Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2022 Supreme(Kar) 73

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT KALABURAGI BENCH
V. SRISHANANDA, J.
Padmanabha S/o Melagiriyappa Bommanahalli – Appellant
Versus
The State of Karnataka – Respondent
Criminal Appeal No. 200043 of 2015
Decided On : 09-02-2022

Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant : Sri. Anil Kumar Navadagi.
For the Respondent: Sri. Subhash Mallapur.

Point of Law : Defence cannot be ballasted with the premise that Courts will, from the outset, be guarded against and suspicious of the testimony of trap witnesses.

Headnote:
Prevention of Corruption Act. - Sections 7, 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) - Criminal Procedure Code,1973 - Sections 313 and 313(5) - Karnataka Value Added Tax Act, 2003 - Sections 22, 53(12)(a) to (d) and 53(12) - Examination of accused – Demand and acceptance of Bribe - Recovery of tainted money - Complainant purchased equipments for KMMI Ispat factory - Tax and he was transporting the said equipment - Lorry reached Dhulkhed commercial tax check post - Officers of check post intercepted vehicle and asked for illegal gratification which was intimated by the driver of lorry to him - He has told driver to settle with the officers by paying - Driver replied that the officers are not agreeing for small sum and they have told him to visit check post - Complainant along with the Product Engineer Sri. K. Mani visited the check post met - He assured that he would visit check post and negotiate further in-charge of the check post - He demanded intimated - Padmanabha intimated same to Sabbir Huseni over telephone and he also told that said amount will be shared among himself he demanded minimum of Rs. 5 lakhs.
Finding of the Court:
Commercial Tax office, is considered to be one of the hubs of corruption - Poor and gullible drivers would fell prey for illegal demands day in and day out - Only when greed is too high, some cases reach the higher - Many cases might have settled amicably - Very few cases of this nature would result in filing of case and brought to logical end - Though prosecution is launched with all initial spirit, may not get required support from the complainant and other prosecution witnesses and cases end up in acquittal - Statistics published in National Crime Bureau in respect of the cases filed under provisions of Prevention of Corruption Act disappointing - Reasons may be many - It eats the social and economical health every second resulting in unimaginable consequences - It is only few officers of Government misuse their official position forgetting their duty and loyalty to the State, resulting in eroding the economy of the country at large - It is often said that world is not suffering from violence of many but is suffering from silence of many - true complainant has taken recourse to legal battle, his testimony cannot be disbelieved on flimsy reasons - Court has to take a pragmatic approach in appreciating the material evidence on record in a particular case - Prosecution having established that accused demanded illegal gratification in respect of release of lorry was intercepted and tainted money having been recovered from custody of accused, colour test having stood positive coupled with explanation offered by accused being not capable of believing - finding recorded by learned trial judge that accused is guilty of aforesaid offences is not suffering from legal infirmity or perversity - Offence under Section 13(1)(d) of Prevention of Corruption Act, Trial Court has sentenced the accused to undergo simple imprisonment for four years and imposed fine.
Result: Criminal Appeal is dismissed.

JUDGMENT :

V. SRISHANANDA, J.

1. Heard Sri. Anil Kumar Navadagi, learned counsel for the appellant and Sri. Subhash Mallapur, learned Special P.P. for Lokayuktha - respondent herein.

2. The present appeal is filed by the accused who has been convicted in Special Case (LOK) No. 11/2010 by the Special Judge, Principal Sessions Judge, Vijayapur, for the offences punishable under Sections 7, 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act.

3. Brief facts of the case are as under:

Sri. Subramanian S/o Sundaram, lodged a complaint with the Bagalkote Lokayuktha police on 10.12.2008 which was registered by the Lokayuktha Police in Crime No. 14/2008, which was transferred to the Vijayapur Lokayuktha and renumbered it as Crime No. 13/2008. In the complaint, it is contended that complainant is the resident of Seetha Vihar in Chattisgad State and he is working in M/s. KMMI ISPAT Private Limited and in-charge of Halavarthi, Koppal. On 2.12.2008, he had purchased equipments for KMMI Ispat factory for a sum of Rs. 40 lakhs and he has paid Rs. 80,000/- as tax and he was transporting the said equipment from Raipura to Koppal in a lorry bearing CG-04/DA-2645. The lorry reached Dhulkhed commercial tax check post on 7.12.2008 at about 2.00 p.m., The officers of the check post intercepted the vehicle and asked for illegal gratification which was intimated by the driver of the lorry to him. He has told the driver to settle with the officers by paying Rs. 1,000/- or Rs. 2,000/-. But, the driver replied that the officers are not agreeing for the small sum and they have told him to visit the check post. Accordingly, the complainant along with the Product Engineer Sri. K. Mani visited the check post on 8.12.2008 and met Sri. Ananthanarayana. He requested Sri. Ananthanarayana but he demanded a sum of Rs. 15 lakhs. Negotiations took place and the Commercial Tax Officer demanded minimum of Rs. 5 lakhs and he was not agreeable for the same and therefore, he took the help of one Sabbir Huseni of Koppal. He assured that he would visit the check post and negotiate further. On 10.12.2008, one Padmanabha was the in-charge of the check post. He demanded a sum of Rs. 10,20,000/- and intimated the same to Sabbir Huseni. The said Padmanabha intimated the same to Sabbir Huseni over telephone and he also told that the said amount will be shared among himself, Dalwai and Ananthanarayana and he demanded minimum of Rs. 5 lakhs. The complaint averments also reveal that immediately, the amount of Rs. 5 lakhs is to be arranged, for which Sabbir Huseni replied that he has arranged Rs. 3 lakhs and another Rs. 2 lakhs he would arrange and pay the same. The accused replied that the amount is to be paid before morning otherwise, things would be different.

4. Since the complainant was not interested in parting away illegal gratification of Rs. 5 lakhs, he lodged a complaint initially with Bagalkot Lokayuktha police, which was then transferred to Vijayapur Lokayuktha Police. After understanding the genuineness of the complaint averments, the Lokayuktha Police arranged for the trap. The police secured two independent witnesses for the purpose of trap and explained the contents of the complaint and collected Rs. 5 lakhs, the currency notes consisting of Rs. 500/- and Rs. 1,000/- and smeared the phynopthelene powder and explained the panch witnesses about the intended trap and also shown the reaction of the phynopthele powder with the colour less sodium corborate solution. Experimental mahazar was drafted and thereafter, the complainant and shadow witness were sent to the office of the accused.

5. On 10.12.2008 at about 5.00 a.m. the raid party along with complainant and shadow witness were sent to Dhulkhed Check post, the office of the accused. After handing over the tainted money to the accused and after accused kept the same in the almirah in the office, the com

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2022 Supreme(Kar) 73

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT KALABURAGI BENCHV. SRISHANANDA, J.Padmanabha S/o Melagiriyappa Bommanahalli – AppellantVersusThe State of Karnataka – RespondentCriminal Appeal No. 200043 of 2015Decided On : 09-02-2022

Point of Law : Defence cannot be ballasted with the premise that Courts will, from the outset, be guarded against and suspicious of the testimony of trap witnesses.

Cases Referred (2)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT KALABURAGI BENCH
V. SRISHANANDA, J.
Padmanabha S/o Melagiriyappa Bommanahalli – Appellant
Versus
The State of Karnataka – Respondent
Criminal Appeal No. 200043 of 2015
Decided On : 09-02-2022