IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
V.Srishananda, J.
GA Visiddappa – Appellant
Versus
State of Karnataka – Respondent
Criminal Appeal No. 100160 of 2016
Decided On : 14-07-2022
Corruption - Attempted Bribery - Prevention of Corruption Act - Sec. 7, 13 (1) (d) r/w Sec. 13 (2)
Fact of the Case:
The accused, a Sec. Officer of HESCOM, attempted to extort illegal gratification from a complainant in exchange for not filing a criminal case against him for attempting to steal electricity. The complainant lodged a complaint with the Lokayuktha Police, leading to the accused's arrest and subsequent conviction by the trial court.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the prosecution failed to establish the actual demand and acceptance of illegal gratification by the accused, and the evidence presented was insufficient to prove the alleged offences under the Prevention of Corruption Act. As a result, the court allowed the appeal, set aside the conviction, and ordered the return of the fine amount to the accused.
Issues: The key issues revolved around the establishment of the demand and acceptance of illegal gratification by the accused, the credibility of prosecution witnesses, and the sufficiency of evidence to prove the alleged offences.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the importance of establishing the actual demand and acceptance of illegal gratification, the need for cogent and convincing evidence, and the principle that any doubt in a criminal case should benefit the accused. The court also highlighted the requirement to prove the pending work with the accused and the necessity to consider multiple perspectives before reaching a conclusion.
Final Decision: The appeal was allowed, the conviction was set aside, and the fine amount was ordered to be returned to the accused. The trial court records were to be returned along with a copy of the order.
JUDGMENT/ORDER
1. Convicted accused in Spl.Case No.32/2011 has preferred this appeal challenging the validity of the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dtd. 28/4/2016 on the file of Prl. District and Sessions Judge, Bagalkot.
2. Brief facts of the case are as under: One Yallappa Bheemappa Gaddi attempted to thieve the electricity connection by use of a hook to the electric wire on the pole installed in front of the house of Kaladagi village. Appellant/accused being the Sec. Officer of HESCOM, Kaladagi, conducted a raid and told the complainant that he would file a criminal case against him. At that juncture, complainant requested the accused not to file case against him. At that juncture, accused said to have demanded Rs.5000.00 as illegal gratification for not taking further action. Since there was a bargain for the illegal gratification, bribe amount was settled at Rs.3500.00. The conversation was recorded in the mobile telephone of the complainant and since complainant was not interested in parting away with the illegal gratification, he lodged a complaint with the Lokayuktha Police.
3. On receipt of the said complaint, the case came to be registered in Cr.No.2/2011 of Lokayuktha Police, Bagalkot for the offences punishable under Sec. under Ss. 7, 13 (1) (d) r/w Sec. 13 (2) of Prevention of Corruption Act on 18/2/2011. Thereafter, the Inspector of Lokayuktha convinced about the genuineness of the complaint averments, he arranged two independent government servants to act as pancha for the intended trap and took Rs.3500.00- from the custody of the complainant comprising of 7 notes of 500/- rupees denomination and smeared the phenolphthalein Powder on those notes after noting the serial numbers of the said notes on a paper. Thereafter, the notes were given to the hands of copancha to count the same. On such counting of the notes, the hand wash of the co-pancha was taken in a colour-less sodium carbonate solution which turned into pink colour and thereby the Inspector, Lokayuktha demonstrated the colour test to the panchas as well as the complainant. Thereafter, the complainant was instructed to visit the office of the accused, hand over the tainted currency to the hands of accused on demand and shadow witness was directed to be present with the complainant, when the complainant hands over the tainted currency on demand made by the accused. All these aspects were reduced into writing in the form of entrustment mahazar. Thereafter, the raid party proceeded to the office of the accused around 6.30 p.m. The complainant and shadow witness as per the directions of the Investigating Officer went inside the office of the accused and handed over the tainted currency to the accused on demand and gave a pre-designated signal by showing right thumb up. Immediately, the rest of the raid party members came inside the office and enquired the accused about the tainted currency. The Investigating Agency was able to recover Rs.3500.00- from the custody of the accused which was kept in right side pocket of the pant worn by him. Colour test stood positive, accused was given a chance to explain as to why he handled the tainted currency for which accused replied vide Ex.P.5. The explanation given is shown that it was towards the arrears of the electricity charges. Thereafter, he was arrested and tainted currency was seized and trap mahazar was recorded. Further, the accused was produced before the Special Court and he was sent to judicial custody.
4. After thorough investigation, charge sheet came to be filed against the accused for the aforesaid offences. Presence of the accused was secured and thereafter charges were framed. Accused pleaded not guilty, therefore trial was held.
5. In order to prove the case of the prosecution 14 witnesses were examined as PWs.1 to 14 and 40 documents were relied upon by the prosecution which were exhibited and marked as Ex.P.1 to 40. Ten material objects also relied upon by the prosecution which were ma
The prosecution must establish the actual demand and acceptance of illegal gratification, and any doubt in a criminal case should benefit the accused.
The prosecution must establish demand and acceptance of illegal gratification beyond reasonable doubt to secure a conviction under Sec. 7 and 13(1)(d) read with Sec. 13(2) of the Prevention of Corrup....
The prosecution must prove both the demand and acceptance of bribes beyond a reasonable doubt for a conviction under the Prevention of Corruption Act; mere recovery of money is not sufficient.
Proof of demand for illegal gratification is essential for conviction under the Prevention of Corruption Act, and mere recovery of bribe money without establishing demand is insufficient.
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.
The lack of proof of demand for illegal gratification is a crucial factor in determining the conviction under Sec. 7 and Sec. 13(1)(d) r/w Sec. 13(2) of the PC Act.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.