Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

15. PW 1 Ramaiah and PW.5 Smt. Shilpa Belgaum are the panch witnesses. Both these witnesses have stated in their evidence that as per the instructions of higher officers they went to Lokayukta office and met the Lokayukta Inspector, PW.7 and he asked them to act as panch witnesses in a trap case. The witnesses have stated about the pre-trap proceedings followed in the office of PW.7 and PW.1 keeping the tainted currency notes after smearing the phenolphthalein powder to the shirt pocket of complainant and his hand wash and seizure of the solution which is turned to pink colour and also stated about CD's and transcription of the CD's on sheet of paper as mentioned in the pre-trap mahazar and also stated about the pre-trap mahazar drawn as per Ex.P.2. They have also stated about the instructions given by PW.7 to the complainant to give signal after giving the tainted notes to accused on demand by wiping his head. PW.1 has stated that after the pre-trap proceedings, complainant has contacted the accused by phone and she asked him to come to her office and they all proceeded to the office of accused and after stopping vehicle at distance PW.5 and complainant went to meet accused and PW.1 followed them. PW.1 has stated that they went to office of accused and she told that she is busy and will send her assistant and one person namely Viji or Viki came out and on seeing them he went inside to seek instructions from accused and after coming out he told that he is not going to receive the amount and when complainant contacted accused, she told that she is busy, she cannot come and after waiting for half an hour all of them returned to Lokayukta office and mahazar as per Ex.P.6 was prepared and at the time of drawing mahazar accused had conversation with complainant and said conversation was transcripted in the two different sheets. In his cross-examination PW.1 has stated that complainant had given a CD and he has not produced any memory card. He has stated that the conversation was continuously recorded without any breaks. He has stated that he did not hear the conversation held between PW.2 and accused and admitted that Viki has not received money from anyone. He has admitted that he has not dictated the contents of Ex.P.6.

16. PW.5 has stated that they left Lokayukta office in a Government vehicle and proceeded towards Cauvery Bhavan and vehicle was parked in the parking area and instructions were reminded and complainant went to CRE Cell and herself and PW.1 followed the complainant from distance and they sat on the bench outside the said office. She has stated that complainant went inside the office and talked to accused and then came out. PW.5 has stated that accused enquired them as to whom they want to meet and she told that she is waiting for a friend and thereafter complainant went down and they also followed him. She has stated that complainant has informed that he talked to Smt. Chandrakala who had demanded bribe from him and she asked him to pay the bribe amount to a boy by name Viki who will come down. She has stated that they were waiting for that boy and he came there and talked to the complainant and after seeing the Lokayukta Police Inspector Anil Kumar and he wished him and then talked to the complainant and then, left the place. She has stated that complainant informed that Viki has told that he will not receive the amount and Chandrakala will receive the amount and she will call him. She has stated that they waited till 5.30 p.m. in the ground floor and complainant came to them and told that Chandrakala had called him and told that though she wanted to help him, he has brought the Lokayukta police to trap her. As the trap had failed, they came back to Lokayukta office. She also stated about transmission of the conversation into CD and also transcription of the same on sheet of papers and also identified the accused before the court. She has stated that she does not know the name of accused. In cross- examination, PW.5 has stated that when she met Lokayukta Police Inspector, a mobile conversation was played before her. She has stated that along with the complainant, his wife and also another lady social worker was present before the Lokayukta Police Inspector. She has stated that complainant has not produced C.D, but the Lokayukta police have transmitted the recordings to the C.D. She has stated that Lokayukta police have not seized the mobile or any chip and admitted that herself and PW.1 were sitting on the bench outside the office of accused and not heard the conversation between complainant and accused. She has stated that she has seen the accused only when she came out and enquired them as to whom they want to meet. She has stated that she came to know about the boy Viki only on the say of the complainant.

