Karnataka High Court
State By Lokayukta Police vs S R Panduranga S/O Rangasetty on 8 August, 2024
-1-
NC: 2024:KHC:31803
CRL.A No. 86 of 2012
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 8TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2024
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE M G UMA
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 86 OF 2012 (A)
BETWEEN:
STATE BY LOKAYUKTA
POLICE, TUMKUR
Digitally ...APPELLANT
signed by
SWAPNA V
Location: high
(BY SRI. B.S. PRASAD, SPL.P.P. FOR APPELLANT (LOKAYUKTA))
court of
karnataka AND:
S.R. PANDURANGA
S/O. RANGASETTY,
AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS
VILLAGE ACCOUNTANT,
KODDASHETTIKERE REVENUE
CIRCLE, MYASANDRA HOBLI,
TURUVEKRE TALUK, TUMKUR
DISTRICT, R/O. C/O. PUTTAMMA
MAVINAKERE ROAD, MAYASANDRA,
NATIVE OF SADARAHALLI,
KANDIKERE HOBLI,
C.H. HALLI, TALUK.
...RESPONDENT
(BY SRI. NAGARAJAPPA .A., ADVOCATE)
THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL IS FILED U/S.378(1) AND(3) CR.P.C
PRAYING TO GRANT LEAVE TO APPEAL AGAINST THE JUDGMENT
AND ORDER OF ACQUITTAL DATED 12.07.2011 PASSED BY THE II -
ADDL. DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, TUMKUR IN SPECIAL CASE
NO.14/2006 - ACQUITTING THE RESPONDENT/ACCUSED FOR THE
OFFENCE P/U/S. 7, 12 AND 13(1)(D)(1)(2) READ WITH SECTION
13(2) OF PREVENTION OF CORRUPTION ACT,1988.
-2-
NC: 2024:KHC:31803
CRL.A No. 86 of 2012
THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL, COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING,
THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE M G UMA
ORAL JUDGMENT
The State by Lokayuktha Police has preferred this appeal
impugning the judgment dated 12.07.2011 passed in
Spl.C.No.14/2006 on the file of the learned 2nd Additional
District and Sessions Judge, Tumkur.
2. For the sake of convenience, the parties shall be
referred to as per their rank and status before the Trial Court.
3. The brief facts of the case are that, PW-1 being the
informant had filed the first information making allegation
against the accused that he being the public servant has
demanded illegal gratification to show the official favour. It is
stated by the complainant that he was the owner of the
agricultural land and after the death of his father, he gave
application to the accused who was working as Village
Accountant for change of Katha. Accordingly, the katha was
changed during 2002, but it was not entered in the
computerized RTC. To do the official work, the accused
demanded illegal gratification of Rs.500/-. Therefore, he filed
NC: 2024:KHC:31803
the first information. After registration of FIR the pre-trap
panchanama was drawn and Rs.500/- was entrusted to PW-1 in
the presence of shadow witness PW-2 and the second pancha
PW-4.
4. It is the further contention of the prosecution that
the informant PW-1 and the shadow witness PW-2 went to the
house of the Village Accountant on 01.07.2004 and the Village
Accountant demanded for illegal gratification of Rs.200/- and
the complainant paid the entrusted amount of Rs.500/-. The
accused received Rs.200/- and asked to pay remaining
Rs.300/- to the Deputy Tahsildar with whom the file was
pending. It is thereafter, the Investigating Officer came to the
spot along with the other witnesses and the accused was
trapped.
5. It is the further contention of the prosecution that
the file for change of katha and effecting change in the
computerized RTC was pending with the Deputy Tahsildar and
the same was handed over by PW-3 - the Sheristadar, in the
office of the Deputy Tahsildar. Thus, it is contended that the
accused being the Village Accountant had not carried out the
NC: 2024:KHC:31803
official work and he demanded and received the illegal
gratification of Rs.200/- and was trapped along with the tainted
money.
