According to the decision in the case of Suraj Mal v State (Delhi Administration) , in head note B, it is held that mere recovery of money from accused not sufficient. In this case, the patent lacuna is that the panch who actually accompanied the complainant was not examined. Had he been examined and supported the ease of the prosecution, then the case of the prosecution would have been strengthened. Bereft of examining Gopala Krishna Bhat what had remained on the record is self-serving testimony of P.W. 1. Unless there is corroboration by other materials, it is difficult to hold that the prosecution has established beyond reasonable doubt that there was demand and acceptance. Moreover, the another hole in the jacket of the prosecution is that the file had left on 22-7-1986 itself to P.W. 2 to conduct the survey. In view of these facts and circumstances of the case, naturally the doubt arises as to the genuineness of the prosecution story. Hence, benefit of doubt is extended to the appellant.
1. This appeal is directed against the judgment dated 26-2-1996 passed in Special Case No. 10 of 1987 by the Special Judge of Dakshina Kannada, Mangalore, convicting the appellant and sentencing him to undergo R.I. for a period of one year for the offence punishable under Section 13(1)(d) and Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.
2. Briefly stated the case of the prosecution is that the appellant was working as A.D.L.R. in Mangalore. P.W. 1 was looking after the property of his mother-in-law. On 16-7-1986, he had given an application to conduct survey in respect of Sy. No. 187/2 as P.W. 1 was interested to fence the same. The application was given in the name of his mother-in- law. On that date, the appellant was not present in the office. On 22-7-1986, again P.W. 1 visited the office and made enquiry with the appellant as to what has happened to the application given by him. After some discussions, it appears that the appellant has demanded Rs. 150/- for completing the work. Since P.W. 1 was not interested in giving bribe, he visited the office of the Lokayuktha and gave a complaint. After performing all the preliminary tests, the police along with P.W. 1 and the panchas set out for traping the appellant. P.W. 1 went to the appellant and made an enquiry and after the demand, he gave the amount of Rs. 150/-. After the appellant received this amount, P.W. 1 gave signal. As such, the I.O. and the panchas came inside and seized the amount and conducted mahazar and collected the wash.
2-A. For the prosecution, P.Ws. 1 to 7 are examined and Exs. P. 1 to P. 11 are marked. The Lower Court has come to the conclusion that the evidence led by the prosecution is sufficient to bring home the guilt of the accused for the charges levelled against the appellant. Hence the appellant has been convicted and sentenced to undergo R.I. for one year as stated above.
3. Mr. Raghavachar, learned Counsel for the appellant submits that even assuming that there was recovery of the amount, it is not the sign of the guilt. According to him, except self-serving testimony of the complainant, there is nothing on the record to show that there was actually demand and payment. The another trump card according to him is that the panch who is alleged to have accompanied with P.W. 1 has not been examined. Hence, self-serving testimony of P.W. 1 is not sufficient to warrant the conviction. On the otherhand, Sri Sreenivasa Reddy, learned Government Pleader vehemently submitted that there was demand and after the demand, the bribe was given and it was accepted and after acceptance, signal was given then the mahazar was conducted. In view of these rival submissions, now it is to be seen whether the evidence is sufficient to bring home the guilt of this appellant.
4. As far as giving of the application is concerned, it is not in dispute. According to P.W. 1, he gave the application on 16-7-1986 to conduct the survey in respect of Sy. No. 187/2 as he was interested to fence the same. This application was given in the name of his mother-in-law. P.W. 2-Hanumantharaju was second class surveyor. P.W. 3 accompanied P.W. 1 to the office of the appellant at the time of the seizure. P.W. 5 was also working as second class surveyor.
5. The crux of the point that goes to the root is that whether there was any demand by the appellant. The alleged trap has taken place on 23-7-1986. According to P.W. 1, he had given the application on 16-7-1986 itself. On that date, the appellant was not present in the office. Subsequently on 22-7-1986, he visited the office and also explained his purpose to come to the office. Then the appellant called P.W. 5 and made an enquiry about the application. Then it was P.W. 2 to whom the work was entrusted on 22-7-1986 itself. If this is the case, it is ununder-standable as to how there could be demand on 23-7-1986. If at all the appellant was pestering P.W. 1 to meet the demand, it should have been made on 22-7-1986 itself or prior to that date. One can understand if the file was not sent on 22-7-1986 itself and if the file could be sent only after the demand was met with, then the story would have been different. Before the trap took place, the file already had left the table of the appellant. Under such circumstances, it is difficult to believe that he was pressing the demand of Rs. 150/-.
6. Mr. Raghavachar, learned Counsel for the appellant submitted that according to the prosecution itself, one Gopala Krishna Bhat who is C.W. 2 is not at all examined. The prosecution has not offered any explanation as to why it has failed to examine the panch who had really accompanied with the appellant. The another witness who says that he was panch for the recovery, is of no use. According to the decision in the case of Suraj Mal v State (Delhi Administration) , in head note B, it is held that mere recovery of money from accused not sufficient. In this case, the patent lacuna is that the panch who actually accompanied the complainant was not examined. Had he been examined and supported the ease of the prosecution, then the case of the prosecution would have been strengthened. Bereft of examining Gopala Krishna Bhat what had remained on the record is self-serving testimony of P.W. 1. Unless there is corroboration by other materials, it is difficult to hold that the prosecution has established beyond reasonable doubt that there was demand and acceptance. Moreover, the another hole in the jacket of the prosecution is that the file had lea on 22-7-1986 itself to P.W. 2 to conduct the survey. In view of these facts and circumstances of the case, naturally the doubt arises as to the genuineness of the prosecution story. Hence, benefit of doubt is extended to the appellant. Hence the following order.
