Back
2017 Supreme(Kar) 840
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT DHARWAD BENCH
BUDIHAL. R.B, J.
Sri. Irayya Mallayya Kambi – Appellant
Vs.
The State of Karnataka – Respondent
Criminal Appeal No.2846 of 2010, 2631, 2632 of 2011
Decided On : 05-09-2017
For the Appellant : Sri Srinand A Pachhapure, Adv.
For the Respondent: Smt. Nirmala S Sutagattimath, Spl.Pp.
The judgment emphasizes the importance of following the correct procedure in initiating criminal proceedings and highlights the consequences of giving false evidence in court.
Headnote:
Corruption - Criminal Misconduct - Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 - Sections 7, 13(1)(d), 13(2)
Fact of the Case:
The case involved the appellant/accused, who was convicted for demanding and accepting a bribe of Rs.5,000 for converting land tenure. The witnesses, P.Ws.2 and 3, were also found guilty of giving false evidence and were directed to be prosecuted for perjury.
Finding of the Court:
The trial court found the accused guilty of demanding and accepting the bribe, and convicted him for the said offences. The witnesses were also found to have given false evidence and were directed to be prosecuted for perjury.
Issues: The main issues were the demand and acceptance of the bribe by the accused, and the false evidence given by the witnesses.
Ratio Decidendi: The court found the prosecution's evidence of demand and acceptance of the bribe to be credible, and the witnesses' subsequent admissions of giving false evidence supported the perjury charges.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the appeal of the accused, but allowed the appeals of P.Ws.2 and 3, setting aside the order for their prosecution and directing a fresh consideration following the correct procedure. The court also modified the sentence of the accused.
1. Since these three appeals are arising out of the same judgment, they were taken together to dispose of them by this common judgment in order to avoid repetition of discussion on the point of law and facts involved in the case.
2. Crl.A.2846/2010 is preferred by the appellant/accused being aggrieved by the judgment and order of conviction and also the sentence dated 21.10.2010 passed by the IV Addl. District and Sessions Judge, Belgaum, in Special Case No.78/2006.
3. Crl.A.2631/2011 is preferred by the witness i.e., P.W.2 in Spl.Case No.78/2006, being aggrieved by the initiation of the criminal proceedings and issuance of summons by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Belgaum, in C.C.No.90/2010 for the offence punishable under Section 193 of IPC.
4. Crl.A.2632/2011 is preferred by another witness i.e., P.W.3 in Spl.Case No.78/2006, being aggrieved by the initiation of the criminal proceedings and issuance of summons by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Belgaum, in C.C.No.90/2010 for the offence punishable under Section 193 of IPC.
5. The appellants i.e., the accused and P.Ws.2 and 3 in Spl.Case No.78/2006, have challenged the legality and correctness of the judgment and order passed by the trial Court on the grounds as mentioned in the respective appeal memorandums.
6. Brief facts of the prosecution case as per the complaint averments are that P.W.1-Mutteppa Mahaning Sanadi lodged the complaint before the Lokayukta Police making the averments that he was possessing the land bearing Sy.No.29 in Agrani Ingalgaon village of Athani Taluk and the said land was an Inam land. The complainant filed an application to the Tahasildar, Athani, on 30.05.2006 requesting for change of the tenure of the land in respect of deletion of the condition of the inam land and to convert the land into raitapi. The accused is working as First Division Assistant (F.D.A.) in Tahasildar Office, Athani and he was dealing in that regard. On 16.06.2006 when the complainant met accused and enquired about his application, at that time, accused being the case worker, demanded bribe of Rs.7,000/- from the complainant for converting the land into raitapi and on bargaining, got it settled at Rs.5,000/-. Complainant has assured to pay this amount within one week and subsequently he lodged the complaint before Lokayukta Police. On the basis of the said complaint, Lokayukta Police Inspector has followed all the procedure and entrustment mahazar was also conducted in the Lokayukta Office, explaining about the proceedings and thereafter, they have arranged for the trap on 19.06.2006. On 19.06.2006 at about 1.30p.m., in the Tahasildar Office in Athani, accused being a Public Servant working as a F.D.A., demanded and accepted bribe amount of Rs.5,000/- from the complainant and the notes were comprising of 9 notes of Rs.500/- denomination each and 5 notes denomination of Rs.100/- each. This was the gratification received by the appellant/accused and other than legal remuneration as a motive or reward for doing an official favour for changing the tenure of the land bearing Sy.No.29 from inam land into raitapi land and thereby the accused obtained a pecuniary advantage to the tune of Rs.5,000/- and thereby committed the criminal misconduct. Immediately a trap was laid down and accused was apprehended when he has accepted the bribe and after following all the procedure of taking the hand wash and recovery, etc., the Investigating Officer carried out the further investigation and after obtaining the sanction, he has submitted that the charge sheet against the accused for the offences punishable under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.
7. After hearing both sides and considering the charge sheet material, the learned Special judge framed the charge under Section 7, 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act, against the accused, who was the appellant in Crl.A.2846/2010, and then as the accu
