Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

3. The factual matrix of the case is that the complainant M.N. Ravi was having 19 ¾ guntas of land in Survey No.18/2 of Bogadi Village, Mysore and he had given an application to the Tahsildar, Mysore Taluk on 18.01.2006 for measuring his land and to fix the boundaries and afterwards his application was given to the Assistant Director of Land Records ('ADLR' for short) for surveying the land. The accused was working as the First Division Surveyor in the office of ADLR and he had to survey the land of P.W.1. Accordingly, the accused visited the land of P.W.1 on 20.2.2006 and not surveying the land properly and when he made requesting him to conduct survey properly he demanded Rs.1,000/- to carry out the proper survey work and promised that he would complete the survey work and prepare the sketch and also do the phodi work. When the complainant asked the accused as to why he should pay the money for the work, the accused told him that if he pays the money he would conduct the survey properly or otherwise he will not survey and he asked the complainant to pay the amount on 23.02.2006. Later P.W.1 went to the Lokayuktha office on 23.02.2006 and lodged a complaint with regard to the demand and case has been registered and securing panch witnesses entrustment mahazar was conducted and thereafter conducted the trap. The accused was secured before the Trial Court and he did not plead guilty and claimed trail. Hence, the prosecution examined P.Ws.1 to 5 and got marked the documents at Exs.P.1 to 28 and also got marked M.Os.1 to 16(a). The accused was examined under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. The accused examined one witness as D.W.1 and got marked the documents at Exs.D.1 to 3. The Trial Judge after considering both oral and documentary evidence placed on record, convicted the accused and sentenced him. Hence, the present appeal is filed before this Court.

(i) Whether the Trial Judge has committed an error in convicting the accused for the offence punishable under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act?

(ii) What order?

17. Before considering the oral evidence of the prosecution witnesses, this Court would like to refer to the contents of the complaint - Ex.P.1. Ex.P.24 is the FIR. In the complaint dated 23.02.2006, an allegation is made against the accused that he demanded an amount of Rs.1,000/- as bribe money. In the complaint, the complainant has narrated that he is having the land to the tune of 19 ¾ guntas in Survey No.18/2 of Bogadi Village. He gave an application to the Tahsildar on 18.01.2006 and obtained the acknowledgment. The said application was sent to the office of the ADLR and when the complainant went and enquired in the office, he came to know that the accused is going to conduct the survey. He went and met him. The accused asked the complainant to pay Rs.95/- as charges and accordingly he paid the amount and obtained the receipt. Thereafter, he met the accused to survey the land and that on 20.02.2006 when the accused surveyed the land improperly, the complainant requested him to survey the land properly. Hence, he demanded an amount of Rs.1,000/- and he also told that after 2-3 days again he will survey the land, prepare the sketch and will do the phodi. When he questioned as to why he has to pay the money, the accused replied that if he pays the money, he will survey the land properly, otherwise he will not. When he asked as to when he has to pay the money, the accused told to pay the money on 23.02.2006 in the afternoon. The complainant was not having any interest to pay the illegal gratification and hence he went and lodged the complaint and handed over the amount of Rs.1,000/-. The xerox copies of the documents and receipt were also enclosed along with the complaint. The complaint was acknowledged on 23.02.2006 at 12.00 p.m. and the case was registered in Crime No.2/2006. On perusal of the FIR, which is marked as Ex.P.24, the same was acknowledged on 23.02.2006 by the Special Judge at 1.30 p.m.

19. In the cross-examination, a suggestion was made that on 20.02.2006, notice was sent to him that survey will be done at 11.00 a.m., and the said suggestion was denied. It is suggested that he refused to receive the notice, and the same was denied. It is suggested that the surveyor came and conducted the survey on 20.02.2006, and the same was denied. He admits that when the accused demanded the money when he visited the land, he did not give any complaint to the superior officers of the accused. He admits that on the said day, he did not go to the ADLR office. It is also elicited that he was not having any difficulty to go and give the complaint to the superior officers. It is suggested that the accused had conducted the survey properly, and the said suggestion was denied. It is elicited that after 23.02.2006, he has not received any survey notice. It is suggested that based on the survey conducted on 20.02.2006, the sketch, phodi and pahani was written, and the said suggestion was denied. It is suggested that on 20.02.2006 itself, the survey was conducted and no work was pending, and the same was denied. He admits that when he went to the ADLR office, other public were also there in the office. It is suggested that the accused never demanded any money and he gave the false complaint, and the said suggestion was denied. It is suggested that on 23.02.2006 when the accused was involved in his work, without his knowledge he kept the amount in his bag, and the said suggestion was denied. It is also suggested that he instructed the surveyor not to conduct the survey in respect of land of his brothers and the accused did not hear his instructions and hence due to the said ill will, he gave the false complaint, and the same was denied.

25. P.W.5 is the Investigating Officer, who received the complaint, registered the FIR, secured the panch witnesses, drew the entrustment mahazar and sent P.Ws.1 and 3 to the office of the accused. After getting the signal, he went and seized the bait money by conducting the formalities and he also says that when the right hand of the accused was subjected to hand wash, it turned to pink colour and the left hand did not. He was subjected to cross-examination.

26. In the cross-examination, he admits that along with the complainant, his brother, sister and mother had also given the application to the ADLR office. It is suggested that notice was given to all the family members and the witness says he is not aware of the same. He also admits that he did not verify the status of the application as to whether the survey was conducted or not when the complaint was given. It is suggested that he did not draw the entrustment mahazar in terms of Ex.P.2, and the same was denied. It is also suggested that he has not recorded the statement of any of the witnesses and he prepared the statement for his convenience, and the same was denied. It is suggested that he has not conducted any formalities in terms of trap mahazar, and the same was denied. It is suggested that M.O.13 was kept through the complainant, and the said suggestion was denied. It is suggested that the accused never demanded any money from the complainant and also not received any amount from the complainant and colluding with the complainant, he filed the false charge-sheet, and the same was denied.