Back
2013 Supreme(Kar) 1287
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT DHARWAD BENCH
N. ANANDA, J.
JAGADEESH KESHAV SHENVI —Appellant
Vs.
STATE BY THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE —Respondent
Criminal Appeal No. 745 of 2008
Decided on : 31-07-2013
Advocate Appeared:
Vinay S. Koujalagi, for the Appellant
M.B. Gundawade, for the Respondent
The burden of proof lies with the accused to establish the legitimate purpose of money received, failing which the presumption of corruption under the Prevention of Corruption Act applies.
Headnote:
Corruption - Public Servant - Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, Sections 7, 13(1)(d)(i), 13(2)
Fact of the Case:
The accused, a Revenue Inspector, was convicted for demanding gratification to recommend for grant of a gun license and trapped by the police wing Karnataka Lokayukta. The accused claimed the money was for purchasing National Savings Certificates (NSC) as per instructions from the Tahsildar.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the accused demanded and accepted bribe, rejecting the defense that the money was for NSC purchase. The court held that the accused failed to prove the legitimate purpose of the money received.
Issues: The issues revolved around whether the accused demanded and accepted bribe, or if the money was received for legitimate purposes as claimed by the accused.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the accused's defense was contradictory and not supported by evidence, shifting the burden to the accused to prove the legitimate purpose of the money received.
Final Decision: The court upheld the conviction under Sections 7, 13(1)(d)(i) read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, and dismissed the appeal.
N. ANANDA, J.-The appellant (hereinafter referred to as 'accused') was tried, convicted and sentenced for offences punishable under Sections 7, 13(1)(d)(i) read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (for short, 'the Act'). Therefore, he has filed this appeal.
2. I have heard Sri Vinay S. Kaujalagi, learned counsel for appellant and Sri M.B. Gundawade, learned counsel for respondent.
3. The accused was working as a Revenue Inspector in Hulekal, Sirsi Taluk. He was tried for following charges:
"That on 31/3/98 you were the Revenue Inspector, a public servant, then working in the O/o Dy. Tahasildar, Hulekal, Sirsi Taluka, demanded gratification of Rs. 1,400/- otherwise than legal fees to recommend for grant of gun licence to the complainant Ramachandra Raghavendra Hegde and trapped by the police wing Karnataka Lokayukta and that thereby committed offences punishable under Section 7, 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and within my cognizance."
4. As already stated, learned Special Judge convicted accused for aforestated offences. Before adverting to the evidence adduced by prosecution, defence of accused and findings recorded by learned Special Judge, it is necessary to state certain facts, which have not been disputed by both parties.
During relevant period, accused was working as a Revenue Inspector in the office of Deputy Tahsildar at Hulekal, Sirsi Taluk. The father of PW1-Ramachandra was holding a licenced firearm. PW1 applied for transfer of licence of firearm from the name of his father to his name, inter alia stating that his father is sufficiently old. PW1 held large extent of land and he requires firearm for protection of his properties and person. The application and necessary documents were submitted to the Tahsildar at Sirsi. The Tahsildar at Sirsi (PW3-M.Raghunath) forwarded application of PW1 to accused for enquiry and report. On 31.03.1998,PW1 had lodged a complaint with Police Inspector of Lokayukta (PW8-Bashasab) as per Ex.P.20, stating that on 21.03.1998 PW1 had met the accused in connection with transfer of firearm licence. At that time, accused told PW1 that he has to pay a sum of Rs. 1,400/- to accused to take care of his application and to attend the work of transfer of firearm licence. PW1 told accused that he had not brought money. The accused told PW1 that he would forward application to Tahsildar and PW1 should pay a sum of Rs. 1,400/- to accused, without fail. Thereafter, PW1 went to the office of Tahsildar at Sirsi and found that accused had not forwarded his application.
5. On 26.03.1998, PW1 again met accused and enquired the accused about application submitted by PW1. At that time, accused demanded PW1 that he had not paid a sum of Rs. 1,400/-. If the amount is paid, accused would forthwith send the application. PW1 told accused that he would pay money either on coming Monday or Tuesday. Thereafter, PW1 filed first information as per Ex.P.20.
6. The accused has put forth a specific defence that what was paid to him by PW1 was not bribe. During the relevant period, Tahsildar at Sirsi had directed revenue officials, including the accused to persuade public who approach them in relation to their official work to purchase National Savings Certificates (for short, 'NSC'). The accused had told PW1 that he had to pay a sum of Rs. 1,400/- to purchase NSC for transfer of firearm licence from the name of father of PW1 to the name of PW1.
7. The learned counsel for accused during cross-examination of PW1-Ramachandra, PW2-Rama Pokka Gouda (shadow witness) and PW8-Bashasab (Police Inspector) has specifically suggested that accused had received instructions from Tahsildar to collect money to purchase NSC. Therefore, accused had asked PW1 to pay a sum of Rs. 1,400/- to purchase NSC. After accused was trapped, the accused had given a written statement reading as hereunder:-
"PW1 had given an application to Tahsildar for transfer of firearm licence held
