Karnataka High Court
The State Of Karnatka By vs Sri N Nagaraja on 16 October, 2024
1 CRL.A NO.1325 OF 2012
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 16TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2024
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MS.JUSTICE J.M.KHAZI
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.1325 OF 2012
BETWEEN:
THE STATE OF KARNATAKA BY
THE POLICE INSPECTOR,
KARNATAKA LOKAYUKTHA POLICE,
BENGALURU CITY.
......APPELLANT
(BY SRI. B.S. PRASAD, SPL. PP FOR APPELLANT/
KAR LOKAYUKTA)
AND:
Digitally signed by
BHARATHI H M
1. SRI. N. NAGARAJA,
Location: HIGH
COURT OF ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER,
KARNATAKA RESIDENTIAL ADDRESS: NO.2603,
'E' BLOCK, SAHAKARA NAGARA,
BENGALURU - 92.
2. MR. T.C. KODANDA RAMA,
ASSISTANT ENGINEER,
RESIDENTIAL ADDRESS: NO.139,
CQAL LAYOUT, SAHAKARA NAGARA,
BENGALURU - 92.
........RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. C.H. JADHAV, SENIOR COUNSEL FOR
SRI. P. PRASANNA KUMAR, ADVOCATE)
THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION
378(1) AND (3) OF CR.P.C PRAYING TO A) SET ASIDE THE
JUDGMENT AND ORDER OF ACQUITTAL DATED 30.04.2012
PASSED BY THE SPECIAL JUDGE, BENGALURU CITY IN
SPL.C.C.NO.18/2007 FOR THE OFFENCE PUNISHABLE UNDER
SECTIONS 7, 13(1)(D) R/W 13(2) OF THE P.C. ACT, BY
ALLOWING THE TOP NOTED APPEAL; B) CONVICT AND
SENTENCE THE RESPONDENT FOR THE AFORESAID OFFENCE
UNDER SECTIONS 7, 13(1)(D) R/W 13(2) OF THE P.C. ACT,
WITH WHICH HE HAS BEEN CHARGED AND TRIED IN
ACCORDANCE WITH LAW, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND
EQUITY.
2 CRL.A NO.1325 OF 2012
THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL HAVING BEEN HEARD AND
RESERVED ON 12.07.2024, COMING ON FOR
PRONOUNCEMENT OF JUDGMENT THIS DAY, THE COURT
DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT
This appeal filed under Section 378 (1) and (3) of
the Cr.P.C is by the State represented by Lokayukta
police, challenging the acquittal of respondent and
accused Nos.1 and 2 for the offence punishable under
Sections 7, 13(1)(d) r/w Section 13(2) of the Prevention
of Corruption Act (for short 'PC Act').
2. For the sake of convenience, parties are
referred to by their ranks before the trial Court.
3. A charge sheet came to be filed against
accused Nos.1 and 2 alleging that at the relevant point
of time accused No.1 was working as Assistant Executive
Engineer and accused No.2 was working as Executive
Engineer at Mahadevapura town municipality, Bengaluru.
Complainant was a class-III civil contractor. He was
awarded with the contractor to fill the pothole and
remove silt from the drains in Andhra colony (Ward
No.7) and B. Narayanapura village and fix water pipes at
Mahadev village (No.3) from Muni Reddy extension upto
the house of Devaraj. Complainant had finished the said
work for a total sum of Rs.2,30,000/-. Even though he
had completed the said work about 15 days back and
about 10 times requested accused No.1 to conduct spot
inspection, in order to visit the spot, to note the
measurement of the work in the measurement book,
accused No.1 demanded bribe in a sum of Rs.20,000/-.
Since the complainant was not willing to give the bribe,
he lodged a complaint. On 21.12.2004 at 5.50 p.m. On
the instructions of accused No.1, accused No.2 received
the tainted notes of Rs.20,000/- and thereby both
accused have committed the offences punishable under
Sections 7, 13(1)(d) r/w 13(2) of the PC Act.
