Back
2021 Supreme(Kar) 887
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT DHARWAD BENCH
M.G. Uma, J.
Maruti Hanumanthappa Madivalar – Appellant
Versus
State – Respondent
Crl. A.No. 2803 of 2011
Decided On : 15-11-2021
Advocate Appeared:
Anil Kale, Advocate, A.R.Patil, Advocate
The prosecution must prove demand and acceptance of illegal gratification, and the accused has the burden to rebut the presumption under Sec. 20 of the PC Act.
Headnote:
Prevention of Corruption Act - Village Accountant - Ss. 7, 13(1)(d), 13(2) - The court discussed the demand and acceptance of illegal gratification by the accused, the presumption under Sec. 20 of the PC Act, and the burden of proof on the accused to rebut the presumption. The court found that the prosecution successfully proved the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt, and therefore upheld the judgment of conviction and order of sentence.
Fact of the Case:
The appellant, a Village Accountant, was accused of demanding and accepting illegal gratification for processing an old age pension application. The prosecution presented evidence of the demand and acceptance of the bribe, including witness testimonies and trap panchanama.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the prosecution successfully proved the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt, and upheld the judgment of conviction and order of sentence.
Issues: The key issue was whether the accused demanded and accepted illegal gratification, and whether the prosecution proved the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the importance of proving demand and acceptance of illegal gratification, the operation of the presumption under Sec. 20 of the PC Act, and the burden of proof on the accused to rebut the presumption.
Final Decision: The appeal was dismissed, and the judgment of conviction and order of sentence were upheld.
JUDGMENT :
1. The appellant being accused before the Trial Court in Spl.S.C.No.72/2008 charged for the offence punishable under Ss. 7 and 13(1)(d) read with Sec. 13 (2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 ("PC Act" for short) who is convicted by the IV Additional District and Sessions Court and Special Court (PCA), Belagavi ("the Trial Court" for short) vide judgment of conviction and order of sentence dtd. 26/8/2011 has preferred this appeal.
2. Brief facts of the case are that, PW.1 lodged the first information with respondent-Police alleging that the accused being the public servant, working as the Village Accountant in Kodaganur village of Athani Taluk. When the informant approached him with reference to the application filed by his maternal aunt Smt.Roshanbi, for grant of old age pension, he had demanded illegal gratification of Rs.1,500.00 for the purpose of attending the application. When the informant requested and tried to bargain, the accused stated that he had to pay Rs.1,000.00 for his higher officer i.e., the Deputy Tahasildar and Rs.500.00 for himself. When the informant paid Rs.300.00 to the accused, the accused again demanded at least Rs.700.00 more for the purpose of showing the official favour. The complainant not being interested in payment of illegal gratification filed first information as per Ex.P.1 with the respondent-police and requested for initiation of legal action against the accused.
3. It is the contention of the prosecution that on the basis of the first information lodged by the informant, the bait money was entrusted to PW.1 in the presence of two panchas after smearing with phenolphthalein powder, under a pre trap panchanama. PW.1 along with PW.2 who is the shadow witness met the accused while he was in his house and the accused had demanded Rs.700.00 for attending to the application in question and accordingly PW.1 tendered the phenolphthalein
4. Powder smeared currency notes which was accepted by him. The Investigating Officer along with pancha-2 entered the house of the accused on receiving the signal by PW.1 and trapped the accused. Both the hand wash tested positive for the purpose of phenolphthalein powder, the tainted money was recovered from the possession of the accused. The trap panchanama was drawn at the spot. After completing the investigation, the charge sheet was came to be filed against the accused for the above said offences.
4. The accused appeared before the Court in response to the summons issued by the Trial Court and pleaded not guilty for the charges leveled against him.
5. The prosecution examined PWs.1 to 9, got marked the documents as per Exs.P.1 to 24 and identified MOs.1 to 9 in support of its contention. Accused denied all the incriminating materials available on record in his statement recorded under Sec. 313 of Cr.P.C. But he has not chosen to lead any evidence in support of his defence.
6. The Trial Court after taking into consideration of all these materials on record, recorded the conviction of the accused vide its judgment of conviction and order of sentence dtd. 24/8/2011 and accused is sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of six months and to pay find of Rs.2,500.00, in default simple imprisonment for a further period of one and half months for the offence punishable under Sec. 7 of the PC Act and the accused further sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year and to pay fine of Rs.2,500.00, in default simple imprisonment for a further period of two months for the offence punishable under Sec. 13(1) (d) read with sec. 13(2) of the PC Act.
7. Being aggrieved by the judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed by the Trial Court, the accused is before this Court seeking to set aside the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence and to acquit him to the offences alleged.
8. Heard Sri A.R.Patil, learned counsel for the appellant and Sri Anil Kale learned counsel for respondent.
9. Learned counsel for the
