SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2022 Supreme(Kar) 1516

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
V.Srishananda, J.
Kashinath – Appellant
Versus
State of Karnataka – Respondent
Criminal Appeal No. 2773 of 2013 (C)
Decided On : 10-06-2022

Advocates appeared:
Anil Kale, Advocate, Shankar P.Hegde, Advocate

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 Ss. 7 and 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act.

Headnote:

Prevention of Corruption Act - Illegal Gratification - Ss. 7, 13(1)(d), 13(2)

Fact of the Case:

Accused No.1 appealed against the judgment and order of conviction under Ss. 7, 13(1)(d), and 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. The case involved a complaint filed by the appellant, alleging demand for illegal gratification by the accused in exchange for processing his caste certificate application. The complainant, accompanied by a shadow witness, handed over tainted currency to the accused, leading to their arrest and subsequent trial.

Finding of the Court:

The court found that the prosecution failed to establish the demand and acceptance of illegal gratification by the accused. The complainant's admission that the accused did not demand money, the lack of corroboration for demand, and the absence of pending work with the accused led to the acquittal of accused No.2 and the setting aside of the conviction for accused No.1.

Issues: The key issues revolved around the establishment of demand and acceptance of illegal gratification, the lack of pending work with the accused, and the discrepancies in the prosecution's evidence.

Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the prosecution did not provide sufficient evidence to prove the demand and acceptance of illegal gratification, as required under Ss. 7 and 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act. The lack of pending work with the accused further weakened the case against the accused.

Final Decision: The appeal was allowed, and the judgment and order of conviction against accused No.1 were set aside. Bail bond was discharged, and any deposited fine amount was to be returned to accused No.1.

JUDGMENT/ORDER

1. The appeal is by accused No.1 against judgment and order of conviction dtd. 23/9/2013 passed in Special (KLA)C.C.No.4/2012 by the III Additional District and Sessions and Special Judge, Dharwad, "(the Special Judge" for short) whereby convicted for the offences punishable under Ss. 7, 13(1)(d) and 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption of Act, 1988 (PC Act) and sentenced to undergo imprisonment as under: Default Offences Punishment Fine sentence Sec. 7 of rigorous Simple P.C.Act. imprisonment Rs.2, 500.00 imprisonment for of one year two months. Sec. rigorous Simple 13(1)(d) r/w imprisonment imprisonment for Rs.2, 500.00 13(2) of of one year two months. P.C.Act.

2. Brief facts of the case are as under: A complaint came to be lodged by Sri Amit Hiremath son of Shivabasayya Hiremath with Lokayukta Police on 21/4/2011. The same is registered by Lokayukta Police in Crime No.5/2011 for the offences punishable under Ss. 7 and 13(1)(d) read with Sec. 13(2) of PC Act.

3. In the complaint, the following averments are found. The complainant was selected as Accountant in the year 2010 in the Municipal Administrative Department and he had sought for the appointment under IIIB category and he had to furnish Caste Certificate that is the complainant belongs to IIIB category to the Municipal Administration Department in the prescribed From No.1 in February 2011. He had also annexed the transfer certificate issued by the School Authority of his father along with the application to establish that the complainant belongs to IIIB category. In that regard, he had visited the Social Welfare Department and met Sri Kashinath Sajjan who was working as a Second Division Assistant. On enquiry, Sri Kashinath Sajjan told that he would forward the application on the same day, provided, he is looked after well (RK PqPUvz) payment of illegal gratification).

4. The complainant replied that he is a student and he does not have the money and he pleaded that the application be forwarded at the earliest. Sri Kashinath Sajjan replied that, he would send the Certificate within 15 days on payment of Rs.1, 000.00 or at least Rs.500.00 as illegal gratification as the same needs to be paid to higher officials. Though, he was not willing to pay the illegal gratification, since his father was not well, he told that after a month he would agree to pay. Thereafter, he met the Lokayukta Inspector on 19/4/2011 and he was given a tape recorder and conversation was transpired between the complainant and the accused. Thereafter, the Lokayukta Police Inspector got convinced about the contents of the complaint and arranged for trap. He secured two Government Servants as mahazar witnesses who are examined as PWs.2 and 3 and demonstrated to them the chemical reaction of phenolphthalein powder with sodium carbonate solution and also explained them the contents of complaint and took one Rs.500.00 currency note and smeared with phenolphthalein powder to it and handed over it to the complainant and directed complainant and shadow witness to go to office of the accused and hand over the same and shadow witness was directed to observe what transpires inside the office and they were advised to give the pre-designated signal to the raid party. Thereafter, entrustment mahazar was drafted and all the members of the raid party proceeded to the office of the accused on 21/4/2011.

5. After going inside the office, the complainant met accused No.1 who was chewing the Betel nut and leaf and he handed over the tainted currency to him, which he received by his hand and gave it to driver-Basappa Morab who is examined as PW.4, who in turn with a signal handed over it to accused No.2. Likewise driver received the tainted currency from accused No.1 and then hand it over to the 2nd accused and complainant gave a pre- designated signal to Rest of the raid party. Rest of the raid party appeared in the scene of offence inside the office and came inside the office and enquired accused No.1

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

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

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top