and it was his official duty to effect mutation and to effect mutation he demanded bribe from P.W. 1 Siddanna and accepted it. The court has to see whether it was the official duty or function of the accused who was a public servant, namely, Secretary of the Village Panchayat, to effect mutation, if immovable property was transferred. This is the rub in this case.

20. The learned Public Prosecutor has relied on Rule 14 of the Rules framed by the Government in exercise of the powers conferred by Section 210 of the Mysore Village Panchayats and Local Boards Act, 1959. This Rule 14 relied on by the learned Public Prosecutor says :-

"14. The Secretary shall perform all the administrative and other duties which may be entrusted to him by the Panchayat. He shall also perform such other duties as the State Government may direct him to perform in connection with the developmental functions of the Panchayats and Taluk Boards."

What this Rule says is that the Secretary shall perform all the administrative and other duties which may be entrusted to him by the Panchayat. But then the prosecution has not produced a scrap of paper to show that the duty of effecting mutation, if immovable properties were transferred, was entrusted to the Secretary. Nor any resolution passed by the Village Panchayat entrusting the duty of effecting mutations to the Secretary has been produced. No competent officer from the Revenue Department has been examined to establish that it was the function of the Secretary of the Village Panchayat to effect mutation. No doubt, the Deputy Commissioner has given permission for the accused being prosecuted. But that does not means that the accused was entrusted with the duty or function of effecting mutations.

21. The voluntary say of P.W. 4 R. R. Patil, Police Inspector, Lok Ayukta (I.O.) in his evidence that he has seen the Mutation Register and that the accused has made entries in all the mutations will not take the edge off the contention on behalf of the accused that it was not the official duty or function of the accused to effect mutation. In the same breath the I.O.P.W. 4 has admitted that he has not collected any records to show that the accused was to effect mutations and that it was to be approved by the Administrator."

19. Before going to the decision of Patil J., in E. Hampanna v. The State of Karnataka, referred to supra we must say the conclusion of the learned Judge in para 22 of his order that although the money had been received by the accused from P.W. 1, Siddanna as an incentive or reward for doing an official act which he was empowered to do but the prosecution failed to prove that the accused was empowered to do the official act i.e., of effecting mutations in respect of properties transferred the observation to this effect we feel in the result of misreading of positive evidence touching the duties and functions of Secretary of Panchayat and also of arbitrary rejection of the voluntary statement of the Investigating Officer in that behalf on the ground that no competent officers were examined to prove the Secretary's function of effecting mutation. We think these observations are unwarranted. If the accused did not have the power or jurisdiction to transfer the Katha but he had still persuaded P.W. 1 to part with some money for that purpose, anybody would have thought that the conduct of the accused was totally fraudulent replete with the intention of duping somebody deliberately. In such a case the position of the accused would be wholly indefensible and that circumstance could not have been made a plus point to free him from obvious conviction as has happened in this case. We are satisfied that the learned Judge utterly misconceived the position both in law and on facts in recording an acquittal while on his own showing a conviction was called for. It seems to us any negation of this position would be an act of total judicial bankruptcy in the serious task of judging persons charged with the commission of grave offences. The view point of the learned Special Judge that a conviction was for some reason not merited despite a finding to the contrary by him, indicates a tendency to run away from responsibility and we would say of a duty that rested on him in dealing with white collar culprits. We do hope that he learned Judge will not be guilty of such remissness again.