6. It is stated that the right hand wash of the accused
tested positive for the presence of both Sodium Carbonate and
Phenolphthalein powder. Thus, it is stated that there are strong
materials against the accused for having committed the
offence. PW-6 is the Deputy Commissioner, who is the
appointing authority of the accused and he accorded sanction
as per Ex.P-7 and thus, the charge sheet came to be filed
against the accused for the aforesaid offences.
7. The prosecution examined PW-1 to PW-7 and got
marked Ex.P-1 to Ex.P-17 in support of its contention. The
accused denied all the incriminating materials available on
record in his statement recorded under Section 313 of Cr.PC
and he has not stepped into the witness box. However, he got
marked Ex.D-1 to Ex.D-21 during cross examination of the
prosecution witnesses.
8. On the basis of these materials on record, the trial
Court came to the conclusion that there was no valid sanction
NC: 2024:KHC:31803
issued by PW-6 - the Deputy Commissioner as there was no
application of mind and further the prosecution has not proved
the demand and acceptance of illegal gratification and under
such circumstances, the accused is entitled for acquittal.
Accordingly, the judgment of acquittal was passed. Being
aggrieved by the same, the appellant is before this Court.
9. Heard Sri. B.S. Prasad, learned Special Public
Prosecutor for the appellant - State and Sri. Nagarajappa A.,
learned counsel appearing for the respondent. Perused the
materials including the Trial Court records.
10. Learned Special Public Prosecutor for the appellant
contended that admittedly the accused was working as the
Village Accountant. It is also admitted that the complainant has
filed an application for change of Katha to include his name in
the revenue records. It is alleged that there was demand for
illegal gratification of Rs.4000/- and the accused had accepted
Rs.2300/-. Even though Katha was changed on 16.03.2002, the
same was not entered in the computerized RTC till the date of
offence i.e., on 01.07.2004. It is the specific contention of the
complainant that the accused being the Village Accountant, was
NC: 2024:KHC:31803
required to make necessary entry in the computer to reflect
change of Katha in the computerized RTC, but he demanded
illegal gratification of Rs.500/-. The complainant along with the
shadow witness PW-2 went and met the accused in his house
on the date of incident, when he again demanded and received
Rs.200/- and asked the complainant to pay `300/- to the
Deputy Tahsildar. The accused was trapped under the trap
mahazar. The evidence of PW-1 and PW-2 corroborate with one
another in material particulars. It is specifically suggested to be
true that the accused has taken Rs.200/- from the complainant.
It corroborates the contention taken by the complainant. There
are no material contradictions in the evidence of the witnesses.
Under such circumstances, the trial Court committed an error in
acquitting the accused.
11. Learned counsel also submitted that PW-6 who is
the Deputy Commissioner and is the appointing authority has
accorded sanction as per Ex.P-7. There is a small mistake in
mentioning the year as 2005 instead of 2004. The same was
made as such of by the Trial Court to form an opinion that
there is non-application of mind. Moreover, the Trial Court is of
the opinion that the Sanctioning Authority has not considered
NC: 2024:KHC:31803
as to whether any departmental enquiry was initiated against
the accused or not and therefore, acquitted the accused. It is
contended that it is not the requirement of law for the
sanctioning authority to verify about initiation of the
departmental enquiry for the purpose of according sanction. It
is sufficient for the Authority to verify the records, apply his
mind regarding demand and acceptance and also pendency of
the work with the accused. The same was done by the Deputy
Commissioner. Under such circumstances the judgment of
acquittal passed by the trial Court is liable to be set aside and
accordingly, he prays for allowing the appeal.
12. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent -
accused opposing the appeal submitted that there is no valid
sanction in the eye of law. Ex.P-7 - the sanction accorded by
PW-6 discloses that, it was passed without application of mind.
There are mistakes in mentioning the date and year of incident.
Therefore, the same is to be rejected. When there is no legal
sanction, prosecution could not have proceed with the matter.
13. Learned counsel further submitted that the accused
has got marked as many as 21 documents and all those
NC: 2024:KHC:31803
documents are admitted by the prosecution witnesses. The
accused being the village accountant was not having authority
to attend the file of the complainant. Therefore, the prosecution
has not proved the pendency of work with the accused.
