The court affirmed the conviction under the Prevention of Corruption Act, establishing the sufficiency of evidence for bribe demand and the validity of the sanction order for prosecution.

CAV JUDGMENT

(PER: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE V SRISHANANDA)

Appeal is filed by the accused who has suffered an order of conviction in Spl.C.C.No.34/2005 by judgment dated 30.07.2011 on the file of Special Judge, Bangalore Urban District, Bangalore City for the offence punishable under Section 7 , 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act , 1988.

2. Facts in the nutshell which are necessary for disposal of the appeal are as under:

2.1. An application was filed by an association known as Dakshina Kannada District Ex. Servicemen Association, Mangalore praying for five cents of the land for construction of the building of the association. Said request was pending for last 15 to 20 years but the file was not cleared by the concerned department. Finally, five cents of the land in Sy.No.19/A of Attavara Village, Mangaluru Taluk was ear marked pursuant to the request made by the Association. Application was favorably recommended by the Deputy Commissioner, Mangalore vide letter dated 15.11.2002 and said recommendation reached the office of the accused. Application was not further processed for a period of two years and after repeated reminders and follow up made by the office bearers of the association, file was sent to the Government on 13.02.2003. Accused being the concerned person in the Secretariat, who had to further process the matter, has demanded sum of Rs.35,000/- as bribe amount to process the file and demanded sum of Rs.500/- to himself and Rs.100/- to the lady attender to move the file to the next table. There was also a demand of Rs.20,000/- as first installment out of the total bribe amount to be paid.

2.2. Complainant was not interested in parting away with the said bribe amount and therefore, he gave sum of Rs.500/- to the accused and sum of Rs.100/- to the lady attender on 13.02.2004 and addressed a letter to the Principal Secretary regarding demand of the bribe amount informing the Principal Secretary that he would arrange the said money in order to get the accused trapped.

2.3. A case came to be registered in Crime No.07/2004 for the offences punishable under Section 7 , 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act ,1988. Thereafter, accused was successfully trapped on 10.03.2004 and he was arrested.

3. After thorough investigation, charge sheet came to be filed by the Lokayuktha Police, Bengaluru alleging that accused demanded bribe of Rs.35,000/- in the form of Rs.20,000/- as first installment for clearing the file of the complainant in respect of grant of the land for construction of the building at Attavara Village, Mangalore.

4. Presence of the accused was secured and charges were framed. Accused pleaded not guilty and therefore, trial was held.

5. In order to bring home the guilt of the accused, prosecution examined six witnesses as P.W.1 to 6 and placed on record thirty three documents which were exhibited and marked as Exs.P.1 to P.33 and fourteen material objects were marked as M.O.1 to 14.

6. On conclusion of recording of the prosecution evidence, accused statement as is contemplated under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. was recorded wherein, accused has denied all the incriminatory circumstances.

7. He has furnished a written submission and filed an application under Section 233 of Cr.P.C. producing the notification. Same was taken on record.

8. Later on, learned Special Judge heard the parties in detail and on cumulative consideration of the oral and documentary evidence placed on record, convicted the accused for the aforesaid offences an