4. Both accused pleaded not guilty to the
charges levelled against them and claimed trial.
5. In order to prove the allegations against the
accused, prosecution has relied upon the evidence of
PWs-1 to 5, Exs.P1 to 35 and MOs 1 to 17.
6. During the course of their statements under
Section 313 Cr.P.C, accused have denied the
incriminating evidence led by the prosecution.
7. Accused have not led any defence evidence,
but got marked Exs.D1 to 20 through the cross-
examination of prosecution witnesses.
8. Vide the impugned judgment and order, the
trial Court held that the allegations made against
accused are not proved and acquitted them.
9. Aggrieved by the same, the prosecution is
before this Court contending that the impugned
judgment and order is contrary to law, facts of the case
and evidence on record and as such liable to be set
aside. The reasons assigned by the trial Court are
erroneous and there by it has reached to a wrong
conclusion resulting in substantial miscarriage of justice.
During the trap mahazar, the micro Cassette given to the
complainant was played and it clearly recorded the
conversation between the complainant and accused
Nos.1 and 2. Even though PWs-1 and 2 have not
supported the prosecution case, the micro Cassettee
comes to the aid of the prosecution. The learned trial
Judge has failed to appreciate this aspect.
9.1 The evidence of PWs-1 and 2 clearly indicates
that in order to help the accused, they have not
supported the prosecution case to the full extent.
However, the testimony of PW-5 the Investigating Officer
is not discredited by the defence. With the aid of the
testimony of the Investigating Officer, the prosecution
has proved the allegations against accused beyond
reasonable doubt. The trial Court has failed to appreciate
the evidence led by the prosecution in right perspective
and consequently has erred in acquitting accused Nos.1
and 2. Based on the evidence led by the prosecution, the
trial Court has failed to draw inference. Viewed from any
angle, the impugned judgment and order is not
sustainable and pray to allow the appeal, convict accused
Nos.1 and 2 and sentence them in accordance with law.
10. In support of his arguments, learning counsel
for complainant has relied upon the following decisions:
(i) Neeraj Dutta Vs. State (Government of NCT of
Delhi) (Neeraj Dutta)1
11. On the other hand, learned counsel for
accused has supported the impugned judgment and
order. He would submit that the work in question was not
completed and even though the accused No.1 has visited
the spot and noted the measurement of the work carried
out by the complainant and certain payments were
made, considering the fact that the work was not
completed, complainant filed a false complaint. After
examining the oral and documentary evidence on record
in right perspective, the trial Court has acquitted accused
Nos.1 and 2. He would further submit that after the
acquittal, the innocence of accused Nos.1 and 2 is
fortified and the findings of the trial Court are consistent
(2023) 4 SCC 731
with the evidence placed on record and it is not a fit case
to interfere and sought for dismissal of the appeal.
12. Heard elaborate arguments of both sides and
perused the record.
13. The fact that at the relevant point of time
accused Nos.1 and 2 were working in Mahadevapura
town municipality as Assistant Executive Engineer and
Assistant Engineer and they were in charge of verifying
the work carried out by the complainant and responsible
for preparing the bills and disbursing the amount is not in
dispute. It is also not in dispute that complainant was
awarded the work in question. The accused have taken
up a specific defence that complainant has not completed
the work allotted to him and he has concealed the fact
that accused No.1 had inspected the work carried out by
the complainant and noted the measurements in the
concerned book and in fact, certain payments were also
made. He has concealed several payments made to him
and alleged as though no payments were made and
there was demand of bribe and on the date of trap after
getting the signature of accused Nos.1 on EMD refund
forms, the complainant had handed over tainted notes to
accused No.2, requesting him to keep it for 10 minutes
and given signal to the Investigating Officer leading to
the trap of accused No.2.
