Back
2019 Supreme(Kar) 1278
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
MOHAMMAD NAWAZ, J.
Ramaiah - Appellant
Versus
State By Lokayuktha Police, Tumkur - Respondent
Criminal Appeal No. 1003, 1001 of 2012
Decided On : 20-09-2019
Advocate Appeared:
S.K. Venkata Reddy, Adv., S.G. Rajendra Reddy, Adv., Venkatesh S. Arabatti, Adv., A.H. Bhagavan, Adv.
Headnote:
Indian Penal Code,1860 - Section 20 - Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 - Section 164(5) - Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 - Sections 7, 13(1)(d) and 13(2 ) - Enquiry - Punishment - Whether prosecution has established guilt of accused for charged offences punishable Section - Whether Judgment and Order of conviction and sentence passed by trial Court calls for any interference - What order? –Held, Court to register case and to proceed against owner or driver of vehicle for carrying excess passengers are seized documents- It is observed that notice book at refers to Tempo wherein it is mentioned that driver was found carrying excess passengers violating permit Court has grossly erred in relying upon complaint without same being corroborated by complainant entire approach of trial Court and reasons assigned for convicting accused for charged offences are not sound and proper evidence led by prosecution are not sufficient to hold that accused are guilty of charged offences prosecution has failed to establish charges leveled against accused beyond all reasonable doubt - Court has observed that since concerned officer who has issued sanction order was not available and his presence could not be secured without an amount of delay sanction order has become admissible Section Evidence Act said finding cannot be found fault with- issue relating to sanction was examined by trial Court- Perusal of sanction order marked prima facie shows that there has been application of mind and relevant materials have been examined by concerned officer- On facts of present case it has not been shown that there was any defect in sanction- Non-examination of sanctioning authority is not fatal when sanction order contained details showing application of mind by concerned authority- Therefore there was valid sanction issued by competent authority to prosecute accused – Appeal allowed
JUDGMENT :
MOHAMMAD NAWAZ, J.
1. These appeals are preferred by accused Nos. 1 and 2 in Special Case No.87/2007 on the file of the Court of the II Additional District and Sessions Judge, Tumakuru, whereby the learned Sessions Judge by Judgment dated 31.08.2012 has convicted both the accused for the offences punishable under Sections 7, 13(1)(d) and 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 [hereinafter referred to as the P.C. Act for short].
2. I have heard the learned counsel Sri. A.H.Bhagwan, appearing for accused No.1 in Crl.A. No.1001/2012 and learned counsel Sri. S.K.Venkata Reddy for Sri. S.G.Rajendra Reddy, appearing for accused No.2 in Crl.A. No.1003/2012 and also the learned Spl.P.P. Sri. Venkatesh S.Arabatti, appearing for the respondent/State.
3. The facts of the case emerging from the material on record as set out by the prosecution are as follows:
The complainant by name C.B. Prakash [P.W.2] is the owner of a tempo trax bearing reg. No.KA-06/A-3087. He had engaged a driver for the said vehicle and the said vehicle was making trips between Tumakuru-Gubbi for transportation of passengers. Accused No.2 was working as a Police Constable in the City Traffic Police Station [East], Tumakuru. He used to collect Rs.120/- every month as mamul from the complainant and out of the said amount, Rs.100/- was being paid to accused No.1, who was working as Sub-Inspector in the said Police Station. Accused No.2 would keep for himself the remaining Rs.20/-. The accused would see that no cases are registered against the vehicle in respect of which mamul is given. In the previous month, for some reason the complainant had not given the mamul and whenever mamul is not given in respect of a vehicle, the accused would issue notice and used to collect Rs.1,000/- to Rs.1,500/- and thereafter cancel the notice or would file a petty case.
On 08.01.2005, at about 10.30 a.m. the driver of the complainant s vehicle had parked his vehicle near the Town Hall Circle. At that time, the said vehicle was taken to the Police Station by a Police by name Satish. A notice was issued to the complainant by accused No.1 in respect of the said vehicle for carrying excess passengers. When the complainant went and requested accused No.1, he scolded him and told him to hand over Rs.1,500/- to accused No.2 and thereafter to take back the vehicle. When the complainant met accused No.2 and requested him to release the vehicle saying that he has not brought the amount, accused No.2 did not agree and told him to leave the vehicle documents with him and then to take the vehicle. Accused No.2 also told him that the fine would have been Rs.5,000/- to Rs.6,000/- if the number of passengers had been mentioned in the notice. When the complainant requested him to reduce the amount, he brought down the demand to Rs.1,300/- and finally to Rs.1,200/- and informed the complainant to bring the money on Monday or else he would refer the matter to the Court.
Not willing to pay the bribe amount demanded by the accused persons, the complainant approached the Lokayukta Police, Tumakuru on 10.01.2005 and lodged a complaint. A case was registered in Crime No.1/2005 against accused Nos.1 and 2 for the offences punishable under Sections 7, 13(1)(d) r/w. Section 13(2) of the P.C. Act.
The panch-witnesses were secured and an entrustment mahazar was prepared. The 12 currency notes of Rs.100/- denomination smeared with phenolphthalein powder was handed over to the complainant by giving instruction to him to handover the said amount to the accused only if he demands bribe. Thereafter, on that day, since the accused were not available in their office and in their house, the complainant and the panch-witnesses assembled at the Lokayukta Police Station on 11.01.2005 at about 8.30 a.m. Thereafter, the raiding team went to the spot. The complainant and the shadow witness went inside the Police Station where the accused were working. The complainant thereafter came out of the Police Station at about
