State Of Karnataka vs B.Omkarappa S/O. N.Basappa on 10 December, 2021
23. During the course of arguments, the learned
counsel for the 1st accused took strong objection
for considering MO's No..6 to 11 and 14 into
consideration on account of the fact the IO has
not placed certificate under Sec.65B of the Indian
Evidence Act. So, the learned counsel for the 1 st
accused highlighted this aspect by relying upon a
decision reported in Darshan Singh vs Central
Bureau Of Investigation and in another case
between Anvar.P.V vs P.K.Basheer. So far as
the dictum and ratio in both the cases are that it
36
Spl.C.C. No.84/2015
is mandated under the provision of Sec.65B of
the Indian Evidence Act that so far as electronic
evidences are concerned it must be accompanied
with this certificate. So long as this certificate is
not filed, CDs are inadmissible in evidence.
Likewise, when the entire case of the prosecution
is looked into, as there is no demand of illegal
gratification which is the sine-qua-non for
consideration of an offence under the provisions
of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. So,
according to the 1st accused counsel, first of all,
his client was not empowered and authorized to
any work in those police station and that he has
no any pending of PW. 3 to do any favour to her
and to show any extra mileage towards the
complainant to settle her dispute. Secondly,
when the evidence of PW. 1 himself is gone
through, according to me, the 1st accused was
37
Spl.C.C. No.84/2015
working with the SCRB, Bengaluru on OOD basis
as a vehicle driver, who was a driver at KSRP, 4 th
Battalion, Bengaluru. So it was contended by the
1st accused, that at no stretch of imagination,
Sec.7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988
could be attracted. So far as analyzing and
appreciating the evidence of PW. 3 and Ex.P. 20
are concerned, this Court should say that there
is lot of variance and inconsistencies which are
spilling out in the evidence of PW. 3 when the
same is referred with the contents of Ex.P. 20.
On one hand PW. 3 gives evidence that, out of
fear of 1st accused she had already parted with
Rs. 50 lakhs to him and in fact when the entire
evidence of PW. 3 is gone through, there is a new
element injected, which is to speak in respect of
the fact that she comes in contact with one
Vijaya Karnataka press reporter and when he
38
Spl.C.C. No.84/2015
intends to publish a report in respect of alleged
activity of her and when the said press reporter
demands for money, she pays Rs. 50,000/- and
in that connection, she comes in contact with 1 st
accused Omkarappa. This evidence is found in
her evidence. So, at each and every stage, this
PW. 3 tries to improve her case only to see that
her Ex.P. 20 is filed before the Karnataka
Lokayuktha so as to implicate 1st accused in this
case. Now, so far as the role of the reporter of
Vijaya Karnataka newspaper is concerned
nothing is seen in the investigation conducted by
the IO at all. Some evidence which came to be
given in this regard touching the said reporter
was in respect of alleged illegal activity and
business conducted by this PW. 3 which evidence
of this witness is extracted as under: