Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

This appeal is preferred by the appellant-State being aggrieved by the Judgment and Order, dated 18.06.2015, passed in Spl. (Lokayukta) Case No.3/2008, by the learned District & Sessions Judge and Special Judge (Lokayukta), Haveri, whereby the learned Special Judge has acquitted the accused - the respondent herein.

2. Respondent/accused herein was chargesheeted for the alleged offences punishable under Sections 7, 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. The Trial Court framed the charge as against the respondent/accused for the said offences. The prosecution examined, in all, 11 witnesses as P.Ws.1 to 11, produced the documents Exs.P.1 to P.45 and also got marked material objections M.Os.1 to 9 and closed its side. On the side of the defence, D.Ws.1 and 2 were examined and three documents were got marked as Exs.D.1 to D.3. After considering the materials placed on record, both oral and documentary, ultimately, the learned Special Judge acquitted the accused of the charges leveled against him. Being aggrieved by the said judgment and order of acquittal passed by the Trial Court, the State is before this Court in this appeal.

3. Brief facts of the case of the prosecution, as per the complaint averments, are that during the year 2007, the accused/respondent was working as Junior Project Officer in the Urban Development Authority, Haveri. The complainant, who is the owner of house bearing Plot No.3317/C/27 situated at Daneshwari Extension, Haveri, wanted to put up construction of first floor and, in this regard, he had made an application to the City Municipal Council, Haveri. The CMC, Haveri, had forwarded the said application to the Urban Development Authority, Haveri, on 23.08.2007. The complainant, having realised that his application was not attended to by the Authority in spite of lapse of six months, met accused on 06.12.2007. On meeting the accused, he demanded Rs.2,000/- by way of illegal gratification from the complainant and asked the complainant to come few days later. The complainant approached the Lokayukta Police, Haveri, on 10.12.2007 and to ascertain the correctness of the allegation, a voice recorder was given to the complainant to record the conversation. Thereafter, the demand of illegal gratification was recorded in voice recorder and a complaint was lodged against the accused. On going to the office of the accused, the complainant and the shadow witness waited till evening. On contacting the accused over his mobile phone, they were asked to wait till evening near the office of the accused. On the evening of 10.12.2007, the accused came on his motorcycle. P.W.1 followed the accused and told the accused that he waited for the accused till evening and at that time accused asked P.W.1 whether money was brought. P.W.1 told that he had brought Rs.1,500/-. The said money was received by accused, who kept the same in his pant pocket. The further story of the prosecution is that, after receipt of the said amount of Rs.1,500/-, the trap was conducted and the amount of Rs.1,500/- was recovered from the possession of the respondent/accused in the presence of panch witnesses, then phenolphthalein test was conducted by taking the hand wash of the respondent/accused and when the right hand washed in sodium carbonate solution, the solution turned into pink colour, whereas on the left hand wash, the solution did not turn into pink colour. A trap mahazar under Ex.P.3 was also drawn. The explanation of the respondent/accused was asked and he offered his explanation that the said money was forcibly thrusted into his pocket by the complainant.

7. I have perused the grounds of the appeal memorandum, oral evidence of PW1 to 11, documents produced in the case before the trial court, decisions relied upon by the learned counsel on both sides so also considered the arguments submitted by both the sides at the Bar.

8. The charges as against the respondent/ accused are under Section 7 and 13(1)(d) read with 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act. The case of the prosecution as per the complaint averments that the respondent/accused demanded and accepted bribe amount of Rs.1,500/- from the complainant on 10.12.2007, the date of the trap. Therefore, let me peruse the materials so far as the demand and acceptance of the bribe amount of Rs.1,500/- as contended by the prosecution. Ex.P1 is the complaint by the complainant one Basavanneppa Tirakappa Kemmannakeri, wherein he has stated he has filed an application before the C.M.C., Haveri seeking permission for the construction of first floor of his house. The same was sent to the Urban Development Authority, Haveri and the respondent/accused was working as a Junior Project Engineer in the said authority for giving such permission he unnecessarily delay the matter and lastly when the complainant approached the said Engineer, he demanded Rs.1,500/- for the purpose of the said work as it is mentioned in Ex.P1. Hence, it is the case of the complainant that he was not willing to pay the bribe amount to the accused person, he approached the Lokayukta Police on 10.12.2007 in the morning at about 10.30. The Lokayukta Inspector give him the Tape Recorder asking him to go and had the talks with the respondent/accused in connection with the said amount and record the conversation between himself and the accused and to come back. Accordingly, he went to the office of the accused along with the tape recorder and when he approached the accused, the tape recorder was on. The accused demanded the amount which is recorded in the tape recorder. After that he come back to the Lokayukta Office and told the Lokayukta Inspector that he was asked to come to the office of the accused at about 2.00 to 2.30 p.m. Then the entrustment mahazar proceedings were conducted as per Ex.P2 after completing the mahazar proceedings like smearing phenolpthalene powder to the currency notes they were kept in the pocket of the complainant with instruction that he has to go to the office of the accused in case if the accused is demanded the amount, he has to pay the same to the accused. PW2 the shadow witness who was also present during the entrustment mahazar proceedings was asked by the Lokayukta Inspector that he has to accompany the complainant to the office of the accused and he has to observe what is happening between the said two persons and he has to tell the same before the Lokayukta Inspector.

