Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

17. It is further case of the prosecution that, after Pre- trap Mahazar, trap team proceeded towards office of accused No.1 in Bengaluru North Additional Taluk, Yelahanka Town and vehicles were stopped near the office at about 3.30 p.m and instructions were reminded to P.Ws.2, 3 and 4 and were sent to office of accused. Tahsildar office is in 3 rd floor in Rudreshwara Chambers, H.I.G. III Sector, Yelahanka New Town and P.Ws.2, 3 and 4 proceeded to Tahsildar's Office. Other 14 Spl.C.C.75/2013 members of the Trap Team also went to third floor and scattered themselves in the vacant passage and waited for signal. P.W.2 and 3 went to the chamber of accused No.1 and P.W.4 was standing near doors of chamber of accused No.1. P.W.2 and 3 met accused No.1 and talked to him and accused No.1 shown the File which was on the table and P.W.2 informed him that names other than Aswath Reddy is to be removed from the R.T.C. and accused No.1 told that he will attend the work and asked P.W.2 to give the amount to lift operator-Nagaraju, who is short in height and called Nagaraju by his mobile and told him to receive amount from Singanayakanahalli Reddy and P.W.2 took mobile Number of Nagaraju, who is accused No.2. Thereafter, P.Ws.2 and 3 came out of chamber of accused No.1 and gave signal to trap team to follow them and came to ground floor. P.W.2 made a phone call to accused No.2 from mobile and he told that he will be coming and on the steps near outside entrance of the passage in front of the lift, accused No.2 came and gave signal to give the amount and then P.W.2 gave the tainted notes to accused No.2 and he has received it and then counted it and kept it in his right side pant pocket and immediately complainant gave signal to Trap Team and Trap Team surrounded accused No.2. It is further case of the prosecution that after seeing the Trap Team, Accused No.2 took out tainted notes from his pant pocket and thrown it on the floor. P.W.7 introduced himself to accused No.2 and 15 Spl.C.C.75/2013 informed the purpose of visit and ascertained details of accused No.2 and accused No.2 informed that as per the direction of accused No.1, he has received the amount. As per the instructions of P.W.7, P.W.4 has collected tainted notes from the floor and as it was busy place and place of public movement and was inconvenient for further activities, they all came to the chamber of accused No.1 in the third floor. In the chamber of accused No.1 and hand wash of accused No.2 in Sodium carbonate solution was made and solution turned to pink colour and it was seized in bottles. Tainted notes collected from the Floor by P.W.4 was verified and it tallied with Ex.P6 and then it was kept it in a cover and seized. On instructions of P.W.7, accused No.1 produced File of P.W.2, which was on his table and by taking attested copies of file and Attendance Register, original file was returned. A rough sketch was prepared as per Ex.P19 and as the chamber of accused No.1 was not convenient for further proceedings, entire tram team along with accused No.1-Venkatesh, accused No.2-Nagaraju and Special Tahasildar-Gopalaswamy, came to Lokayukta Office. In Lokayukta Office, pant of accused No.2 was got removed and by marking pocket portion, pant was seized in a cover. Digital voice recorder given to complainant and button camera given to P.W.3 were played and P.W.6 has identified voice of accused No.1 and also identified visuals in video recording and gave report as per Ex.P9. Thereafter, recordings in button camera and voice recorder were 16 Spl.C.C.75/2013 transmitted to C.D and transcription was also made as per Ex.P8. The CD was seized and is produced in this case as M.O.11. On questioning, accused No.1 and 2 have given written explanation and the explanation given by accused No.1 found to be not acceptable and that of accused No.2 was found to be true. Thereafter, accused No.1 and 2 were arrested by following procedure and trap mahazar was prepared as per Ex.P5 and signatures were taken. P.W.7 continued investigation and after completion of investigation, prepared final report and after receiving Prosecution Sanction Order as per Ex.P1, he has filed charge sheet.

In view of this decision, even Call details at Ex.P.20 and 21 are not admissible in evidence.