Admittedly, the file was in the office of Deputy Tahsildar and
produced by PW-3, which clearly discloses that no work was
pending with the accused.
14. Learned counsel further submitted that the
prosecution has failed to prove the demand and acceptance,
which is sine qua non for seeking conviction. There are serious
contradictions in the evidence of PW-1 and PW-2. Considering
all these facts and circumstances, the Trial Court proceeded to
acquit the accused.
15. Learned counsel has placed reliance on the decision
of the co-ordinate bench of this Court in Ameer Jan V/s
State1 and Gulam Mahmood A. Malek v/s State of
Gujarat2 in support of his contention that there must be
application of mind by the Sanctioning Authority and when the
ILR 2001 Kant 371
AIR 1990 SCC 1558
NC: 2024:KHC:31803
sanction was accorded mechanically, the same cannot be the
basis for the prosecution.
16. Learned counsel placed reliance on the decision of
the Hon'ble Apex Court in P Satyanarayana Murthy v/s
District Inspector of Police, State of Andhra Pradesh and
Another3 and also the decision of the co-ordinate bench of this
Court in State by Lokayutha Police Tumkur v/s H.H.
Srinivasa Murthy4 in support of his contention that only
recovery of the tainted money, without proof of demand and
acceptance, cannot be the ground for conviction and further
when there are material contradictions in the evidence of the
prosecution, the accused is entitled for acquittal. Placing
reliance on these decisions, learned counsel submitted that the
judgment impugned is in accordance with law, it does not call
for interference and hence, prays for dismissal of the appeal.
17. In view of the rival contentions urged by learned
counsel for both the parties, the point that would arise for my
consideration is:
(2015) 10 SCC 152
- 10 -
NC: 2024:KHC:31803
"Whether the impugned judgment of acquittal
passed by the Trial Court suffers from perversity or
illegality and calls for interference by this Court?"
My answer to the above point is in the 'Affirmative' and
pass the following:
REASONS
18. It is the specific contention of the prosecution that
the accused was working as Village Accountant at the relevant
point of time. This fact is not denied by the accused. It is
further contention of the prosecution that the complainant with
his mother and brother was owning the agricultural property.
There was a panchayath parikath and there was a partition in
the family, upon which, an application was filed seeking
mutation of the revenue entries. This fact is not disputed by the
accused. It is the further contention of the prosecution that an
application as per Ex-D1 dated 08.02.2002 was filed by the
informant and his brother. The entire set of documents along
with the application dated 08.02.2002, which was produced by
the prosecution along with charge sheet were relied on by the
accused by marking the entire set as per Ex-D1 to D21. These
- 11 -
NC: 2024:KHC:31803
documents Ex-D1 to D21 contain the application dated
08.02.2002 filed by the informant and his brother, the
panchayath parikath signed by the Panchayathdars, the parties
and the sharers, the statement submitted by Smt. Savitramma,
the mother of the informant to the village accountant who is
none other than the accused himself. The statement of the
sharers, Form No.21, the sale deed, which is a parent deed, the
record of rights for the previous years, genealogical tree again
issued by the accused, copy of one more application submitted
by the informant dated 05.01.2004 to bringing to the notice of
the Revenue officials regarding pendency of their application
and requesting to carry out the work expeditiously and copy of
the mutation register extract pertains to the office of the
accused.
19. It is pertinent to note that on perusal of all these
admitted documents, the contention of the informant regarding
the partition effected in the family, application by the sharers
for effecting mutation with necessary enclosures submitted to
the accused being the village accountant are established.
