Back
2017 Supreme(Kar) 954
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA DHARWAD BENCH
R.B.BUDIHAL, J.
Shri. Ajidsaheb Nabisab Mulla - Appellant
Versus
The Karnataka Lokayukta, By It’s Lokayukta Police - Respondent
Criminal Appeal No.1331 Of 2011
Decided On : 08-09-2017
For the Appellant :Sri. Ashok. R. Kalyanashetty, Advocate
For the Respondent: Smt. Nirmala S.Sutagattingmath, Spl.P.P.
Headnote:
Prevention of Corruption Act - Demand and Acceptance of Bribe - Sections 7, 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) - The court acquitted the accused of all charges, finding that the prosecution failed to establish the demand and acceptance of bribe beyond all reasonable doubts. The court also found inconsistencies in the evidence and lack of documentary evidence to support the prosecution's case.
Fact of the Case:
The appellant/accused was convicted for the offence punishable under Sections 7, 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. The complaint alleged that the accused, a Traffic Inspector, demanded bribe amounts from conductors for assigning duty and signing waybills. The Lokayukta Police conducted a trap where the accused was caught receiving the bribe amount.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the prosecution failed to prove the demand and acceptance of bribe beyond all reasonable doubts. It noted inconsistencies in the evidence, lack of documentary evidence, and the absence of material to show that the accused was entrusted with the duty of assigning duty to conductors and signing waybills.
Issues: The issues revolved around the demand and acceptance of bribe, the authority of the accused to assign duty and sign waybills, and the validity of the sanction order.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the prosecution's case was not supported by documentary evidence and that the evidence presented was inconsistent. It also found that the accused's explanation and the lack of material to show his authority over conductors raised reasonable doubt.
Final Decision: The court acquitted the appellant/accused of all charges and set aside the judgment and order of conviction. The bail bonds executed by the appellant-accused were cancelled, and any fine amount deposited was to be refunded.
This appeal is preferred by the appellant/accused being aggrieved by the judgment and order of conviction and also the sentence dated 22.12.2011 passed by the IVth Additional District and Sessions Judge and Special Judge (PCA), Belagavi in Special C.C.No.37/2008.
2. By the judgment and order of conviction appellant/accused herein was convicted for the offence punishable under Sections 7, 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and he was sentenced to under go rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year and to pay fine of Rs.5,000/- and in default of payment of fine amount simple imprisonment for a further period of two months, for the offence punishable under Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and he was also sentenced to under go rigorous imprisonment for a period of two years and to pay fine of Rs.7,000/- and in default of payment of fine amount simple imprisonment for a further period of three months for the offence punishable under Sections 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.
3. Brief facts of the case of the prosecution as per the complaint averments that, PW-1 the complainant one-Rajashekhar Shivaputrappa Horakeri lodged the complaint on 17.05.2007 before the Lokayukta police, alleging that, he was working as a conductor in NWKRTC, Belgaum in Depot No.2 and he was residing at Renuka Nagar, Vantamuri Cross, Belagavi. The higher officer of the complainant is one Mr.A.N.Mulla, and he was the Traffic Inspector, he is the person who is assigning the duty to the complainant and after attending the duty he has to sign of the waybill and after his signatures only the cashier will accept the collected amount. The said Traffic Inspector used to collect Rs.200/- per month from each of the conductors, if the amount is paid immediately he has signed on the waybill and he was allotting the duty as desired by the conductors. Therefore they were making the payment of Rs.200/- p.m. As the complainant not feeling well for a period of two months, he remained absent and there after words he attended the duty on 07.04.2007. After he attending the duty the Traffic Inspector Sri.A.N.Mulla asked him to pay the bribe amount, complainant told that, he is in trouble and he will pay the amount after two months, but even then the said Traffic Inspector was giving trouble to him, complainant tolerated and he was doing his duty on 16.05.2007 the said Traffic Inspector asked the complainant that, he has to pay the amount for the two months for which he remained absent and subsequently three months, so totally he has to pay Rs.1,000/- to him, if he did not pay the amount he will give the trouble to him in assigning the duty and also while paying the collected amount to the cashier for that, the complainant told that today he was not having the amount i.e., on 16.05.2007. On 17.05.2007 after attending to his duty he will go to his house and bring the amount and he will pay the same for that, the accused person herein agreed and put the signature on the waybill of the complainant. Therefore as the complainant is not willing to pay the bribe amount to the accused person, he came to the Lokayukta office and lodged the complaint and he has requested to take legal action against the said accused person. He has also mentioned in the complaint that, the amount of Rs.1,000/- as demanded by the accused person, he has also brought that amount and he will produce the same as and when directed. On the basis of the said complaint, a case came to be registered for the offence punishable under Sections 7, 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 in the respondent Lokayukta (Belagavi) Crime No.7/2007.
4. Thereafter words as per the case of the prosecution entrustment mahazar was conducted in the office of Lokayukta and trap was also conducted wherein the accused person herein caught read handed when he received the bribe amount. After compl
