The State vs Sr. Abdulmanaf Ibrahimsab Killedar Revenue Inspector

Jawad Rahim, J.—The State is in appeal against the acquittal of the respondent for the offences punishable under Sections 7, 13(1)(d) and 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (for short ''the Act''). Heard Sri. Jagadish Patil, learned Standing counsel for appellant and Sri. Ashok R. Kalyanshetty for respondent. Perused the record in supplementation thereto. It reveals:

One Laxman Krishna Patil of Kodagai village, Khanapur Taluk lodged a report before the Inspector of Lokayukta seeking action against the respondent who was then working as a Revenue Inspector, Gunji, Khanapur Taluk, District Bagalkot, for demanding illegal gratification to rectify the revenue entries.

In this regard, he averred he had found the names of his brothers and cousin brothers erroneously entered in the revenue records in respect of the land owned by him. Having noticed such incorrect entries showing the names of Pundalik Venkat Patil, Shivaji Kallappa Patil, Lakamanna kallappa Patil and Gopal Kallappa Patil, he approached the respondent who was the Revenue Inspector for rectification of the error and to restore his name in respect of the land bearing R.S. No. 9 measuring 5 acres 9 guntas of Kodagai village, Khanapur Taluk. The respondent/accused is alleged to have demanded bribe to do the needful. He hesitatingly agreed to pay him some money. Then the accused asked him to deposit Rs. 750/- in the office of Tahasildar and accordingly, the complainant deposited the amount on 28.02.2000. Thereafter on 10.03.2000, once again the complainant approached the accused to know what action was taken. The accused acknowledged the receipt of his papers from the office of Tahasildar and asked him to meet in the month of May-2000 to collect necessary papers. But insisted that he should pay a sum of Rs. 5,000/- as illegal gratification for showing official favour. When the complainant expressed his inability, the accused agreed to receive Rs. 2,000/- and to pay balance of Rs. 3,000/- after fifteen days.

The complainant alleges he was not willing to pay the bribe. However, on 16.05.2000, when the complainant approached the accused, accused again revived the demand for Rs. 2,000/-. The complainant thus, lodged Ex. P-1/complaint before the Inspector of Lokayukta which was registered on 24.03.2000 in Crime No. 5/2000. In the follow-up action, the Inspector prepared Entrustment Mahazar, collected currency notes of Rs. 2,000/- and chemically treated it in the presence of PW.2/Arunkumar Bastwad and PW-3/Lagamappa Mavanoor. Thereafter, he took the complainant, PWs-2 and 3 in his official Jeep to conduct the trap. On that day, the trap could not be conducted and therefore, it was postponed and after one month on 24.04.2000, they conducted the trap. but it was unsuccessful. Similarly, on 29.04.2000 also, they could not succeed in conducting the trap. Ultimately, on 16.05.2000, the trap was successful.

It is alleged, the accused received Rs. 2,000/- arid in response to predetermined signal, the police officer rushed to the Office, seized currency notes and collected the hand-wash of the accused. On questioning the accused, he is said to have given a statement vide Ex. P-7 denying receipt of Rs. 2,000/- as bribe. However, the Inspector of Police prepared Spot Mahazar authenticated by the witnesses and filed a final report indicting him for the offences punishable under Sections 7, 13(1)(d) and 13(2) of the Act.

The accused denied the charge, necessitating trial. In the trial that ensued, complainant was examined as PW-1 and Panch witnesses to the Entrustment Mahazar namely Arunkumar Bastwad and Lagamappa Mavanoor were examined as PWs-2 and 3. The Village Accountant was examined as PW-4, mother of complainant was examined as PW-5 and the investigating officer/R. Melawanki was examined as PW-7. The prosecution has relied on twenty-five documents and seven material objects. The learned trial Judge analysing the evidence, opined the prosecution has failed to establish the charge beyond all reasonable doubts and acquitted the accused. Assailing it, the State is in appeal.

Learned counsel Sri. Jagadish Patil would contend even though the complainant/PW-1 has not fully supported the prosecution''s case, yet from his testimony it could be noticed he had approached the accused and the accused had demanded Rs. 5,000/- to be paid as bribe. He submits that the version of PW-2 that he had approached the accused for his official work and that the accused demanded Rs. 5,000/- to be paid in installments is sufficient to record conviction.

As regards the evidence of other witnesses, he submits it is formal in nature and even though, they turned hostile, it does not impact the evidence tendered by the investigating officer and complainant. He thus, relies heavily on the evidence of investigating officer who is alleged to have conducted the trap and has seized the bait money and collected hand-wash of the accused.

Sri. Ashok R. Kalyanshetty opposed all the grounds in the appeal and would submit that the trial court had justifiably recorded acquittal noticing lack of incriminating aspects in evidence. He submits the fact that complainant was inimical towards the accused and had filed a false report is demonstrated from the evidence itself leaving no scope for any doubt. He submits that seizure of money may raise a suspicion, but may not justify to record of conviction of the respondent.

