State of Karnataka vs S.I. Ahamed Basra

V. Jagannathan

This Criminal Appeal is by the State through Lokayuktha Polices calling in question the acquittal of the respondent by the Trial Court in respect of the offence punishable under Sections 7, 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1968 (for short, hereinafter referred to as ''the Act''). The prosecution case in short is that the accused while working as Village Accountant at Herur Circle, Kunigal Taluk, demanded from the complainant `500/- as bribe amount for transfer of khatha in the name of the complainant. Unwilling to pay the bribe amount, the complainant approached the lokayuktha Police with his complaint-Ex. P-1. The investigation was taken up and it included drawing up of pre-trap mahazar as per Ex. P-2 and according to the prosecution, the trap was successful and it is reflected in the trap nahazar-Ex. P-3, After obtaining sanction order-Ex. P-25 and other reports, the charge sheet was submitted.

At the trial, following the accused not pleading guilty, the prosecution examined six witnesses and got marked 28 documents along with 11 M.Os. On the side of the accused, Exs. D-1 to D-4 were marked. The learned trial Judge, after appreciating the evidence on record, came to the conclusion that the prosecution has not proved its case beyond all reasonable doubt as both the complainant and shadow witness did not support the prosecution case in part and other defects in the investigation was also taken note of to arrive at the conclusion that the accused has to be acquitted by giving him benefit of doubt. Accordingly, the order of acquittal was passed.

I have heard Learned Counsel, Sri S.G. Rajendra Reddy, for the appellant-Lokayuktha and Sri Vijay Krishna Bhat, for the respondent and perused the records of this case.

the submission of Sri Rajendra Reddy, Learned Counsel for the appellant is that the evidence of PWs.1 and 2 was the material evidence which reveal that the accused demanded and accepted `500/- bribe amount and the explanation given by the accused as per Ex. P-5 also shows the receipt of `500/- by the accused. Therefore, the Court below could not have given the benefit of doubt to the accused and hence, in the light of evidence of these two witnesses, the accused is liable to be convicted.

On the other hand, Sri Vijay Krishna Bhat, Learned Counsel for the respondent took this Court to the evidence of PW-1-complainant, PW-2-shadow witness and PW-5-panch witness as well as to the proceedings of the pre-trap mahazar-Ex. P-2, spot nahazar-Ex. P-3 and the explanation given by the accused as per Ex. P-5 to contend that there are several defects in the prosecution case giving raise to doubt in the entire case of the prosecution and the Trial Court rightly gave the benefit of doubt to the accused. Few of the defects pointed out by the Learned Counsel for the respondent are that trap mahazar was not drawn at the place of incidence but it was drawn in the office of the Lokayuktha. Secondly, hand wash of the accused was taken subsequent of the accused being asked to touch the currency notes. Thirdly, the complainant himself has admitted in the course of his cross-examination that the work of the complainant was done by the accused long back as on 24.9.2002 itself.. It is established by the documents Exs. P-16 to P-19. Therefore, the overall evidence on record does not justify the conviction of the accused. Moreover, the explanation given by the accused also goes to show that it was at 10''o clock in the morning that the accused received the amount from the complainant but not during the incident or which according to the prosecution took place at around 2.05 p.m.Thus, the investigation lapses has rendered the case of the prosecution doubtful and as such the appeal be dismissed.

Having thus heard both sides and after going through the material on record, the submission put forward as above by the Learned Counsel for the respondent deserves to be accepted as having sufficient force. The Trial Court also has noted the defects in the prosecution case, particularly with regard to the hand wash of the accused being taken after the excused was asked to remove the notes. The trap nahazar was drawn at the Lokayuktha Police Station according to the complainant, whereas Ex. P-2 shows that it was drawn at the place of the incidence, that is at the office of the accused. Both PWs.1 and 2 have not supported the case of the prosecution in part and PW-1, in particular admits that his work was done by the accused long back and admits Exs. P-16 to P-19. Therefore, without any work being pending with the accused, the question of accused demanding the bribe amount also becomes rather doubtful.

In the light of the aforesaid reasons and the Trial Court also not accepting the prosecution evidence as sufficient enough to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt, suspicion, however grave may be, cannot take the place or proof and conviction cannot be based only on inference. For the above reasons, the appeal is dismissed.