- 12 -
NC: 2024:KHC:31803
20. Ex-D1 is the application filed by the informant and
his brother on 08.02.2002, seeking mutation of the property in
terms of the panchayath parikath. Ex-D12 is the detailed
representation submitted by the informant, which is dated
05.01.2004 bringing it to the notice of the Assistant
Commissioner regarding pendency of this application for
mutation. It is pertinent to note that there is reference to the
accused, who was working as village accountant and it is stated
he demanded Rs.4,000/- to effect change of Katha. There is
also reference to payment of Rs.2,300/- to the accused and
further demand of Rs.1,500/- to computerize the mutation
entry. If this application is taken into consideration, the
contention of the informant is fully corroborated. It is pertinent
to note that documents were relied on by the accused by
getting it marked as to Ex-D1 to D21. That means to say that
the accused is relying on these documents to defend himself.
On going through the documents in detail, all these documents
will have a cumulative effect of corroborating and supporting
the case of the prosecution, rather than supporting the accused
in any manner.
- 13 -
NC: 2024:KHC:31803
21. The prosecution has examined, the informant as
PW-1. This witness, during chief examination, stated in detail
about the facts of the case, the demand made by the accused
for illegal gratification for showing official favour and the
demand of Rs.200/- on the date of incident, filing of the first
information, drawing of pre-trap panchanama, approaching the
accused along with the shadow witness, the demand by the
accused for illegal gratification, tendering the tainted money of
Rs.500/- and acceptance of Rs.200/- by the accused, trap of
the accused and also recovery of the tainted money. The
witness was cross-examined at length on various dates, but the
accused has withstood the cross examination by sticking on to
his stand. The documents referred to above got marked by the
accused by tendering to this witness during cross-examination.
It is suggested to the witness that the accused had never
demanded illegal gratification. But all such suggestions were
denied. It is pertinent to note that during cross-examination, it
is specifically suggested to the witness that when he paid
Rs.500/- to the accused, Rs.200/- was fallen on the table and
Rs.300/- was fallen on the ground. There by accused has
admitted the contention of the prosecution that the
- 14 -
NC: 2024:KHC:31803
complainant had approached the accused on the date and time
of the incident with Rs.500/- and Rs.200/- was on the table of
the accused and Rs.300/- had fallen on the ground. It is
pertinent to note that the witness had also spoken about the
procedure i.e., followed by the Investigation Officer both in
drawing pre-trap panchanama, trap panchanama and collecting
the samples. Nothing has been elicited from the witness to
disbelieve the said version. I find the evidence of PW-1 is quite
natural and there is no artificiality in speaking about the facts.
22. PW-2 is the shadow witness who is a public servant.
He is unconcerned to either the informant or the accused. This
witness supported the case of the prosecution by speaking
about the procedure i.e., followed by the Investigating Officer
after he was summoned on registration of the FIR and drawing
the pre-trap panchanama, he accompanying the informant to
meet the accused, the accused saying that the work of the
informant is not yet being done, giving lame excuses that the
work could not be done and later accepting Rs.200/-. This
witness also supports the contentions of the prosecution
regarding raid and recovery of the tainted money from the
- 15 -
NC: 2024:KHC:31803
accused. His version remain unshaken during cross
examination.
23. If the evidence of PW-1 and PW-2 are considered in
the light of Exs-D1 to D21 and also the first information, the
pre-trap and trap panchanama, the contention of the
prosecution regarding pendency of the work with the accused,
he demanding illegal gratification, acceptance of Rs.200 by the
accused for showing illegal gratification and recovery of the
same under trap panchanama stands proved.
24. PW-3 is the Sheristadar from whom the case file
pertaining to the informant was recovered by the Investigating
Officer. This witness specifically states that the Investigating
Officer asked him the file, which was submitted to his office as
closed to be produced before the police. Accordingly, he
searched for the file and gave it to the police. He identified the
documents which are already marked as per Ex-D1 to D18.
Therefore, there is no dispute that Ex-D1 to D18 is the file
pertaining to the informant, which was sent by the accused as
closed file. If at all the accused was not the person who was
dealing with the matter, there was no reason for him to
- 16 -
NC: 2024:KHC:31803
endorse as closed file. The said fact is not disputed by PW-3 nor
it was denied by the accused. On the other hand entire set of
documents relied on by the prosecution was got marked by the
accused during cross examination of PW-1. During cross-
examination of PW-3, it is suggested to the witness that after
completion of the work i.e., after certification of the mutation
,the file will be sent to Nadakacheri by the Village Accountant.