14. It is the specific case of prosecution that at
the time of a trap complainant was given a micro tape
recorder and the conversation between accused No.1 and
complainant and also between accused No.2 and
complainant is recorded. Though the Investigating Officer
has produced the CD copying the contents of the micro
Cassette, its contents are not transcripted and noted in
the trap Mahazar. It is pertinent to note that both
complainant and the shadow witness have not totally
supported the prosecution case, more particularly with
regard to the demand and receipt of the bribe amount.
The accused have also taken up a specific contention that
complainant has not completed the work within the
stipulated time and even when he filed the complaint,
the work was yet to be completed. Concealing the said
fact and in order to force the accused persons to yield to
his demand for payment of bills, he has filed a false
complaint.
15. In the light of these aspects, it is necessary to
examine whether the allegation against accused are
proved beyond reasonable doubt and whether the trial
Court is justified in acquitting the accused persons.
16. The defence is not disputing the sanction
order granted by the Appointing Authority. PW-1
M.Venkatarasappa is the Under Secretary working in
Public Works Department, Bengaluru. Accused Nos.1 and
2 were the employees of PWD department and they were
on deputation at Mahadevapura City Municipal Council.
PW-1 has deposed regarding the sanction accorded by
the Appointing Authority based on the material in the
charge sheet. His evidence prove that sanction issued
against accused Nos.1 and 2 is valid. Despite lengthy
cross-examination, the defence has failed to demonstrate
that the sanction order is invalid or in the charge sheet,
there is no Prima facie material to proceed against the
accused persons.
17. PW-3 M.C.Prabhakar Reddy is the
complainant. In the complaint, he has alleged that it was
accused No.1, who made him to run around for getting
his bill passed and ultimately demanded bribe in a sum of
Rs.20,000/- forcing him to file the complaint before the
Court. However, before the Court he has come up with a
different story and deposed that he repeatedly
approached accused No.2 Kodandarama who went on
saying that he has not completed the work and made
him to approach repeatedly around 10 times. Ultimately,
accuse No.2 directed him to approach accuse No.1
Nagaraj. In turn accuse No.1 directed him to go to
accused No.2, who once again insisted that work is not
completed. Ultimately accused No.1 said that if he give
20% of the bill amount, he will prepare the final bill.
Therefore, he filed the complaint. In the complaint, the
fact of repeatedly accused Nos.1 and 2 making him to
approach the other is not forthcoming.
18. Speaking with regard to the actual trap,
complainant has deposed that he along with shadow
witness went to the office of accused No.1 and on finding
that he was in discussion with another person, he went
to the chamber of accused No.2 and handed over the
tainted notes to him. When accused No.2 questioned him
about the said amount, he told him to keep it for 10
minutes, as accused No.1 is discussing with another
person. On this aspect, complainant is treated as hostile
and cross-examined by the prosecution. During his cross-
examination by the learned Public Prosecutor,
complainant has denied the suggestion that when he
approached accused No.1 and enquired about the
pending bills, he questioned whether complainant has
brought the amount and when he answered in the
affirmative, he directed complainant to hand it over to
accused No.2 and therefore he handed over the bribe to
the accused No.2. In turn accused No.2 commented that
he ought to have brought the money yesterday and got
the work done and took the tainted notes from his right
hand and counted it and kept it in the right side pant
pocket.
19. On this aspect the shadow witness who is
examined as PW-2 has deposed that at about 5.15 p.m
when he and complainant went inside the chamber of
accused No.1, he was speaking to 2-3 persons.
Complainant placed 2-3 papers before accused No.1 and
he signed them and gave back to the complainant. When
complainant waited for 2-3 minutes, accused No.1
became impatient and asked what else complainant
want. When complainant was about to say something,
accused No.1 directed him to meet accused No.2.
Therefore, complainant took him to the chamber of
accused No.2 and they spoke in Telugu pointing towards
him i.e., the shadow witness. Complainant replied
referring to the shadow witness as his friend.
Complainant gave the money to accused No.2, who took
it and put it in his pant pocket.
