Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

1. The Police Inspector, Karnataka Lokayukta, City Division, Bengaluru, has filed this charge sheet against Accused for the offences punishable under Sections 7, 13(1)

(d) read with Section 13(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.(In Short PC Act).

2. The brief facts of the prosecution case is as under:

Complainant- Shankar.T. S/o Thimmaiah is having house bearing No.235 in Bhuvaneshwarinagar, Banashankari Bengaluru, and had constructed three residential sheds in the said site and given them on rent. Accused-Puttaswamy, who is working as Junior Engineer in Assistant Engineer's Office, O&M-2, 9th South Sub-Division, BESCOM, Kathriguppe, Bengaluru had removed electricity meter of one vacant residential shed of complainant, four months prior to giving complaint. Complainant met accused and enquired him and accused informed that for not paying meter charges and rent, meter has been seized and he can take new electricity meter. When complainant insisted for an endorsement and questioned legality of act of accused, he has not responded and complainant gave application under RTI Act and also

6. Heard the arguments and perused the records.

7. Now, Points that arise for my consideration are:-

1) Whether the prosecution proves that there is a valid sanction to prosecute the Accused?
2)Whether the Prosecution proves beyond all reasonable doubt that, Accused being public servant, working as Junior Engineer in Assistant Engineer's Office, O & M-2, 9 th South Sub-Division,BESCOM,Kathriguppe, Bengaluru, 5 Spl.C.C.202/2013 has, on 23.08.2012 at 2.00 pm when complainant met him in connection with removal of electricity meter installed in residential shed of complainant in house No.235, Bhuvaneshwari Nagar, Banashankari Bengaluru, demanded bribe of Rs.5,000/- for installing electricity meter and on 24.08.2012 between 8.40 am to 9.10 am, in his office in Kathriguppa, Accused again demanded and then accepted Rs.5,000/- tainted notes from complainant as illegal gratification as a motive or reward to do official act or official favour to complainant and thereby committed an offence punishable under Section 7 of Prevention of Corruption Act?

18 Spl.C.C.202/2013

23. On looking to the evidence of P.W.1 and documents as per Ex.P.4 to 6, it is clear that P.W.1 had given applications in respect of removal of Meter No.S9LG5692 and had expressed his grievance and sought clarifications. There is absolutely no document to show that this Meter was standing in the name of P.W.1. P.W.1 has stated that he is owning House No.235 and he had constructed the residential sheds and rented the portion to the tenants and one Meter of vacant shed was removed by accused and in respect of same accused has demanded bribe. Complainant has not produced any document along with his complaint to show that he is owner of house No.235 and the said house was having electricity connection and electricity Meter was removed by accused. In the evidence of P.W.4, documents pertaining to electricity Meter S9LG5692 are confronted and are marked as Ex.D.1. Ex.D.1 show that meter S9LG5692 is standing in the name of Narasimhamurthy and it is connected to house no.137, Ittamadu, Bengaluru. There are no documents to show that Meter No.S9LG5692 was installed in the house No.235 of complainant and was disconnected by accused as contended by P.W.1. Even in the course of investigation, no such documents are collected to connect this Meter with House No.235. There are no materials before the Court to connect Meter number S9LG5692 of Narasimhamurthy with complainant. Brother of P.W.1 by name Lakshman is 19 Spl.C.C.202/2013 examined as P.W.3. He has stated that he is owner of property in site No.39 of Ittamadu Village, which is now called as Bhuvaneshwari Nagar and his brother Shankar-P.W.1 is residing in the said house. A copy of his sale deed is produced as Ex.P.9. He has also not stated the Electricity Meter number of the said house. Evidence of P.W.3 and Ex.P.9, only show the purchase of property bearing site No.39 by P.W.3 from Smt.Shashikala. It does not show that P.W.3 is owner of house No.235 and electricity Meter No.S9LG5692 was installed to the said house. Ex.P.4 to 6 which are even admitted to have been given by P.W.1, to BESCOM office contain particular Meter Number and as per Ex.D.1, this Meter is standing in the name of Narasimhamurthy and is not standing in the name of P.W.1, 3 or his vender Smt.Shashikala. Apart from this P.W.1 has no where stated that house No.235 was purchased by his brother P.W.3 and is standing in the name of P.W.3.

24. Under these circumstances, only on the oral evidence of P.W.1, case of the prosecution about accused removing electricity meter installed in one residential shed in house No.235 and accused demanding bribe, does not get established. Prosecution has failed to establish that house No.235 was belonging to P.W.1 or P.W.3 and it was having a electricity Meter and the said Meter was removed by Accused. Ex.P.4 to 6 does not show that Meter was standing in the name of complainant or it was installed in house No.235.