25. Therefore, in the absence of recordings in the CD, transcriptions and Call details, prosecution has to establish its case of demand of illegal gratification by accused No.1 prior to giving of complaint and at the time of trap. P.W.2 and 3 have clearly stated about demand of bribe by accused in their chief evidence. As per Ex.P.2-complaint, on 01.08.2012, P.W.2 and 21 Spl.C.C.75/2013 3 together met accused in the evening and at that time accused has demanded Rs.1,00,000/- and P.W.2 gave Rs.20,000/- to him. P.W.2 has stated in his evidence that he has met accused No.1 and he told him that he has not yet received the file and asked him to keep Rs.1,00,000/- ready and he paid Rs.20,000/- to accused No.1 and thereafter he approached Lokayuktha police and they gave him voice recorder. Though the dates mentioned by P.W.2 does not match with dates mentioned in complaint, evidence of P.W.2 clearly states about demand of bribe amount of Rs.1,00,000/- by accused and accused No.1 receiving Rs.20,000/- from him and thereafter on the next day he calling accused No.1 by phone and then Accused No.1 demanding Rs.1,50,000/- and that this conversation is recorded. As per the complaint, conversation about demand of bribe of Rs.1,50,000/- is on 02.08.2012 and demand of Rs.1,00,000/- is on 01.08.2012. Minor discrepancy of one day between Ex.P.2 and evidence of P.W.2 will not have much relevance, as there is clear evidence about demand of bribe by accused on two dates one is when complainant met him and another when complainant made a phone call. In the cross-examination of P.W.2, there is nothing elicited to disprove his evidence with regard to P.W.2 meeting accused No.1 and accused No.1 demanding bribe for correction of RTC of Sy.No.72/5. In his cross-examination, P.W.2 has denied the suggestion that while meeting accused No.1 he was alone.

22 Spl.C.C.75/2013

26. Evidence of P.W.3 also completely supports the case of prosecution. Both P.W.2 and 3 have stated that they are friends from about 10 years. P.W.3 has stated that on 02.08.2012 they met accused No.1 in his office and he demanded bribe of Rs.1,00,000/- and on that day P.W.2 gave Rs.20,000/- to accused No.1 and told to pay balance after work is done. Though P.W.3 has stated that, conversation by phone call with accused No.1 was recorded by P.W.2 in his mobile as well as voice recorder and both were produced before Investigating Officer, according to prosecution, conversation was recorded in voice recorder and recording was transmitted to C.D as per M.O.9. Whether it was recorded or not, evidence of P.W.3 makes it clear that there was conversation by phone between P.W.2 and Accused No.1 about demand for illegal gratification. The evidence of P.W.3 is even specific about the date on which they met accused No.1 and he demanded Rs.1,00,000/- and also received Rs.20,000/- from P.W.2. In the cross-examination of P.W.3 there is nothing elicited to show that P.W.3 is having some grudge or some grievance against accused No.1 to give false evidence against accused No.1. Any motive of both P.W.2 and 3 to give false evidence and to falsely implicate accused No.1 in this case is not elicited or stated in their evidence. Merely because P.W.2 and P.W.3 are friends from 10 years, their evidence cannot be brushed aside. The evidence of P.W.2 and 3 is clear about demand of bribe by accused No.1 amounting 23 Spl.C.C.75/2013 to Rs.1,00,000/- and they together meeting accused No.1. Their evidence is also definite about Accused No.1 demanding Rs.1,50,000/- when P.W.2 made phone call to accused No.1 in the evening. In the cross-examination of both these witnesses, there is nothing elicited to make their evidence unbelievable and unacceptable. Though the CD containing recorded conversation and transcriptions are not admissible, evidence of P.W.2 and 3 clearly proves the demand of amount by accused No.1 on 01.08.2012 when P.W.2 and 3 met accused with regard to correction of RTC of Sy.No.72/5. Evidence of these witnesses also prove the phone calls exchanged between P.W.2 and accused No.1 on 02.08.2012, in which there was again demand for bribe of Rs.1,50,000/- by accused No.1.