As could be seen, complainant is examined as PW-1 whose evidence reveals, he owns land in R.S. No. 9 measuring 5 acres 9 guntas. He found the name of Pundalik Venkat Patil, Shivaji Kallappa Patil, Lakamanna kallappa Patil and Gopal Kallappa Patil entered in the revenue records and thus, had approached the accused for rectification of the entries in revenue records. It is alleged the accused demanded Rs. 5,000/-. To this extent, the complainant has supported the prosecution''s case. He also says, he had requested the accused to reduce the amount to Rs. 2,000/- for the present, with assurance that he will pay Rs. 3,000/- after a month. However, in further deposition, PW-1 has spoken to the fact that after one month, he approached the accused, when the accused again demanded Rs. 2,000/- be paid. He deposes such demand was in the presence of his mother. Thus, he cites his mother as also a witness to his visit to the Office of the accused. But, it could be seen that even after one month, the accused had not effected the change and rectified the entries in revenue records and told the complainant to give him money to complete the work. According to the version of the complainant, he kept Rs. 2,000/- on the table as asked by the accused, in the presence of his mother, PW.5/Smt. Ramakka Mareppa Patil and Huchannavar Talati. Thereafter, he claims to have given signal to the Inspector as predetermined. If we believe such version, he approached the accused only after a month and on that day, he claims to have paid Rs. 2,000/- whereas the evidence of the investigating officer would show that on 24.03.2000, no trap was conducted and again they made an attempt on 24.04.2000. Even on that day, the trap was not possible. Therefore, the investigating officer again planned it on 29.04.2000. That was also did not materialise. It is only on 16.05.2000, the trap was successful.

If we go by the undisputed facts, the trap was successful only on 16.05.2000. Therefore, the statement of PW-1 that after the first visit, he paid Rs. 2,000/- to the accused, after one month, on the date of trap is difficult to believe. Besides, it must be noticed that PW-1 does not say that the amount of Rs. 2,000/- was collected by the accused personally. According to him, accused asked him to keep it on the table. The second circumstance we could notice is that though the hands of the accused were subjected to wash, the solution did not show colourisation and it was thus negative. The seizure of Rs. 2,000/- is not from the person of the accused, but it is alleged to have been seized from the table. It is further to be noticed PW-1 commenced stating he lodged the report for action against the accused but admits he has not authored Ex. P-1/complaint. Ex. P-1 is written by the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Lokayukta.

PW-2/Arunkumar Bastawad, who is panch to the Entrustment Mahazar, feigned ignorance about Ex. P.1. He did not identify him and openly declared that he does not know as to who gave M.O-7 (i.e., Rs. 2,000) to Dy. S.P. at the time of entrustment Mahazar. PW-2 has totally denied his partition in the investigation and has thereby declined to support the prosecution''s version about the alleged drawing of Entrustment Mahazar and the trap. His deposition would show total adverse animus to the prosecution and from such evidence, nothing could be salvaged by the prosecution to support the charge.

PW-3/Lagamappa Channamallappa Mavanoor, another pancha witness, speaks of police officer collecting the hand-wash of accused and also speaks of the fact that the solution did not show colourisation. No doubt, he admits that Panchanama was prepared by the police and he has authenticated it, nothing incriminating is spoken by him against the accused. Consequently, he was treated as hostile by the prosecution and subjected to cross-examination. Even in cross-examination nothing could be elicited to prove the charge against the accused demanding and receiving of Rs. 2,000/- as bribe.

PW-4/Mallikarjun Veerappa Huchhannavar is an official witness, summoned to produce revenue records. Therefore, he has no role in the alleged trap. However, he was treated as hostile as he did not re-iterate the statement alleged to have been made during investigation. He was said to be a witness to the complainant giving money to the accused, but he has declined to support that version. However, accused has elicited from him that accused was not the competent authority to bring about the necessary changes in the revenue records. The competent authority was Tahasildar, who had to accept the application and act on it. Ex. D-17 is marked through PW-4, which shows that Tahasildar was the competent authority to bring about rectification and not the accused.

PW-5/Ramakka Mareppa Patil is the paternal aunt of PW-1 and she has given a go-by to her version in her statement during investigation. She was treated as hostile and nothing is elicited from her evidence. Besides, she has also stated that she was instructed by the police officers to speak based on the record and thus, she deposed that accused had demanded money and it was kept on the table.

PW-7/R. Melawanaki is the Inspector who investigated the complaint/Ex. P-1 and filed the final report. He has spoken only of the trap conducted on 16.05.2000 at 2.30 p.m. in the Office of the accused. But, what transpired within the Office of the accused between the complainant and accused is not within his knowledge. His evidence would only show PW-1 had told him the accused had demanded money and he has kept the bait money on the table. Thereafter, he conducted the proceedings to seize the money, collected the hand-wash of the accused, etc.

Even if we accept his evidence, it would only show that: he has discharged his duty of receiving the complaint, registering it and conducting the trap. But, his testimony totally depends on what the complaint has to say. We have already referred to the evidence of PW-1, which does not inculpate the accused for the charges leveled against him. In the resultant position, the learned trial Judge entertained a doubt and granted benefit of doubt to the accused and acquitted him.

From the evidence, it could be seen even though the complainant has, to some extent, supported the prosecution''s case about tendering Rs. 2,000/- to the accused as bribe, but his evidence does not establish that the accused had received Rs. 2,000/- as illegal gratification. The Trap Mahazar also evidences the fact that the money was still on the table and not in the possession of the accused. Thus, merely because PW-1 says the accused demanded the money and he has kept it on the table, it would not lead to a conclusion that the accused had in fact demanded the money. It is possible that the complainant may have, kept the money, signaled the investigating officer to come and the money was seized. That would only prove the seizure, but it would not prove that accused had demanded and received money as illegal gratification. The prosecution admits, the hand-wash of the accused did not show colourisation and it speaks of the fact that he had not handled the bait money. If, as alleged, he had demanded the money, it would be natural for the accused to receive it. Even if we give concession to the prosecution, trap witnesses could have also supported the prosecution''s case about the demand made by the accused. That is also not available. In the resultant position, the conclusion of the learned trial judge that prosecution had failed to prove the charges leveled against the accused for the offences punishable under Sections 7, 13(1)(d) and 13(2) of the Act is well-founded and needs no interference.

In the result, the appeal is dismissed confirming the acquittal of the respondent/accused.