State of Karnataka vs D.K. Lakshmana Gowda, Instructor, Govt. Tool Room and Training Centre

V. Jagannathan, J.—This is appeal is by the Lokayuktha-State calling in question the judgment of acquittal passed by the trial Court in respect of the offences punishable tinder Sections 7, 13(1)(d) r./w 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (''the Act'' for short).

The case of the prosecution in short is that, the complainant M.K. Raviraj Rao (PW-5) had joined Government Tool Room and Training Centre (''GT and TC'' for short) as a trainee in September, 1998 and he was in the 50th batch, The complainant passed his I year under semester system and next year, the semester system was abolished and it was annual examination, The complainant failed in one subject in the II year, but cleared it in the supplementary examination.

Thereafter, the complainant successfully completed his III year in one attempt and the results were announced during November-December 2001. As he was declared ''pass'' in the III year, he moved on to IV year to undergo 1 year in-plant training at ANICAD Systems and was required to submit monthly report to the GT and TC.

It was with this background, the complainant met the accused on 07.08.2002 and as per the complaint version (Ex. P12), the accused who at, the relevant time was a lecturer in GT and TC said to have told the accused that the result of the complainant''s batch had been changed and as per the new result list, the complainant had failed in one subject in the III year. When the complainant was shocked to hear this, the accused told the complainant that the result would be changed if Rs. 5,000/- is paid to the accused. Later, the amount was reduced to Rs. 2,000/- by the accused.

Not willing to pert with the bribe amount, the complainant went and approached the Lokayuktha police and lodged his complaint at 2 p.m. on 08.08.2002. The investigation began in the form of preparing entrustment mahazar and this was followed by the complainant accompanied by the shadow witness PW-1 and both of them went to the house of the accused on 08.08.2002. It is the prosecution case that, the accused demanded and accepted Rs. 2,000/- bribe amount from the complainant and after signal being given Lokayuktha police came and caught hold of the accused. The hand wash of the accused was collected which was found to be positive. After obtaining necessary sanction order, the charge sheet was submitted.

Following the accused not pleading guilty, the prosecution examined 8 witnesses and produced 23 documents apart from 12 material objects. Accused statement was recorded and the defence of the accused was that the money was forcibly thrust into his shirt pocket by the complainant. On behalf of the accused, Exs. D1 to D11 were marked which are the monthly reports of in-plant training.

Learned trial Judge after appreciating the evidence on record, found that the prosecution case suffered from two serious defects. One is that, no official work was pending with the accused and the entire complaint allegation appeared to be a improbable one and full of doubt and the second reason given by the court below was that the prosecution had failed to prove the demand of bribe amount by the accused. On the basis of the aforesaid findings, learned trial Judge acquitted the Respondent herein and the accused was given the benefit of doubt. It is this judgment of acquittal that, is called in question by the Lokayuktha-State in this appeal.

I have heard Smt. T.M. Gayathri, learned Counsel for the Appellant-Lokayuktha and Sri. S.G. Bhagavan, teamed Counsel for the Respondent and perused the record of this case.

Learned Counsel for the Appellant took this Court through the entire evidence on record and argued that, though FW-1-the shadow witness was not present when the accused demanded and accepted the bribe amount, the evidence of FW-5 the complainant has clearly established the prosecution case apart from the other witnesses examined by the prosecution. It is argued that the complainant being a student would not have ventured to lodge a complaint against his own lecturer and this itself goes to show that the accused did demand and accepted the bribe amount and by telling the complainant that he had foiled in one subject in III year, the accused wanted to exploit the complainant who happened to be the student undergoing training. Therefore, the evidence that has to be appreciated from the said background and moreover, there was no grudge against the accused by the complainant and the very fact that tainted amount was recovered from the accused and hand wash of the accused also tested positive therefore goes to prove the case of the prosecution.

As far as the work being pending is concerned, learned Counsel referred to Sections 7 and 13 of the P.C. Act to contend that if the accused accept the amount that would establish the case of the prosecution and as far as demand is concerned, it is argued that Section 13(1)(d) Sub-clauses (i)(ii)(iii) would go to show that where the accused accepts the valuable thing or pecuniary advantage, the case is made out. Therefore, the judgment of the trial court be set aside and the accused be convicted.

