Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

15. Accused No.1 in his defence has given evidence as D.W.1. He has also produced copy of Circular with regard to mutation and correction in the RTC as Ex.D.1. Copy of Gazette Notification is also produced as Ex.D.2 with regard to work distribution among Regular and Thahasildar-Grade-II.

16. Prosecution case stems from the complaint given by P.W.2 against accused No.1-K.Venkatesh and Appaji Gowda- Revenue Inspector alleging demand of bribe. As per the complaint in respect of properties belonging to their family, compromise was arrived in O.S.No.113/2004 and after the compromise application was given for correction of RTC, with regard to extent and name and Thasildar has passed orders on 11.06.2012 as per Ex.P.14 for correction of RTC in respect of four survey numbers including Sy.No.72/5. Though order was passed for correction, RTC of Sy.No.72/5 was not completely corrected and name of grand father of P.W.2 and his brother Narayanappa and Krishnappa still continued in the subsequent RTC by mistake. Since, name of Narayanappa and Krishnappa is not deleted in the RTC of Sy.No.72/5 inspite of order of Thasildar as per Ex.P.14, P.W.2 met Appajigowda- Revenue Inspector and he asked him to approach accused No.1-K.Venkatesh-RRT-Sheristedar by stating that he had already sent report to RRT-Sheristedar. When P.W.2 12 Spl.C.C.75/2013 approached accused No.1, he damanded money to attend work of complainant and correct RTC. On 01.08.2012 accused No.1 demanded bribe of Rs.1,00,000/- and received Rs.20,000/- from P.W.2. Thereafter, PW.2 went to Lokayuktha Office on 02.08.2012 and informed about the demand of bribe and P.W.7 gave a voice recorder to P.W.2 and asked him to record conversation with accused to confirm demand of bribe. Then, PW.2 met accused along with voice recorder at 4.30 P.M. and on the say of accused No.1 he brought file from case worker- Ramanjinappa and gave to accused No.1 and he asked PW.2 to call at night. At about 8.15 p.m., P.W.2 made phone call to accused No.1 and recorded his conversation by talking to accused in loud speaker mode and in this conversation accused No.1 asked him to pay Rs.1,50,000/- and asked him to pay Rs.1,00,000/- immediately and to give balance at the time of preparing checklist. Thereafter, P.W.2 along with this recorded conversation went to Lokayuktha Office on 03.08.2012 and gave complaint as per Ex.P.2. On receiving complaint, P.W.7 registered the case against accused No.1 and also against Appajigowda. P.W.7 secured P.W.4 and 5 as panch witnesses and introduced them to complainant and they have ascertained veracity of complaint from P.W.2. P.W.2 produced Rs.80,000/- in denomination of Rs.1000x50 and 500x60 and number of notes were noted down as per Ex.P.6 and Signatures were taken. Phenolphthalein powder was smeared on the notes and thereafter P.W.5 has verified the 13 Spl.C.C.75/2013 tainted notes again and then kept it in the right side pant pocket of complainant. Thereafter sodium carbonate solution was prepared and hands of P.W.5 were washed in the solution and solution turned to pink colour and it was seized in bottle. Digital voice recorder produced by P.W.2 was played and contents were transcribed on paper as per Ex.P.7 and transmitted to C.D and after taking copy, CD was seized and is produced in this case as M.O.9. P.W.2 and 3 were instructed to meet accused in his office and P.W.2 was instructed to enquire about his work with accused No.1 and to give tainted notes only in case of demand and then flash signal by wiping his head with hand and digital voice recorder was given to him and button camera was given to P.W.3 and was instructed to accompany P.W.2. P.W.4 was also instructed to follow P.W.2 & 3 as shadow witness and to watch the happenings and to report later. The pre-trap proceedings were videographed and then transmitted to C.D. Pre-trap Mahazar was prepared as per Ex.P.4 and Signatures were taken.

