Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
V.Srishananda, J.
Shivanand Fakirappa – Appellant
Versus
State of Karnataka – Respondent
Criminal Appeal No. 2532 of 2012©
Decided On : 15-06-2022
Prevention of Corruption Act - Corruption - Ss. 7, 13(1)(d) r/w Sec. 13(2) - [7, 13(1)(d), 13(2)] - The court found the accused guilty of demanding illegal gratification for processing leave applications and sentenced him to imprisonment and fine. The court analyzed the evidence and found that the prosecution failed to establish the demand and acceptance of illegal gratification, and the pending work of the complainant with the accused. The court set aside the conviction and ordered the refund of any fine amount deposited by the appellant.
Fact of the Case:
The complainant, a mechanic, lodged a complaint stating that the accused, a chargeman, demanded illegal gratification for processing leave applications. A trap was laid, and the accused was arrested and charged under Ss. 7, 13(1)(d) r/w Sec. 13(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the prosecution failed to establish the demand and acceptance of illegal gratification, and the pending work of the complainant with the accused. The court set aside the conviction and ordered the refund of any fine amount deposited by the appellant.
Issues: The issues included the establishment of the demand and acceptance of illegal gratification, and the pending work of the complainant with the accused.
Ratio Decidendi: The prosecution must establish all elements of the alleged offence, including demand and acceptance of illegal gratification, and the pending work of the complainant with the accused. Mere handling of tainted currency and a positive colour test are not sufficient for conviction under Sec. 13(1)(d) of Prevention of Corruption Act.
Final Decision: The appeal was allowed, the conviction was set aside, and any fine amount deposited was ordered to be refunded to the appellant. The appellant was not entitled to claim arrears of salary or back wages from the date of dismissal.
JUDGMENT/ORDER
1. Heard Sri.Shankar P Hegde, learned counsel for the appellant and Sri.G.I.Gachchinamath, learned Special Public Prosecutor for respondent-State.
2. Appeal by the convicted accused in Special C.C. No.82/2010, whereby accused has been convicted for offence punishable under Ss. 7, 13(1)(d) read with 13(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and sentenced as under:
"The accused is found guilty of the offences U/s 7 and 13(1)(d) r/w Sec. 13(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and he is convicted U/s 235(2) of Cr.P.C. The accused is sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year and to pay fine of Rs.5, 000.00, in default simple imprisonment for a further period of two months for the offence punishable U/s 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.
The accused is further sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of two years and to pay fine of Rs.5, 000.00, in default simple imprisonment for a further period of three months for the offence punishable U/s 13(1)(d) r/w Sec. 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.
Both the sentences shall run concurrently."
3. Brief facts of the case are as under: Anand Fakirappa Hobannavar lodged a complaint with Lokayukta Police, Belagavi on 19/2/2009 stating that he is working as Mechanic in NWKRTC, Rural Unit, Belagavi since 1997 and there are 65 mechanics in the said unit. There is a supervisory personnel designated as chargeman to supervise the works of the complainant and others and there is a superior official above him as Depot Manager. Day to day activities involve repair of vehicles and also timely servicing of the buses of NWKRTC and the job work will be given, assigned and managed by the chargeman. The complainant was required to adhere to the oral orders of the chargeman. The chargeman is also the person who is authorized to grant leave for the mechanics and such other job related issues.
3.1 It is further contended in the complaint that every leave application to be processed, the chargeman used to take Rs.200.00 as illegal gratification and if the same is met, the leave application would be processed hassle-free. If the demand is not fulfilled, the applications would not be processed and leave would be rejected. As such, when the complainant was in need of leave on 22/2/2009 he approached the accused with a leave application and accused as usual demanded Rs.200.00 for processing the application which he paid and got leave sanctioned. Further, the accused also demanded arrears of Rs.2, 400.00 which was to be paid by the complainant for grant of leave for earlier period, for which the complainant requested small accommodation for payment of the same. As the complainant was not interested in parting away with the illegal gratification in a sum of Rs.2, 400.00, he approached the Lokayukta police and lodged a written complaint.
3.2 The Lokayukta Inspector on receipt of the written complaint, got convinced about the genuineness of the contents of the complaint and arranged for intended trap. He secured two Government officials as witnesses for the intended trap and explained them about the contents of the complaint and also demonstrated chemical reaction of phenophthalein powder with sodium-carbonate solution and took Rs.2, 400.00 from the custody of the complainant comprising one note of Rs.1, 000.00 denomination, one note of Rs.500.00 denomination and seven notes of Rs.100.00 denomination and noted the serial numbers of those notes and drafted experimental mahazar. Thereafter, instructions were given for the complainant and shadow witness to visit the accused and on demand to hand over the tainted currency to his hands and give a pre- designated signal by wiping his face with handkerchief. Accordingly, the raid party went to the workplace of the accused on 20/2/2009. However, trap was unsuccessful for want of presence of accused on that date. Accordingly, the tainted currency was taken back by the head of the investigation
The prosecution must establish all elements of the alleged offence, including demand and acceptance of illegal gratification, and the pending work of the complainant with the accused, for a convictio....
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....
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 prosecution must establish the actual demand and acceptance of illegal gratification, and any doubt in a criminal case should benefit the accused.
The judgment emphasizes the necessity for the prosecution to establish the demand and acceptance of illegal gratification, as well as the pending work with the accused, to sustain a conviction under ....
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
