Case Note & Summary
The criminal appeal arose from the judgment of conviction and sentence by the Special Court in Spl. Case No.679/2011 dated 13.06.2013, convicting the first appellant under Sections 7, 13(1)(d) read with 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, and the second appellant under Section 8 of the same Act. The prosecution case was that the first appellant, a Revenue Inspector at Nada Kacheri, Devanahalli, demanded a bribe of Rs.12,000 to 15,000 from the complainant, PW-1, for change of khata of a property belonging to the complainant's wife. He had already received Rs.3,000 as part payment. On the complainant approaching the Lokayukta police, a trap was laid on 28.12.2007, where the first appellant instructed the second appellant, a middleman, to collect the bribe money. The second appellant received Rs.8,000 from the complainant, and the tainted currency notes were recovered, with phenolphthalein test positive. After investigation, sanction for prosecution was obtained from PW-3 on 18.04.2011. The trial court convicted both appellants, sentencing the first appellant to imprisonment and fine for offences under Sections 7 and 13(2), and the second appellant under Section 8. In appeal, the appellants contended that the work of khata was pending before the Deputy Tahsildar and not the first appellant, the complaint was drafted by the Investigating Officer and the complainant was unaware of its contents, the sanction order was passed without application of mind, and there were material inconsistencies in documentary evidence. The High Court heard the arguments but the provided text ends before the judgment's operative part, so the final decision of the High Court is not mentioned.
Issue of Consideration
Case Details
2021 LawText (KAR) (09) 19
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.672 OF 2013
Ravi B. Naik, P. Chandrashekar, Vijetha R. Naik, Venkatesh S. Arbathi
State by Lokayukta Police
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Criminal appeal against conviction and sentence for offences under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.
Remedy Sought
Appellants seeking to set aside the conviction and sentence imposed by the trial court and acquit them.
Filing Reason
The trial court convicted the appellants, holding them guilty of demanding and accepting bribe, and the appellants challenge the findings on grounds of erroneous appreciation of evidence, invalid sanction, and procedural irregularities.
Previous Decisions
Trial court (Spl. Case No.679/2011) convicted appellant no.1 under Sections 7, 13(1)(d) read with 13(2) and appellant no.2 under Section 8 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, and sentenced them to imprisonment and fine.
Issues
Whether the conviction is sustainable when the work of khata was pending before the Deputy Tahsildar and not the accused Revenue Inspector.
Whether the sanction for prosecution under Section 19 of the Prevention of Corruption Act was validly granted without application of mind.
Whether the complaint drafted by the Investigating Officer and the complainant's lack of knowledge of its contents vitiates the prosecution case.
Whether inconsistencies in documents regarding the posting of the matter before the Deputy Tahsildar create reasonable doubt about the demand of bribe.
Submissions/Arguments
The first appellant was not entrusted with the work of change of khata; the matter was pending before the Deputy Tahsildar who had actually demanded the bribe.
The complaint was not drafted by the complainant but by the Investigating Officer, and the complainant was unaware of its averments.
The sanction order passed by PW-3 was without application of mind, as he merely signed a proforma order without perusing all materials.
The trap was laid in the office of the Deputy Tahsildar, and the file was seized from him, establishing that the real culprit was the Deputy Tahsildar, not the appellant.
There were contradictions in the dates of order pronouncement as reflected in Exhibit P10 series and the 'A' Diary, which create doubt about the prosecution case.
Judgment Excerpts
Accused No.1 was working as a Revenue Inspector at Nada Kacheri, Devanahalli.
The complainant namely Lakshmana / PW-1, is said to have submitted certain records in the office of the Deputy Tahsildar, Devanahalli for change of Khata of Sy.No.95/1 of Kundana village belonging to his wife Smt. Ambujakshi.
Accused No.1 is said to have instructed Accused No.2 / C.M.Lokesh who is a middleman, to collect the bribe amount from the complainant.
The right hand, left hand and pant of Accused No.2 including the right hand of the complainant were washed with Sodium Carbonate solution which was prepared in the office of the accused by one of the staff of the raiding team and the solution had turned into light pink in colour, indicating the presence of phenolphthalein.
Procedural History
The complainant filed a complaint with the Lokayukta police on 27.12.2007, which was registered as an FIR. Pre-trap procedures were conducted, and a trap was laid on 28.12.2007. The Investigating Officer, PW-5, conducted the trap, arrested the accused, and completed investigation. Sanction for prosecution of the first appellant was obtained on 18.04.2011. Charge-sheet was filed, and the case was tried in Spl. Case No.679/2011 by the Special Judge, Bangalore Rural District. The court examined five prosecution witnesses and marked exhibits, and after the accused's statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C., the trial court convicted and sentenced the appellants on 13.06.2013. The appellants filed the present criminal appeal under Section 374(2) Cr.P.C. before the High Court of Karnataka.
Acts & Sections
- Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988: 7, 13(1)(d), 13(2), 8
- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973: 374(2), 313, 233