28. As per section 7 of Prevention of Corruption Act, demand of illegal gratification must be for doing official act or official favour. Along with complaint, P.W.2 has produced RTC of Sy.No.72/5 as per Ex.P.3 and copy of order of Special Tahasildar dated 11.06.2012 as Ex.P.14 and even order sheet and Compromise petition as Ex.P.15 and 16. These documents show that there was a suit pending between members of joint family of father of P.W.2 for partition and that suit was settled between parties and thereafter application was filed for correction of names and extent in RTCs. In respect of four survey numbers, order for correction has been passed as per Ex.P.14 by Special Tahasildar by clearly showing the correction to be made. In Sy.No.72/5, name of Narayanappa and Krishnappa which was appearing in the RTC was to be deleted and extent of 0-21 shown in the name of Ashwath Redddy was to be corrected as 0-20 as per Ex.P.14. In the subsequent RTC produced as per Ex.P.3, though Extent is shown as 0-20 for S.N.Awhath Reddy, name of Narayanappa and Krishnappa was not deleted. Thereafter, complainant who is the son of Ashwathreddy, appears to have approached Thahasildar Office. Though no separate 25 Spl.C.C.75/2013 application was given by P.W.2 or his father, as clearly stated by DW1, Ex.P.17-report of Revenue Inspector clearly states that name of Narayanappa and Krishnappa is to be deleted from Col.No.9 as per order dated 11.06.2012 i.e., Ex.P.14. This Report was received in RRT- section Yelahanka on 05.07.2012 as appearing in Ex.P.17. Admittedly accused No.1- is RRT-Sheristedar in Yalahanka.

29. Accused No.1 has given evidence as DW.1, wherein he has stated that complainant had given application for correction of RTC in Tappal section and Special Tahasildar is the authority for correction of RTC and after receiving application, it will be sent to Revenue Inspector seeking report and after receiving report from Revenue Inspector, concerned case worker will put up the file before Sheristedar and Sheristedar will place the file for passing orders. Ex.P.17 is the report of Revenue Inspector. Evidence of DW.1 makes it clear that after report from Revenue Inspector, concerned case worker will put up the file before Sheristedar i.e., accused No.1 and he have to place it before Special Tahasildar for passing the order. Therefore, File will move from Case worker to Sheristedar and from him to Special Tahasildar. Hence, it is clear that Accused No.1 Sheristedar has some role to play in this process of correcting RTC. In Ex.P.2-complaint, it is clearly mentioned that on 02.08.2012 when complainant met accused No.1 he asked him to bring the case file from case worker Ramanjinappa and accordingly he brought the file from 26 Spl.C.C.75/2013 Ramanjanappa and gave it to accused No.1 and accused told that he will see the file and asked him to call in the night. Even at the time of trap, this file was on the table of accused. DW.1 in his evidence has no where stated that File was not on his table when Lokayuktha police visited his chamber. Therefore, evidence of DW.1 stating that he is not the authority to pass order for correction of RTC etc., is not of any help to this accused as his evidence and documents available before Court clearly show that File pertaining to correction of RTC of Sy.No.72/5 was received by accused No.1 from the case worker and it was on his table even at the time of trap. Accused No.1 has produced a Circular of the Government as Ex.D.1 and Gazette notification regarding work distribution as Ex.D.2. In these documents what is work of RRT-Sheristedar is not mentioned. However, in Ex.D.1, there is reference to RRT- Sheristedar for correction of RTC. This Ex.D.1 also show that accused No.1, as RRT-Sheristedar is having some role to play in correction of entries in the RTC. Merely because final authority to pass order for correction of RTC is Special Tahasildar, it cannot be held that accused No.1 is not concerned with this work or that he had no capacity to do any official favour to complainant in getting RTC corrected.

30. Even report of Special Tahasildar as per Ex.P.25 states that RRT-Sheristedar have to obtain order from Special Tahasildar and then send the same to Computer section and after preparing of check list and verification by Revenue 27 Spl.C.C.75/2013 Inspector, RRT-Sheristedar have to give approval by putting his thumb impression on Computer. Therefore, contention of accused No.1 that he had no work to do in connection with correction of RTC of Sy.No.72/5 cannot be accepted. As discussed above accused No.1 demanding bribe of Rs.1,00,000/- and then Rs.1,50,000 and receiving Rs.20,000/- on 01.08.2012 for doing the work of complainant with regard to correction of RTC is clearly established in this case. Contrary contentions of accused No.1 does not even appear to be probable. Therefore, demand of bribe by accused prior to giving of complaint is clearly proved and pendency of official act to be done by accused No.1 is also established.