20. It is pertinent to note that PW-2 i.e, the
shadow witness has also not deposed with regard to
accused No.1 enquiring complainant whether he has
brought the bribe amount of Rs.20,000/- and when
complainant was about to reply, directing him to
handover the same to accused No.2. On this aspect, the
prosecution has not treated him as hostile and there is
no cross-examination of PW-2 with regard to the demand
made by accused No.1 and directing complainant to
handover the bribe amount to accused No.2. During his
examination-in-chief, PW-2 has deposed that after
receiving the requisite signal, the Investigating Officer
enquired accused No.2 as to where he has kept the
tainted notes and he produced the same and thereafter
his hands were washed. On the other hand, it is a
definite case of the prosecution that first the hands of
accused No.2 were washed in sodium carbonate solution
and thereafter he was directed to produce the tainted
notes. On this aspect also the learned Public Prosecutor
has not chosen to treat him as hostile and cross-examine
eliciting the proper answers.
21. Thus, the complainant has resiled from his
statement given before the Investigating Officer with
regard to the demand and receipt of bribe amount of
Rs.20,000/- by accused Nos.1 and 2. During his cross-
examination by the defence complainant has admitted
that he gave Rs.20,000/- to accused No.2 on his own.
However, he has denied that he has not completed the
work and also denied that in this regard, show cause
notice was issued to him.
22. There is lot of discrepancy in the evidence of
complainant and the shadow witness. Their testimonies
are inconsistent with the complaint averment as well as
the statements given before the Investigating Officer.
The learned Public Prosecutor has not chosen to cross-
examine the shadow witness with regard to he not
speaking about the demand made by accused No.1 and
directing complainant to handover the bribe money to
accused No.2. It is the definite case of the prosecution
that the conversation between complainant and accused
Nos.1 and 2 is recorded in the micro Cassette recorder
given to the complainant by the Investigating Officer.
Though in the trap mahazar, it is stated that in the said
recorder the fact of accused No.1 demanding, whether
complainant has brought Rs.20,000/- and directing him
to handover to the accused No.2 and also the
conversation between the complainant and accused No.2
is recorded, the Investigating Officer has not produced
the transcription of the conversation in the trap mahazar.
It would have certainly helped to improve the
prosecution case that there was in fact demand made by
accused No.1 by enquiring whether he has brought the
amount of Rs.20,000/- and after getting affirmative
answer directed complainant to handover the same to
accused No.2. For reasons best known to him the
Investigating Officer has not submitted the same. It
would have also helped the defence to properly cross-
examine the complainant and the shadow witness.
23. Although, during his cross-examination,
complainant has denied that he had not completed the
work and therefore he was directed by accused No.1 to
complete the same before requesting for clearance of the
bills, during his cross-examination, the Investigating
Officer who is examined as PW-4 has admitted that
during investigation, it was revealed that complianant
has not completed the work as on the date of trap. He
also admitted that complainant has received part
payment through cheques. As already discussed, the
complainant has not chosen to reveal the fact that part
payments were made to him through 2-3 cheques. On
the other hand, he has claimed that the entire work was
completed and no payments were made to him.
24. The trial Court after detailed examination of
the oral and documentary evidence placed on record has
rightly held that the allegations against Nos.1 and 2 are
not proved beyond reasonable doubt and acquitted them.
It's findings are consistent with the evidence on record.
This Court finds no perversity in the same. After re-
appreciation of the entire evidence placed on record, this
Court finds no justifiable grounds to interfere with the
conclusions arrived by the trial Court. In the result of the
appeal fails and accordingly, the following:
ORDER
(i) Appeal filed by the State is hereby
dismissed.
(ii) The impugned judgment and order dated
30.04.2012 in Spl.C.C.No.18/2007 on the
file of Spl.Judge, Bengaluru City is
confirmed.
(iii) The Registry is directed to send back the
trial Court records along with copy of the
judgment forthwith.
Sd/-
(J.M.KHAZI)
JUDGE
RR
