State of Karnataka vs N. Ramasingh

V. Jagannathan

This criminal appeal is by the State Lokayukta calling in question the judgment of acquittal passed by the trial court in favour of the respondent in respect of the offences punishable under Sections 7, 13(1)(d) r/w 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.

The prosecution case in short is that, the respondent-accused while working as Second Division Assistant, in the Nadakacheri, Malur Taluk, demanded from the complainant a sum of Rs. 300/- in order to issue certificate to the complainant and the complainant unwilling to pay the amount, approached the Lokayukta police by lodging his complaint as per Ex.P3. Thereafter, the entrustment mahazar was drawn as per Ex.P4 and it is the case of the prosecution that the accused was trapped for accepting the bribe amount on 24.4.2001 at 3.00 p.m. Trap mahazar was also drawn as per Ex.P6 and after getting the sanction order Ex.P12, charge sheet was filed.

Following the accused not pleading guilty, the prosecution examined 7 witnesses and got marked 12 documents with 8 M.Os. Learned trial judge, after evidence appreciation, acquitted the accused mainly on the ground that the complainant had turned hostile and secondly, no work was pending with the accused and the I.O. him self had admitted this fact and the certificate was already given to the complainant as early as on 23.4.01, Therefore, the question of the complainant approaching the accused and accused demanding the bribe amount did not arise. The acquittal was the result on the aforesaid reasoning of the trial court.

1 have heard the learned counsel Sri. S.G. Rajendra Reddy for the appellant-State and Sri. R.B. Deshpande for the respondent-accused and perused the records of this case. Though learned counsel for the State argued that the trial court was not justified in acquitting the accused merely because the complainant had turned hostile when the shadow witness had supported the prosecution case and in this regard he took me through the evidence on record and sought for judgment being set aside. Pointing to the evidence of the shadow witness, it is argued that the testimony of the shadow witness has established accused accepting the bribe amount from the complainant and the hand wash also turning the chemical solution into pink colour, as such the conviction be set aside.

On the other hand, submission of the learned counsel for the respondent is that, the complainant has not supported the prosecution case and more importantly, no file of the complainant was pending with the accused and this is spoken to by the investigating officer himself who was examined as PW-7. It is therefore argued that, when no documents of the complainant were with the accused and the work has been done much earlier on 23.4.01, almost one day prior to the date of trap, the trial court view is a possible view from the evidence on record, as such, ultimately requires no interference.

Having thus considered the submission and after going through the material on record, I am of the view that the view taken by the trial court is a possible view of the matter and therefore, the acquittal requires no interference. This is because not only the complainant had turned hostile and failed to support the prosecution case, but even the investigating officer has admitted that the work of the respondent was done as early as on 24.3.01 which is clear from Ex.P1 the certificate and therefore the question of the complainant PW-4 approaching the accused therefore does not arise.

In view of the aforesaid material on record, the view taken being a possible view, interference by this court against the order of acquittal is therefore not called for. The State appeal is dismissed.