Karnataka High Court

Shri Narasimhaiah vs State By Lokayuktha Police on 7 February, 2025

Author: V Srishananda

Bench: V Srishananda

                         1

  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
    DATED THIS THE 07TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2025
                     BEFORE
     THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V. SRISHANANDA
               CRL.A.NO.566/2012

BETWEEN

   SHRI NARASIMHAIAH
   REVENUE INSPECTOR, BBMP,
   SINCE DEAD REPRESENTED BY
   HIS LEGAL REPRESENTATIVES

1. SMT.PADMAMMA
   AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS
   W/O LATE NARASIMHAIAH

2. SMT.GAYATHRI.N
   AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS
   W/O SADANANDA

3. SMT.KOMALA.N
   AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS
   W/O SHIVARAM

4. SMT.SHASHIKALA.N
   AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS
   W/O SRI SURESHA

5. SMT.JAYASHEELA.N
   AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS
   W/O SRI SUNIL

6. NARAHARI.N
   AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS
                           2

     S/O LATE NARASIMHAIAH

7. SRI YOGESH.N
   AGED ABOUT 22 YEARS
   S/O LATE NARASIMHAIAH

     ALL ARE RESIDING AT NO.143,
     4TH MAIN, BCC LAYOUT
     NEAR CHANDRA LAYOUT
     VIJAYANAGAR,
     BENGALURU-560 040
                                        ...APPELLANTS
(BY SRI B.C.SEETHARAMA RAO, ADVOCATE)

AND

1.   STATE BY LOKAYUKTHA POLICE
     REPRESENTED BY
     STANDING COUNSEL AND SPL. PUBLIC
     PROSECUTOR IN THE HONBLE HIGH COURT FOR
     LOKAYUKTHA CASES, BANGALORE
                                    ...RESPONDENT
(BY SRI B.S.PRASAD, SPL.PP)

     THIS CRL.A. IS FILED UNDER SECTION 374(2)
CR.P.C PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE CONVICTION AND
SENTENCE DT.30.04.2012 PASSED BY THE SPL. JUDGE,
PREVENTION OF CORRUPTION ACT, BANGALORE URBAN
DISTRICT, BANGALORE CITY IN SPL.C.C.NO.16/2006-
CONVICTING   THE   APPELLANT/ACCUSED  FOR    THE
OFFENCE P/U/S 7 AND 13(1)(d) P/U/S 13(2) OF
PREVENTION OF CORRUPTION ACT, 1988.

     THIS APPEAL HAVING BEEN RESERVED FOR
ORDERS, COMING ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT THIS DAY,
THE COURT PRONOUNCED THE FOLLOWING:-

CORAM:    HON'BLE MR JUSTICE V SRISHANANDA
                                 3

                       CAV JUDGMENT

(PER: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE V SRISHANANDA)

Heard the arguments of Sri B.C. Seetharama Rao,

learned counsel for the dependants of appellant and Sri

B.S. Prasad, learned counsel for the respondent.

2. Accused in Special C.C.No.16/2006 who

suffered an order of conviction for the offence punishable

under Section 7, 13 (1) (d) r/w Section 13 (2) of

Prevention of Corruption Act by judgment dated

30.04.2012, passed by the Special Judge, Bengaluru Urban

District, Bengaluru (CCH-24) is the appellant. Appellant

died during the pendency of appeal and his dependants are

brought on record to pursue the appeal further.

3. Facts in brief which are utmost necessary for

disposal of the appeal are as under:

Complainant having purchased a house measuring

18.3 feet X 25 feet approached the accused who was a bill

collector, Bruhat Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike (hereinafter

referred to as 'BBMP'), Malleswaram for change of khatha

in his name. At that juncture, accused said to have

demanded sum of Rs.3,000/- as bribe. Complainant

expressed his inability to pay the said bribe amount and on

negotiation, bribe amount was reduced to Rs.1,000/-.

4. Complainant being not willing to pay the bribe

amount of Rs.1,000/-, approached the Lokayuktha Police

and gave a complaint. Lokayuktha police after registering

the case in Cr.No.10/2005 for the offence punishable

under Section 7, 13 (1) (d) r/w Section 13 (2) of

Prevention of Corruption Act ('P.C. Act' for short), formed a

raid team comprising of Inspector of Lokayuktha, Sub

staff, two pancha witnesses who were secured by the head

of the raid party.