This suggestion is admitted by PW-3. Meaning hereby, even
according to the witness, the file was forwarded by the accused
to the Nadakacheri, after completing the process. But however,
it is not in dispute that computerization of the RTC and
displaying the names of the sharers on the basis of mutation in
the computerized RTC was not done, till the date of commission
of offence.
25. PW-4 is the second panchanama, who has also
supported the case of the prosecution with regard to pre-trap
panchanama and trap panchanama, collection of the samples,
seizure of the documents etc., PW-7 is the Investigating
Officer, who spoke about the entire procedure adopted in the
investigation, drawing the mahazars, trap and seizure of
- 17 -
NC: 2024:KHC:31803
material objects and the documents. Nothing has been elicited
from these witnesses to is believe their versions.
26. If all these oral and documentary evidence are
taken into consideration, the contention of the prosecution that
the work was pending with the accused as he was working as
Village Accountant and even after two years, he had not given
effect to the charge of Katha in the computerized RTC is very
apparent. It is also to be noted that the prosecution has proved
demand and acceptance of illegal gratification by the accused
on the date of incident, in the presence of the informant and
shadow witness, who are examined as PW-1 and PW-2.
27. Learned counsel for the respondent-accused
contended that there are material contradictions in the
evidence of the witnesses. But he failed to highlight the so
called contradictions in the evidence of any of these witnesses.
Minor variations in the evidence of PW-1 and PW-2, who are
subjected to cross-examination at length, on various dates, in
installments, that too after long lapse of the date of offence,
cannot be considered as material contradictions. Both these
- 18 -
NC: 2024:KHC:31803
witnesses have withstood the cross-examination regarding
demand and acceptance of illegal gratification.
28. Learned counsel for the respondent contended that
pendency of the work of the accused has not been proved by
the prosecution. It was never the contention of the accused
during trial that as a Village Accountant, he was not entrusted
with the work regarding the application submitted to him by the
informant. On the other hand, as I have already noted Ex-D1 to
D21were got marked by the accused, through PW-1, who
admitted each and every document. In all these documents
there is reference to the accused and he admittedly signed
several documents with his seal. There is no explanation as to
why the accused signed several documents if at all he was not
entrusted with the file. Interestingly, the accused has not
chosen to step in to the witness box to deny his responsibility
to carry on the work or demand and acceptance of illegal
gratification. There is absolutely no reason for the accused for
not offering himself for cross-examination by the prosecution
and to give reasonable explanation for the oral and
documentary evidence placed on record. Adverse inference will
have to be drawn against him for the same.
- 19 -
NC: 2024:KHC:31803
29. Once the prosecution is successful in proving the
pendency of the work with the accused, demand and
acceptance of illegal gratification by him, presumption under
Section 20 of PC Act would come into operation. Then it is for
the accused to rebut the said presumption either during cross-
examination of the prosecution witnesses, or by producing the
documents or by leading any evidence. The accused has not
rebutted the presumption in any manner. Under such
circumstances, I am of the opinion that the prosecution is
successful in proving the guilt of the accused.
30. Learned counsel for the respondent has placed
reliance on the decision in A. Subair v/s State of Kerala5,
wherein the Hon'ble Apex Court held that the prosecution is as
to prove the charge beyond reasonable doubt like any other
criminal offence and the accused should be considered innocent
till it is established by proper proof regarding demand and
acceptance of illegal gratification. This proposition of law cannot
be disputed at any cost. On facts of the case, the Hon'ble Apex
Court considered that the evidence that are placed on record
are not sufficient to prove the guilt of the accused and
(2009) 6 SCC 587
- 20 -
NC: 2024:KHC:31803
therefore held that he is entitled for the benefit of grant. But on
facts, that is not the case in the present case. Therefore, the
said decision is not applicable to the facts of the case.