On the other hand, submission of learned Counsel for the Respondent that, the view taken by the trial court is a possible view emerging from the evidence on record end having regard to the scope, interference by this Court against the judgment of acquittal, in the instant case, there is no indication of the findings recorded by the trial court suffering from the defect of the perversity. That apart, it is argued by learned Counsel that no work was pending with the accused and the evidence of PW-8 would go to show that the evaluation sheet and the result sheet will always be in the exclusive custody of the Principal of the GT and TC and as such, the question of the accused being possession of evaluation sheet or result sheet does not arise. It is also argued that the complainant was fully aware of he having passed in year and undergoing training in the IV year. Exs. D1 to D11 are the reports submitted with respect of the monthly progress during the training. As such, the trial court was justified in taking a view that the case of the prosecution suffers from doubts and improbabilities.

As far as the demand and acceptance is concerned, it is argued by learned Counsel for the Respondent that PW-1 was sitting inside the house of the accused when the accused accompanied by the complainant went out of the house. Therefore, what transpired between the accused outside the house was not within the knowledge of PW-1. Under the above circumstances, the trial court was justified in giving benefit of doubt to the accused. Defence of the accused was that the money was forcibly thrust into the pocket of the accused by the complainant Learned Counsel also submitted that the subject in which the complainant had failed in the II year was the subject that was thought by the accused namely Material Technology''. Therefore, the judgment of acquittal does not call for any interference. Reliance is placed in support of the aforesaid submission on the Apex Court''s decision reported in AIR 2011 SCW 1400.

Having thus heard both sides and after going through the evidence on record as well as the reasons given by the learned trial Judge, in my view, the trial court has properly appreciated the evidence from every conceivable angle and has held that the entire prosecution story bristles with the improbabilities and doubt This observations is based on the very evidence of FW-5 that he had passed III year and was undergoing training in the IV'' year and he was aware of his III year results on 07.08.2002 itself i.e., a day prior to the date of the incident.

As far as the work pendency is concerned, the evidence of PW-8 at para-12 confirms that all documents namely marks sheet and evaluation sheet were in the exclusive custody of the Principal and none else. Therefore, the question of the accused trying to show some documents to the complainant and covering a part of the documents telling the complainant that the complainant had foiled in one subject are all unacceptable in the light of the aforesaid evidence of PW-8.

As far as demand is concerned, PW-1 the shadow witness has clearly deposed in his evidence that he sat inside the house of the accused and it was the accused who went cut along with the complainant. What transpired between the complainant and the accused outside the house is anybody''s guess. Though the prosecution has placed evidence of recovery of the amount from the accused and hand wash of the accused testing positive, it is settled law that mere recovery of the amount itself will not sufficient to prove the case of the prosecution unless the prosecution is able to show that the accused demanded and accepted the bribe amount and secondly, that the demand was in connection with the official favour to be done by the accused.

Therefore, the trial court on over all view of the evidence on record found unsafe to rely on the testimony of PW-5 which lack necessary corroboration. No work was pending with the accused and the complaint was certain of he having passed III year and was already in the IV year and documents produced at Exs. D1 and D11 having been issued by the GT and TC in a postal by PW-8 himself. Therefore, the question of the accused telling the complainant that the complainant had failed in one subject in III year does not arise. The view taken by the trial court is probable view emerging from the evidence on record. The Apex Court in the decision referred to by Earned Counsel for the Respondent namely V.S. Achuthanandan v. Balakrishna Pillai AIR 2011 SCW 1400, has held that the Appellate Court must bear in mind that in case of acquittal, there is double presumption in favour of the accused and it is also a settled law that if two reasonable conclusions are possible on the basis of the evidence on record, the Appellate Court should have justified the finding of acquittal recorded by the trial court. In the instant case, the view taken by the teamed trial Judge is a possible view emerging from the record and as such, no interference by this Court is called for against the judgment of acquittal.

Per the above reasons, appeal is dismissed.