Case Note & Summary
The appeal before the High Court of Karnataka arose from the conviction of the appellant, a former Program Executive at Doordarshan Kendra, Bangalore, under Sections 7 and 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. The appellant was sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for two years and three years respectively, with fines, by the XXI Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge and Special Judge for CBI Cases, Bangalore, on 31 July 2003. The case of the prosecution was that between January and September 1997, the appellant held charge of the Sponsor Section and was involved in the approval and telecast of a sponsored tele-serial titled 'Chalanachitra Vikshisi', produced by one Shamsundar, complainant (PW-2). The telecast of the 26-episode serial had commenced on 29 April 1997. It was alleged that the appellant demanded a bribe of Rs.20,000 from the complainant, threatening that the serial would not be telecast otherwise. When the complainant refused, the appellant allegedly refused to issue a program telecast certificate, which was necessary for the complainant to receive payments from advertising agencies. On 16 September 1997, the appellant again demanded the bribe at Meghsagar Hotel, Sadashivanagar, Bangalore. The complainant then lodged a complaint with the CBI, which organized a trap on the same day. According to the prosecution, at about 7:10 p.m., the complainant and two independent witnesses met the appellant at the hotel; the appellant demanded and accepted Rs.20,000. The trap officers, upon signal, apprehended the appellant, and his hands when dipped in sodium bicarbonate solution turned pink-red, indicating contact with phenolphthalein-coated currency. A recovery mahazar was drawn later at the CBI office due to the crowded hotel. The appellant denied the charges, contending that the complainant's mother was the actual producer of the serial, that the complainant had not paid the required minimum guarantee and telecast fees, and therefore the telecast certificate could not be issued. He claimed that the money was thrust into his banian. The trial court convicted the appellant. On appeal, the High Court framed four issues regarding sanction under Section 19, scope for official favour, and the requirement of demand under Section 7. The appellant's counsel argued that the initial burden of proving demand and receipt was not discharged, that the presumption under Section 20 could not be invoked without proof of demand, that the appellant had no capacity to do official favour as the Director issued the telecast certificate, and that various procedural lapses such as delay in drawing the mahazar and non-examination of key witnesses vitiated the prosecution case. The respondent CBI argued that demand, acceptance, and official capacity were proved, minor inconsistencies were irrelevant, and the sanction was valid. The court heard arguments on 21 November 2014 and reserved orders, pronouncing on 28 November 2014. The text provided does not contain the court's analysis and final decision.
Issue of Consideration
1. Whether the prosecution of the accused in the present case is preceded by a valid order of sanction as contemplated under Section 19 of the Act? 2. Whether there was any scope for the present accused to do any official favour in order to demand bribe from PW-2-Shamasundar? 3. Whether the alleged receipt of bribe money from PW-2 is preceded by demand as contemplated under Section 7 of the Act? 4. Whether ... (incomplete in text)