31. The second decision relied on by the learned
counsel for the respondent is N Vijaykumar v/s State of
Tamil Nadu 6. In this the Hon'ble Apex Court found that there
were material contradictions in the evidence of the prosecution
witnesses, who spoke about the demand and acceptance of
illegal gratification. When such material contradictions were
found, it was held that same was not sufficient to prove the
guilt. But it is not the case in the present case.
32. The next decision relied on by learned counsel for
the respondent is P Satyanarayana Murthy (supra),
wherein, the Hon'ble Apex Court on facts highlighted the
position of law that mere acceptance of any amount, without
proof of demand for illegal gratification, will not attract the
penal Provision of either Section 7 or Section 13(1)(d) of PC
Act. This position of law is also cannot be disputed. But in the
present case, PW-1 and PW-2 have categorically spoken about
AIR 2021 SCC 766
- 21 -
NC: 2024:KHC:31803
the demand and acceptance of illegal gratification and under
such circumstances, the decision is not applicable.
33. Learned counsel for the respondent has also placed
on reliance on the decision of the co-ordinate bench of this
Court in State by Lokayuktha Police, Tumkur v/s H H
Srinivasa Murthy7, wherein, the Court on facts of the case
held that there was no proof of demand on the day of trap and
acceptance of illegal gratification by the accused. Under such
circumstances, it was held that mere colour test turning
positive will not enure to the benefit of prosecution. But in the
present case, not only the right hand wash of the accused
turned into pink colour and even as per the Chemical
Examiner's report marked as Ex-P13, right hand wash of the
accused tested positive for both phenolphthalein and sodium
carbonate. The prosecution witness have consistently deposed
regarding demand and acceptance of illegal gratification by the
accused, coupled with recovery of the tainted money from the
accused. Under such circumstance, none of the decisions relied
on by learned counsel for the respondent will enure to the
benefit of the accused.
Cri.A.No.611/2022 DD 08.07.2022
- 22 -
NC: 2024:KHC:31803
34. The next question raised by learned counsel for the
accused is with regard to the sanction. Ex-P7 is the sanction
accorded by the Sanctioning Authority i.e., the Deputy
Commissioner of the District, examined as PW-6. This witness
stated that he received the entire case papers along with the
requisition letter to accord sanction. He had gone through the
documents and accorded sanction as per Ex-P7. The witness
was cross-examined at length, but nothing has been elicited
during such cross examination to disbelieve his version.
However, during cross examination, PW-6 admits that in the
sanction order at one place, while mentioning the date of
offence he has mentioned it as 2005 instead of 2004. That itself
cannot be a ground to say that the sanction is illegal or that
there was non-application of mind by the Sanctioning Authority.
When the witness has categorically stated that prima facie he is
satisfied after verifying the records that the accused has
committed the offence and accorded sanction, the same cannot
be found fault with.
35. Learned counsel for the respondent placed reliance
on the decision of Hon'ble Apex Court in Gulam Mahmood A.
Malek (supra),wherein the Court on facts held that the
- 23 -
NC: 2024:KHC:31803
contention of the prosecution cannot be accepted, without
sufficient corroboration.
36. Learned counsel for the respondent placed reliance
on the decision of co-ordinate bench of this Court in Ameer
Jan (supra), wherein, the Court has held that it is the pre-
requisite under PC Act, that the Sanctioning Authority has to
examine the case and has to decide whether the prosecution
should be sanctioned. It is also held that there must be
application of mind by the Sanctioning Authority, before
proceeding to accord sanction. None of these legal
requirements can be disputed. But the question as to whether
same are fulfilled in a given case is to be considered based on
the materials on record.
37. The materials on record in the present case disclose
that the prosecution is successful in proving the demand,
acceptance and recovery of the tainted amount from the
accused. It is also successful in proving the pendency of the
work of the complainant with the accused, even though he had
returned the file to the office of Deputy Tahsildar as 'closed',
Admittedly, the change of katha was not effected in the
- 24 -
NC: 2024:KHC:31803
computerized RTC till date of trap. There is no explanation as to
why the said work was kept pending even after change of katha
ordered long back. Thereby, the prosecution is successful in
proving the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt.