In the result, the appeal is allowed. The judgment of conviction dated 26-2-1996 passed in Special Case No. 10 of 1987 by the Special Judge of Dakshina Kannada, Mangalore is set aside. The bail bond executed by the appellant stands cancelled.
Print Page
Karnataka High Court
S. Suryanarayana Rao vs State By Deputy Superintendent Of ... on 4 January, 2000
Equivalent citations: 2000 CriLJ 2377, ILR 2000 KAR 1202, 2000 (2) KarLJ 419
JUDGMENT1. This appeal is directed against the judgment dated 26-2-1996 passed in Special Case No. 10 of 1987 by the Special Judge of Dakshina Kannada, Mangalore, convicting the appellant and sentencing him to undergo R.I. for a period of one year for the offence punishable under Section 13(1)(d) and Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.
2. Briefly stated the case of the prosecution is that the appellant was working as A.D.L.R. in Mangalore. P.W. 1 was looking after the property of his mother-in-law. On 16-7-1986, he had given an application to conduct survey in respect of Sy. No. 187/2 as P.W. 1 was interested to fence the same. The application was given in the name of his mother-in- law. On that date, the appellant was not present in the office. On 22-7-1986, again P.W. 1 visited the office and made enquiry with the appellant as to what has happened to the application given by him. After some discussions, it appears that the appellant has demanded Rs. 150/- for completing the work. Since P.W. 1 was not interested in giving bribe, he visited the office of the Lokayuktha and gave a complaint. After performing all the preliminary tests, the police along with P.W. 1 and the panchas set out for traping the appellant. P.W. 1 went to the appellant and made an enquiry and after the demand, he gave the amount of Rs. 150/-. After the appellant received this amount, P.W. 1 gave signal. As such, the I.O. and the panchas came inside and seized the amount and conducted mahazar and collected the wash.
2-A. For the prosecution, P.Ws. 1 to 7 are examined and Exs. P. 1 to P. 11 are marked. The Lower Court has come to the conclusion that the evidence led by the prosecution is sufficient to bring home the guilt of the accused for the charges levelled against the appellant. Hence the appellant has been convicted and sentenced to undergo R.I. for one year as stated above.
3. Mr. Raghavachar, learned Counsel for the appellant submits that even assuming that there was recovery of the amount, it is not the sign of the guilt. According to him, except self-serving testimony of the complainant, there is nothing on the record to show that there was actually demand and payment. The another trump card according to him is that the panch who is alleged to have accompanied with P.W. 1 has not been examined. Hence, self-serving testimony of P.W. 1 is not sufficient to warrant the conviction. On the otherhand, Sri Sreenivasa Reddy, learned Government Pleader vehemently submitted that there was demand and after the demand, the bribe was given and it was accepted and after acceptance, signal was given then the mahazar was conducted. In view of these rival submissions, now it is to be seen whether the evidence is sufficient to bring home the guilt of this appellant.
4. As far as giving of the application is concerned, it is not in dispute. According to P.W. 1, he gave the application on 16-7-1986 to conduct the survey in respect of Sy. No. 187/2 as he was interested to fence the same. This application was given in the name of his mother-in-law. P.W. 2-Hanumantharaju was second class surveyor. P.W. 3 accompanied P.W. 1 to the office of the appellant at the time of the seizure. P.W. 5 was also working as second class surveyor.
5. The crux of the point that goes to the root is that whether there was any demand by the appellant. The alleged trap has taken place on 23-7-1986. According to P.W. 1, he had given the application on 16-7-1986 itself. On that date, the appellant was not present in the office. Subsequently on 22-7-1986, he visited the office and also explained his purpose to come to the office. Then the appellant called P.W. 5 and made an enquiry about the application. Then it was P.W. 2 to whom the work was entrusted on 22-7-1986 itself. If this is the case, it is ununder-standable as to how there could be demand on 23-7-1986. If at all the appellant was pestering P.W. 1 to meet the demand, it should have been made on 22-7-1986 itself or prior to that date. One can understand if the file was not sent on 22-7-1986 itself and if the file could be sent only after the demand was met with, then the story would have been different. Before the trap took place, the file already had left the table of the appellant. Under such circumstances, it is difficult to believe that he was pressing the demand of Rs. 150/-.
6. Mr. Raghavachar, learned Counsel for the appellant submitted that according to the prosecution itself, one Gopala Krishna Bhat who is C.W. 2 is not at all examined. The prosecution has not offered any explanation as to why it has failed to examine the panch who had really accompanied with the appellant. The another witness who says that he was panch for the recovery, is of no use. According to the decision in the case of Suraj Mal v State (Delhi Administration) , in head note B, it is held that mere recovery of money from accused not sufficient. In this case, the patent lacuna is that the panch who actually accompanied the complainant was not examined. Had he been examined and supported the ease of the prosecution, then the case of the prosecution would have been strengthened. Bereft of examining Gopala Krishna Bhat what had remained on the record is self-serving testimony of P.W. 1. Unless there is corroboration by other materials, it is difficult to hold that the prosecution has established beyond reasonable doubt that there was demand and acceptance. Moreover, the another hole in the jacket of the prosecution is that the file had lea on 22-7-1986 itself to P.W. 2 to conduct the survey. In view of these facts and circumstances of the case, naturally the doubt arises as to the genuineness of the prosecution story. Hence, benefit of doubt is extended to the appellant. Hence the following order.
In the result, the appeal is allowed. The judgment of conviction dated 26-2-1996 passed in Special Case No. 10 of 1987 by the Special Judge of Dakshina Kannada, Mangalore is set aside. The bail bond executed by the appellant stands cancelled.
No comments:
Post a Comment