1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
KALABURAGI BENCH
DATED THIS THE 9TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2022
BEFORE
THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE V. SRISHANANDA
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.200102/2015
BETWEEN:
Khurshid Hussain S/o Iftekar Ahmed,
Age : 44 years, Occ: SDA in Panchayath Raj
Engineering Sub-Division Office, Devadurga,
R/o Hussain Alam Street, Yadgir.
… Appellant
(By Sri Anilkumar Navadagi and
Sri Shivanand V.Pattanshetti, Advocates)
AND:
The State of Karnataka
R/by Special P.P.
High Court of Karnataka,
Kalaburagi Bench.
(Through PSI of Lokayukta P.S.,
Raichur)
… Respondent
(By Sri Subhash Mallapur, Spl. PP)
This Criminal appeal is filed under Section 374(2) of
Criminal Procedure Code praying to set aside the judgment
of conviction and order of sentence dated 28.09.2015 and
29.09.2015 respectively passed by the II Addl. Dist. &
2
Sessions Judge, Raichur in Special Case No.18/2011 and
acquit the appellant/accused.
This appeal coming on for Final Hearing this day, the
Court delivered the following:
Accused who suffered an order of conviction in
Special Case No.18/2011 on the file of II Addl. District and
Sessions Judge, Raichur (Special Judge) by judgment
dated 28.09.2015 has preferred this appeal.
2.
Brief facts of the case are as under :-
Upon a complaint lodged by Balappa S/o Rangayya,
Lokayukta Police, Raichur registered a case in Crime
No.18/2011 for the offences punishable under Sections 7,
13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of
Corruption Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as ‘P.C.Act’
for brevity). In the complaint, it is contended that he is
working as a Gangman in Panchayat Raj Engineering, Sub-
Division, Devadurga and in the year 1991 his appointment
was confirmed by the Government and he was entitled for
time bound increment. The other Gangman had also filed
3
appeals before the court and the court has allowed their
appeals and therefore, he also filed an application seeking
for grant of time bound increment and arrears of salary.
He enquired the accused Khurshid Hussain in that regard
and he told that all other Gangman have paid a sum of
`2,500/- and if he also pay a sum of `2,500/-, he would
prepare the time bound increment order and he would also
prepare the arrears bill. Subsequently, the bribe amount
was initiated and it was fixed at `1,500/-. Even that
amount the complainant was not ready to pay the said
sum as illegal gratification for processing his application,
himself and others decided not to part with the illegal
gratification have approached Lokayukta and lodged a
complaint. Police being convinced about the genuineness
of the complaint averments, arranged for the trap by
securing `1,500/- from the complainant and smeared the
phenolphthalein powder to currency notes. Police secured
three currency notes of `500/- denomination and secured
two panch witnesses and in their presence, the complaint
averments were read over and the colour test was
4
demonstrated and entrustment mahazar was drafted.
Thereafter, the complainant was required to visit the office
of the accused and handover the bribe amount on demand
made by the accused along with shadow witness.
Accordingly, the complainant tried to part with the tainted
money to the accused on 15.12.2010 but it was
unsuccessful. Again, on 20.12.2010 again trap was laid.
On that day, complainant visited the office of the accused
at about 4.15 p.m. and on demand made by the accused
handed over the tainted currency notes to his hands in the
presence
of
the
shadow
witness.
Immediately
pre
designated signal was given to the raid party. Raid party
arrived on the scene and raided the accused and recovered
the tainted currency notes from the tray kept on his table
and conducted the colour test. Colour test stood positive
and the raid party arrested the accused and seized the
tainted currency notes and drafted trap mahazar.
5
3.
Subsequently, the matter was investigated in
detail and charge-sheet came to be filed against the
accused.
4.
Presence of the accused was secured by the
learned Special Judge and necessary charges were framed
for the aforesaid offences. Accused having understood the
substance of the charge, denied the charge. Accordingly,
trial was held.
5.
On order to prove the case of the prosecution,
prosecution examined 15 witnesses and relied on 29
documents which were exhibited and marked as Exs.P.1 to
P.29 and 08 material objects were also marked on behalf
of the prosecution as MOs.1 to 8.
6.
On conclusion of the prosecution evidence,
accused statement was recorded as is contemplated under
Section 313 of Cr.P.C. Accused denied the incriminatory
materials found against him. However, he furnished the
written submissions on his behalf as is contemplated under
Section 313(5) of Cr.P.C. Thereafter, trial Judge heard the
6
parties in detail and passed an order of conviction
convicting the accused for the aforesaid offences and
passed an order of sentence as under:-
Offence
Punishment
Fine
Default
sentence
Section 7 of P.C.Act
Rigorous
imprisonment
of t
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.