Hence, the accused is liable for conviction.
38. I have gone through the impugned judgment of
acquittal passed by the Trial Court. The Trial Court has
considered the voluminous oral evidence of PW-1 and 2 and
formed an opinion that there are material contradictions. The
Trial Court has not taken into consideration the fact that the
incident had taken place on 01.07.2004. PW1 was examined in
chief on 01.07.2008 and his evidence was concluded on
21.07.2008. Similarly, PW-2 was examined in chief on
12.12.2008 and his evidence was concluded on 26.03.2009 and
thereafter, the other prosecution witnesses were examined. It
is to be borne in mind that cross examination of the witnesses
cannot be considered as memory test to elicit from the
witnesses regarding the minor particulars of the contents of the
documents and the facts of the case to conclude that the
version of the witnesses has contradictions. It is the settled
proposition of law that the variations in the evidence should be
- 25 -
NC: 2024:KHC:31803
with respect to the material particulars and that should go to
the root of the matter. Then only it could be considered as
material contradictions. Similarly expressing silly doubts to give
benefit to the accused is not the purport of the legislation. To
extend the benefit of doubt in the case of the prosecution in
favour of the accused, the same shall be reasonable. Every
doubt entertained by the Judicial Officer will not enure to the
benefit of the accused.
39. The Trial Court referred to Ex-P7 - the sanction
order. Simply because there was mistake in mentioning the
date of offence as 01.07.2005 instead of 01.07.2004 at one
place, it has concluded that there was non-application of mind
by the Sanctioning Authority. It also referred to the cross-
examination of PW-6 and stated that the Sanctioning Authority
has not verified regarding initiation of departmental enquiry
against the accused and therefore, held that there was non
application of mind. The finding recorded by the Trial Court is
perverse, illegal and it is against the materials that are placed
before it. Therefore, I am of the opinion that the impugned
judgment of acquittal calls for interference by this Court and
- 26 -
NC: 2024:KHC:31803
the same is liable to be set aside. Accordingly, I answer the
above point in affirmative.
ORDER REGARDING SENTENCE
Heard learned counsel for the appellant and learned
counsel for respondent on imposition of sentence.
It is stated by the learned counsel for the respondent that
the accused is already retired about 12 years back and now he
is aged 72 years, suffering from several aliments and there was
no past history, therefore, maximum leniency to be shown in
sentencing him.
As on the date of offence, the minimum sentence that
could be imposed for the offence punishable under Section 7 is
six (6) months and for the offences punishable under Section
13(1)(d)(i) is one (1) year with fine.
Considering the submissions made by the learned counsel
for respondent, I am of the opinion that minimum sentence
prescribed under law could be imposed. Accordingly, I proceed
to pass the following:
- 27 -
NC: 2024:KHC:31803
ORDER
(i) The Criminal Appeal is allowed.
(ii) The judgment dated 12.07.2011 passed in CC
No.14/2006, on the file of the learned II Additional District and
Sessions Judge, Tumkur is hereby set aside.
(iii) Consequently, the accused is convicted for the
offence punishable under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d)(i) read with
Section 13(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.
(iv) The accused is sentenced to undergo simple
imprisonment for a period of 6 months and to pay a fine of
Rs.1,000/- (Rupees One Thousand only) for the offence
punishable under Section 7 of Prevention of Corruption Act,
1988. In default to pay fine, he shall undergo simple
imprisonment for a period of 15 days.
(v) The accused is sentenced to undergo simple
imprisonment for a period of 1 year and to pay fine of
Rs.2,000/- for the offence punishable under Section 13(1)(d)(i)
read with Section 13(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.
- 28 -
NC: 2024:KHC:31803
In default to pay fine amount, he shall under go simple
imprisonment for a period of 30 days.
(vi) The sentences shall run concurrently.
Send back the Trial Court records with copy of the
judgment for information and needful action i.e., to secure the
presence of the accused and to issue conviction warrant.
Free copy of this judgment be made available to the
respondent-accused.
Sd/-
(M G UMA)
JUDGE
MCR/SPV