24. As per the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court reported in 2014 AIR SCW 5695 (Anwar P.V. Vs P.K.Basheer and others) When the secondary evidence of the electronic records are produced before the court, they cannot be admitted in evidence unless the secondary evidence is accompanied by certificate under Section 65B of Indian Evidence Act. In the present case PW.7 has produced certificate under Sec.65-B of the Indian Evidence Act, which is marked as Ex.P.23. This certificate given by PW.7 would not be valid for the CD produced by the complainant. Since the conversation recorded in the mobile is transmitted to C.D and then produced before the Lokayukta police as mentioned in Ex.P.9 and stated by PW.7, it is the complainant who have to comply Sec.65-B of the Indian Evidence Act. Since the CD is not burnt by PW.7 and transmission from the mobile recording into the CD is not made by PW.7 in the computer of the Lokayukta computer section in respect of this CD which is seized as article No.1 and marked as MO-4, PW.7 is not competent to give the certificate under Sec.65-B of Indian Evidence Act. The complainant has not given any such certificate and has also not given any details as to where, when and how he has transmitted recordings into the CD. On the other hand, he has stated that he had produced the memory card. Admittedly, PW.7 has not seized the mobile or the memory card containing these conversations. Therefore, PW.7 is not competent to issue certificate under Sec. 65-B of Indian Evidence Act in respect of MO-4 CD and this conversation recorded in the C.D produced by the complainant at the time of giving complaint is not admissible in evidence. In view of the decision in Anwar Vs P.K. Basheer even in respect of other CD's, PW.7 has given certificate under Sec. 65- B of Indian Evidence Act. PW.7 in his cross-examination has admitted that he has not mentioned the serial number and make of the CD and serial number of the HCL computer from which the CD was burnt and not mentioned the make of the CD Writer in the said computer and admitted that the CD mentioned in Ex.P.23 were burnt in Lokayukta computer section and he is not the administrator of the said section. Therefore, this certificate which is vague one and does not contain details of the computer in which the CD was burnt would not be helpful to the prosecution. As regards Part-A mentioned in Ex.P.23 which is with regard to the CD produced by the complainant, the certificate cannot be considered as the recordings in the mobile was not transmitted into the C.D in the computer section of the Lokayukta office or under supervision of PW.7. Therefore, the C.D MO-4 is not helpful to the prosecution case. Apart from this, in the pre-trap mahazar, Ex.P.2 it is mentioned that C.D. produced by the complainant has been played and it contains the conversation had between the complainant and accused. In Ex.P.2 pre-trap mahazar, the conversation dated 29.10.2013 has been mentioned. However, the conversation in the C.D. MO-4 is stated to have been transcribed to computer as per Ex.P.3, P.4 and P.5. Ex.P.5 transcription of the conversation dated 29.10.2013 about which there is reference in Ex.P.2. However, the conversation mentioned in Ex.P.3 & P.4 which are dated 07.10.2013 and 28.10.2013, does not find place in Ex.P.2 pre-trap mahazar. On looking to all these aspects, MO-4 CD and the transcription of the conversation recorded in this MO-4 produced at Ex.P.3 to P.5 are not helpful to the prosecution to prove the alleged demand of bribe amount by accused before giving complaint to the Lokayukta police.

25. In the absence of these recorded conversations the entire case of demand of bribe by accused is to be proved by evidence of PW.2 alone. PW.2 has stated in his evidence about the demand of bribe amount by accused. In his cross- examination there are several suggestions put to regarding chit transaction and he has stated that he owed Rs.15,000/- to Siddaraju and has denied his liability to pay any amount to any person in any chit transaction. PW.2 has stated that on 07.10.2013 accused first demanded bribe. The present complaint is given on 30.10.2013. In the entire evidence of PW.2 the reason for the delay in lodging complaint is not mentioned. Though the accused has demanded bribe amount from the complainant on 07.10.2013, the complaint is given on 30.10.2013 and long delay is not explained in the evidence of PW.1. Moreover, in the entire period from 07.10.2013 to 30.10.2013 the demand of bribe made by accused to the complainant is only by phone calls. It is not the case of the complainant that after receiving the phone call he met her personally and then again she demanded bribe amount. The entire evidence and complaint averments show that entire demand of bribe by the accused is through phone calls made to complainant and his wife. Though the call details are produced at Ex.P.22, there is no material before the court to show that these phone numbers mentioned in the call details and in the complaint, belongs to complainant, accused and the wife of complainant. There was no demand of bribe by accused face to face with the complainant even as per the evidence of the complainant. There is no such evidence before the court to show that accused has called the complainant and his wife and has demanded the bribe amount, as CD and transcription are not admissible. It is not the case of the complainant that he has personally met the accused and at that time she demanded the bribe amount. Therefore, the prosecution has failed to prove that accused demanded the bribe amount prior to giving complaint on 30/10/2013.