11. The allegation as against the respondent/ accused in this case that though the application was filed by the complainant seeking the construction permission of his first floor, but which was delayed by the respondent/accused to give such permission only with an intention to get the bribe amount and then he has to clear about the permission. But this is falsified by the evidence of PW1 the very complainant himself, but in the cross-examination on Page No.9 of the deposition, wherein he has stated that as there were some defects in the application that he has filed only after rectification of the said defects the work regarding the processing of his application was started. He has admitted the said suggestion that it is correct. Coming to the evidence of PW7 one Prakash Chandrappa Harakude is the Planning Officer, who deposed in his evidence on Page No.1 of his deposition that whenever such applications are received, the accused has to conduct the spot inspection and then he has to take a decision whether it is in accordance with the rules or not and thereafter it has to be placed before him. He further deposed that on 04.08.2007 and on 14.09.2007, two times the application was sent to him, they have verified it and as there are some defects in the said application, it was again sent back to the C.M.C. Office, Haveri. So the evidence of these two witnesses during the course of the evidence clearly goes to show that the delay in processing the application of the complainant is because of the defects in the said application and they have not stated that it is the accused person who purposely and intentionally withheld the said application even though it was correct in all respects. Therefore, the allegation of the prosecution made in the complaint by the complainant/PW1 that the accused person withheld his application with an intention to get the bribe amount cannot be accepted at all. Now coming to the time regarding the trap proceedings and the arrest of the accused is concerned, it is the case of the prosecution that at 4.15 they left the Lokayukta Office proceeded towards the office of the accused and when the complainant and the shadow witnesses went to the office of the accused, he was not present in the office then they were told that he has gone to the Planning Office at Vidyanagar, they went there also he was not present and then they were told that he might have gone for spot inspection. Then it is the case of the prosecution that complainant/PW1 as per the instruction of the Police Inspector contacted the accused person over phone at 5.15 p.m. and in the phone message the accused told to the complainant that they have to wait and definitely he will come to his office. If such phone call is there in between the complainant as well as the accused person with the definite information that it was at 5.15 p.m. nothing prevented the Investigation Officer to secure the call details in this regard, which is also not done in this case by the Investigation Officer. Regarding the arrest of the accused in the proceedings is concerned, it is seriously disputed by the defence as per the defence no such proceedings were taken place at 6.45 p.m. as alleged by the prosecution, there is a false implication of the accused person in the case. Not only that it is their case that there are allegations made in the arrest memo regarding the time of arrest, which is not properly explained by the prosecution. I have perused the arrest memo/Ex.P45 regarding the date, it is mentioned as 10.12.2007 and the information regarding time for arrest of the accused person, it is mentioned as 19 hours, but it is visible that the figure '9' is overwritten below that some other time is mentioned in the arrest memo. It is no doubt true if 19 hours is taken it goes to show that the arrest is at 7.00 p.m. on that day. I have perused the Ex.P3/trap mahazar proceedings, wherein also it is mentioned that for the first time in the said proceedings the accused has been apprehended at 7.00 p.m. When in the trap mahazar the time is mentioned as 7.00 p.m. probably to make it appear even in the arrest memo as a 7.00 p.m. that might be the reason for the police authorities to make such alteration in order to show that the time of arrest mentioned in the arrest memo is tallying with what is mentioned in Ex.P3. But the evidence on record, it goes to show if we look into the evidence of PW1 and 2, there is a suggestion made by the defence counsel. On that day in the morning itself the Lokayukta Police arrested the accused person because of that reason there was a huge agitation by the public and because of this agitation the S.P. came to the place and he has narrated the P.I. that if you do such things then they will bring bad name to the department. This is the suggestion made and looking to the evidence of PW1 and 2, they have admitted that the S.P. has come from Davanagere on that day to the place and if the S.P. has came in the daytime, it goes to show and probablise the defence of the accused that even before 7.00 p.m. that this accused person was arrested accordingly the time of arrest was mentioned in Ex.P45 and subsequently it has been changed to make it as 7.00 p.m. that it has go in consonance that the time mentioned in Ex.P3, but regarding this correction is concerned, it is an admitted fact that the figure '9' is a correct figure and who has done this under whose authority the said correction was made absolutely there is no explanation offered by the prosecution. Even there is no small initial by the person who made such corrections regarding the time of arrest of the accused. It was also suggested during the course of the cross- examination of PW1, the complainant that regarding the time mentioned in the complaint as 10.30 the figure '10' has been changed to '11'. It is also argued by the learned counsel appearing for the defence that the material goes to show that almost all the documents there is a correction in the prosecution documents, which is not properly explained. I have perused the contents of the complaint/Ex.P1 and as submitted on the first page of the complaint regarding the time dated 10.12.2007 originally it is written as 10.30, but the figure '0' has been corrected as '1', which is clearly visible. Hence, the prosecution has not explained even with regard to the correction of the time in the complaint Ex.P1.