Karnataka High Court
State Of Karnataka vs Smt Vijaya @ Vijayalakshmi on 30 July, 2024
-1-
NC: 2024:KHC:30042
CRL.A No. 1303 of 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 30TH DAY OF JULY, 2024
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE M G UMA
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 1303 OF 2021
BETWEEN:
STATE OF KARNATAKA
BY KARNATAKA LOKAYUKTA POLICE
TUMAKURU 572 101.
REPRESENTED BY SPECIAL PUBLIC PROSECUTR.
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI. ASHWIN S HALADY., ADVOCATE)
AND:
SMT. VIJAYA @ VIJAYALAKSHMI
AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS
W/O. SRI. NAGARAJAIAH
ASSISTANT DIRECTOR OF HORTICULTURE
KORATAGERE 572 129
R/AT NO.18,
VIDHYA NAGAR MAIN ROAD
Digitally
signed by HANUMANTHAPURA LINK ROAD
SWAPNA V TUMAKURU 572 101.
Location:
high court of ....RESPONDENT
karnataka (BY SRI. SHIVARAMU H C., ADVOCATE)
THIS CRL.A FILED U/S.378(1)(3) CR.P.C BY THE S.P.P
FOR THE STATE PRAYING TO GRANT LEAVE TO APPEAL
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND ORDER DATED 03.04.2019
PASSED BY THE II ADDL. DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE AT
TUMAKURU/SPECIAL COURT UNDER P.C. ACT IN SPECIAL CASE
NO.121/2009, ON HIS FILE ACQUITTING THE
RESPONDENT/ACCUSED OF THE OFFENCE P/U/S 7, 13(1)(d)
R/W SEC. 13(2) OF P.C. ACT 1988.
THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY,
JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:
-2-
NC: 2024:KHC:30042
CRL.A No. 1303 of 2021
CORAM: HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE M G UMA
ORAL JUDGMENT
The state by Karnataka Lokayuktha Police preferred this
appeal impugning the judgment of acquittal dated 03.04.2019
passed in S.C.No.121/2009 on the file of learned II Additional
District and Sessions Judge, Tumakuru/Special Court,
acquitting the accused for the offence punishable Sections 7,
13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of
Corruption Act, 1988.
2. Heard Sri Ashwin S Halady, learned counsel for the
appellant and Sri. Shivaramu H.C, learned counsel for the
respondent. Perused the materials on record including the Trial
Court records.
3. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that
PW-1 - the complainant has lodged the first information,
making specific allegations that the accused had demanded
Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand Only) to show the official
favour. The FIR came to be registered and pre-trap
panchanama was drawn entrusting the amount to the
complainant in the presence of panchas. Trap was held and the
NC: 2024:KHC:30042
accused was apprehended. The entrusted amount was
recovered under the trap mahazar. The prosecution has
examined as many as eight witnesses and got marked 15
documents. The Trial Court, without considering the oral and
documentary evidence and also the presumption under Section
20 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 proceeded to
acquit the accused without any basis. Therefore, the appellant
is before this Court.
4. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that
the evidence of PW-2, who is also a mahazar witness is to be
considered by this Court while appreciating the evidence of PW-
1. If the oral evidence on record are taken into consideration
with plain meaning, the appeal may have to be allowed. He
further submitted that even though the complainant - PW-1 has
given this evidence favouring the accused in the departmental
inquiry, the same cannot be a ground to acquit the accused in
the present case. In view of the oral evidence led by PW-1 and
PW-2, the accused is liable for conviction. Accordingly, he prays
for allowing the appeal by setting aside the impugned judgment
of acquittal passed by the Trial Court.
NC: 2024:KHC:30042
5. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent
opposing the appeal submitted that the shadow witnesses
examined as PW-6 has not supported the case of the
prosecution. Only the interested version of PW-1 is available,
but in the departmental inquiry, he has not supported the case
of the prosecution. Under such circumstances, the Trial Court
was right in acquitting the accused. No grounds are made out
to reconsider the contention of the prosecution once again.
Accordingly, he prays for dismissal of the appeal.
6. In view of the rival contentions urged by the
learned counsel for both the parties, the point that would arise
for my consideration is:
"Whether the appellant has made
out any grounds to allow the appeal?"
My answer to the above point is in 'Negative' for the
following:
REASONS
7. PW-1 is the complainant who filed the first
information, upon which the FIR came to be registered for the
NC: 2024:KHC:30042
above said offences. Pre-trap panchanama was drawn in the
presence of two witnesses, who are PW-2 and PW-6. PW-6 is
the shadow witness who is a witness to the entrustment,
demand and acceptance of illegal gratification. But admittedly,
PW-6 has not supported the case of the prosecution.
Interestingly, PW-1, the complainant, has not supported his
own contention during the departmental inquiry. However, he
supported the case of the prosecution while examined as PW-1.
But his version is not creditworthy to be accepted as the sole
basis to convict the accused. Admittedly, the version of PW-1n
remained uncorroborated. Moreover, the handwash of the
accused during trap panchanama had not turned into pink
colour, and the FSL report marked as EX-P14 is negative for the
presence of phenolphthalein powder. Under these
circumstances, the prosecution is not successful in discharging
its initial burden of proving the guilt of the accused. When the
prosecution fails to discharge its initial burden, the presumption
under Section 20 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, will
not come to the rescue of the appellant. Hence, it could be
stated that the prosecution has not proved the guilt of the
NC: 2024:KHC:30042
accused beyond reasonable ground and the accused is entitled
for acquittal.
8. I have gone through the impugned judgment of
acquittal passed by the Trial Court. It has taken into
consideration the oral and documentary evidence placed before
it and has arrived at the right conclusion. I do not find any
illegality or perversity in the judgment impugned. Hence, I am
of the opinion that no grounds are made out to entertain the
appeal.
9. Accordingly, I answer the above point in the
negative and proceed to pass the following:
ORDER
The appeal is dismissed.
Sd/-
(M G UMA)
JUDGE
SPV
