Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

3. Briefly stated the case of the prosecution is that, one Muniraju Goravigere the Secretary of State Labour Union has lodged a complaint on 10.02.2009 by appearing before the Inspector of Police, Lokayukta, NC: 2024:KHC:33979 Bengaluru Rural Division, Bengaluru, stating that, he is the resident of Kalanayakanalli, Banakanahalli Post, Anekal taluk. He is the owner in possession of 2 acres 20 guntas of land in Survey No.69. For the purpose of effecting bifurcation/phodi of the said land, he has submitted an application to the Survey Department on 13.01.2009 as per the Government Rules and deposited Rs.510/- towards survey before the Survey Office at Anekal and obtained a receipt to that effect. It is stated by him that, on 06.02.2009, he received a telephone call from one Sri Venkatesh, who is the accused in this case and asked complainant to come to his office at Anekal. It is stated by the accused that, on 11.02.2009 at 11.00 a.m., he will effect phodi in respect of the land belongs to the complainant. It is alleged that, for the said work, accused demanded Rs.5,000/- as bribe from the complainant. Otherwise, the accused told that, it is not possible for him to effect phodi work. When the complainant demanded to reduce the bribe amount, the accused had agreed to receive Rs.4,000/-. The accused told that, from the said NC: 2024:KHC:33979 amount, he has to pay some amount to the surveyor as well as Tahsildar. It is alleged that, as the complainant was not interested to pay the bribe amount to the accused, he went to the office of the Lokayukta at 3.00 p.m. on 10.02.2009 and lodged a complaint as per Ex.P1.

- 10 -

NC: 2024:KHC:33979 accused. When the accused being the private licenced surveyor, it was entrusted to him to effect phodi work of the land of the complainant and nothing was remained with the accused. The said private surveyor cannot be termed as a person, who is a public servant. As the accused is a licenced surveyor, to harass him, a false case has been registered by the police and there is no demand of bribe money at all. By force, the complainant has thrust the said tainted money in the hands of the accused. By that time, the Investigating Officer has appeared in the office of the accused and conducted raid on him. To that effect, the accused has given explanation as per Ex.P7 before the Investigating Officer. He submits that, the learned Trial Court has taken into consideration all these aspects while answering the points for consideration and has rightly acquitted the accused. When it is an acquittal judgment, it is submitted that, the same cannot lightly by interfered by the appellate Court. He submits that, if two views are possible, one in favour of the accused has to be preferred and benefit be given to the accused. Relying on

- 12 -

NC: 2024:KHC:33979 the complainant is examined as PW.1. As per his evidence, he wanted to effect phodi with regard to his landed properties. Therefore, he moved an application before the survey authorities one month prior to the alleged incident of trap on the accused and even the date was fixed for conducting the survey. On that day, the accused called him and demanded the bribe money and otherwise, he told that, he will not proceed with the survey proceedings. The accused has demanded Rs.5,000/- as per the contents of the complaint. As the complainant was unable to pay the said amount, he agreed to pay Rs.4,000/-. When he was paying the said amount, trap was conducted by the Investigating Officer. Thus, on scrupulous reading of the contents of the complaint and if it compared with the evidence spoken to by PW.1, he has reiterated the contents of the complaint in his evidence on oath. According to him, on 13.01.2009 itself, he had deposited Rs.510/- in Anekal office and obtained a receipt to that effect.

- 13 -

NC: 2024:KHC:33979

15. According to PW.1, on 06.02.2009, the accused called him over his mobile phone and asked to meet him. Accordingly, he went to the office of the accused and met him at about 1.00 p.m. For the first time before the Court on oath, he has stated that, when he met the accused for effecting the phodi work, accused has demanded Rs.10,000/- as bribe from him. But, the complaint shows that, the accused has demanded Rs.5,000/- from the complainant. He states that, he has paid the Government fees and therefore, he was not ready to give any bribe amount to the accused. At that time, accused has demanded Rs.5,000/- as bribe otherwise he will not effect the phodi work. When there was a request to reduce the bribe amount, it was reduced to Rs.4,000/-.