IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
V. SRISHANANDA, J.
Shri Narasimhaiah Revenue Inspector, BBMP, Since Dead Represented By His Legal Representatives- Smt. Padmamma (W/o. Late Narasimhaiah) and Ors. – Appellants
Versus
State By Lokayuktha Police, Represented By Standing Counsel And Spl. Public Prosecutor In The Honble High Court For Lokayuktha Cases, Bangalore – Respondent
Crl. A. No.566 of 2012
Decided On : 07-02-2025
JUDGMENT :
V. SRISHANANDA, J.
Heard the arguments of Sri B.C. Seetharama Rao, learned counsel for the dependants of appellant and Sri B.S. Prasad, learned counsel for the respondent.
2. Accused in Special C.C.No.16/2006 who suffered an order of conviction for the offence punishable under Section 7, 13 (1) (d) r/w Section 13 (2) of Prevention of Corruption Act by judgment dated 30.04.2012, passed by the Special Judge, Bengaluru Urban District, Bengaluru (CCH-24) is the appellant. Appellant died during the pendency of appeal and his dependants are brought on record to pursue the appeal further.
3. Facts in brief which are utmost necessary for disposal of the appeal are as under:
Complainant having purchased a house measuring 18.3 feet X 25 feet approached the accused who was a bill collector, Bruhat Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike (hereinafter referred to as ‘BBMP’), Malleswaram for change of khatha in his name. At that juncture, accused said to have demanded sum of Rs.3,000/- as bribe. Complainant expressed his inability to pay the said bribe amount and on negotiation, bribe amount was reduced to Rs.1,000/-.
4. Complainant being not willing to pay the bribe amount of Rs.1,000/-, approached the Lokayuktha Police and gave a complaint. Lokayuktha police after registering the case in Cr.No.10/2005 for the offence punishable under Section 7, 13 (1) (d) r/w Section 13 (2) of Prevention of Corruption Act (‘P.C. Act’ for short), formed a raid team comprising of Inspector of Lokayuktha, Sub staff, two pancha witnesses who were secured by the head of the raid party.
5. Contents of the complaint were read over to the pancha witnesses and thereafter they were appraised of the chemical reaction of phenolphthalein powder with Sodium Carbonate solution. Intended bribe amount in a sum of Rs.1,000/- comprising of Rs.100/- denomination ten currency notes were received from the hands of the complainant and its serial numbers were noted, phenolphthalein powder was smeared on those notes and entrustment mahazar was recorded. Complainant was directed to hand over the bribe amount only on demand by the accused on the day of trap and shadow witness was directed to accompany the complainant and directed to observe the demand of the bribe amount and handing over of the bribe amount. Complainant was directed to furnish a pre designated signal to the Lokayuktha police after the tainted currency is handed over to the accused on demand.
6. Thereafter, the raid party left to the office of the appellant. When they reached the office, appellant was spotted by the complainant in the varanda and complainant showed the accused to shadow witness. Complainant and shadow witness then greeted the accused. Thereafter accused took him to his office room. Appellant demanded the bribe money. Complainant at that juncture, handed over the tainted currency to the accused and shadow witness was standing by the side of the complainant. Accused took the currency notes in his both hands and transferred it to his right hand. As directed by the head of the raid party, complainant came out of the office and gave pre-designated signal by combing his hairs. Immediately all the members of the raid party came to the office of the accused and enquired him as to tainted currency. His hands were washed in separate bowls consisting of colourless solution and colourless solution found in both the bowls turned into pink colour. They were transferred onto two bottles and sealed and seized. Thereafter the tainted currency which was kept on his table was seized. Same was examined and tallied with the serial numbers in the entrusted mahazar and the same was also seized. The tainted currency consisted of ten notes of Rs.100/- denomination each.
7. Assistant Revenue Officer was present in the office was told by the head of the raid party to furnish the attendance register and the same was also verified by the head of the raid party and photocopy of the relevant page was seized and attested by Assistant Revenu
The prosecution must prove demand and acceptance of bribe, which was established through witness testimonies and forensic evidence.
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.
The sampling of circumstantial evidence and testimonial support is sufficient to uphold a conviction under the Prevention of Corruption Act, with indirect acceptance of bribes being legally tenable.
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 prove demand and acceptance of bribe beyond reasonable doubt; mere recovery of currency notes is insufficient for conviction under the Prevention of Corruption Act.
When clouds of doubt arises on the part of the prosecution, the benefit of doubt is always accrued on the part of the accused alone, which is the cardinal principle of criminal justice delivery syste....
The court affirmed the importance of corroborative evidence in bribery cases, ruling that both demand and acceptance of bribes must be clearly established to support convictions under the Prevention ....
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.