5. Contents of the complaint were read over to

the pancha witnesses and thereafter they were appraised

of the chemical reaction of phenolphthalein powder with

Sodium Carbonate solution. Intended bribe amount in a

sum of Rs.1,000/- comprising of Rs.100/- denomination

ten currency notes were received from the hands of the

complainant and its serial numbers were noted,

phenolphthalein powder was smeared on those notes and

entrustment mahazar was recorded. Complainant was

directed to hand over the bribe amount only on demand by

the accused on the day of trap and shadow witness was

directed to accompany the complainant and directed to

observe the demand of the bribe amount and handing over

of the bribe amount. Complainant was directed to furnish

a pre designated signal to the Lokayuktha police after the

tainted currency is handed over to the accused on

demand.

6. Thereafter, the raid party left to the office of

the appellant. When they reached the office, appellant was

spotted by the complainant in the varanda and

complainant showed the accused to shadow witness.

Complainant and shadow witness then greeted the

accused. Thereafter accused took him to his office room.

Appellant demanded the bribe money. Complainant at

that juncture, handed over the tainted currency to the

accused and shadow witness was standing by the side of

the complainant. Accused took the currency notes in his

both hands and transferred it to his right hand. As

directed by the head of the raid party, complainant came

out of the office and gave pre-designated signal by

combing his hairs. Immediately all the members of the

raid party came to the office of the accused and enquired

him as to tainted currency. His hands were washed in

separate bowls consisting of colourless solution and

colourless solution found in both the bowls turned into pink

colour. They were transferred onto two bottles and sealed

and seized. Thereafter the tainted currency which was

kept on his table was seized. Same was examined and

tallied with the serial numbers in the entrusted mahazar

and the same was also seized. The tainted currency

consisted of ten notes of Rs.100/- denomination each.

7. Assistant Revenue Officer was present in the

office was told by the head of the raid party to furnish the

attendance register and the same was also verified by the

head of the raid party and photocopy of the relevant page

was seized and attested by Assistant Revenue Officer.

8. Accused/appellant was given an opportunity to

offer his explanation and appellant offered an explanation

in writing stating that 2% of the stamp duty on the value

is being received by him which would amount to sum of

Rs.700/- to Rs.800/- and he had not demanded any bribe

money. Therefore, accused was arrested and he has

produced before the Special Judge and remanded to

custody.

9. After completion of investigation, charge sheet

came to be filed by the Investigating Officer. Learned

Special Judge took cognizance of the offences alleged

against the appellant and secured his presence and after

compliance of Section 207 Cr.P.C., framed the charges for

the aforesaid offences. Accused pleaded not guilty

therefore, trial was held.

10. In order to bring home the guilt of the

accused, prosecution in all examined five witnesses

comprising of shadow witness being P.W.1 and

complainant as P.W.2, P.W.3 being the sanctioning

authority and P.W.4 co-pancha, Investigating Officer as

P.W.5.

11. Prosecution placed reliance on 23 documents

which were exhibited and marked as Exs.P.1 to P.23,

comprising of note sheet containing the tainted currency

serial numbers, entrustment mahazar, attendance register

extract, relevant file pertaining to the work pending in the

office of the appellant. Letter of accused to Investigating

Officer, imprint scene, photographs, trap mahazar,

photographs depicting the trap, Forensic Science

Laboratory report, First Information Report and seizure

particulars.

12. Prosecution also placed on record fourteen

material documents, comprising of sample solutions, hand

wash of co-pancha, sample solution before the trap being

laid, samples of right hand wash and left hand wash of the

accused, hand wash of C.W.1, currency notes, sealed

cover of currency notes, micro cassette, sealed cover,

metal seal.

13. On behalf of the defence, portion of Ex.P.13

(a) was marked as Ex.D.1 and portion of statement of

Mukthar Ahamad as Ex.D.2.

14. On conclusion of recording of evidence,

accused statement as is contemplated under Section 313

Cr.P.C., was recorded, wherein accused has denied all the

incriminatory materials. He did not offer any explanation

nor furnished any written submissions placing his version

on record. He also did not examine any witness on his

behalf.

15. Thereafter, learned Trial Judge heard the

parties in detail and on cumulative consideration of oral

and documentary evidence on record, convicted the

accused for the aforesaid offences and sentenced him as

under:

"It is ordered that the Accused Narasimhaiah, is sentenced to undergo Rigorous imprisonment for a period of 6 months for the offence punishable under section 7 of Prevention of Corruption Act and to pay fine of Rs,500/- (Rupees five hundred) in default to undergo Simple imprisonment for 15 days and the accused is further sentenced to undergo Rigorous imprisonment for a term of one year for offence defined under section 13(1)(d) which is punishable under section 13(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act and to pay fine of Rs.500/- (Rupees five hundred only) in default to undergo Simple imprisonment for 15 days.

The substantive sentences of imprisonment shall run concurrently.

The period in which the accused was in judicial custody is given set off.

MO.10 Currency notes Rs.100X10 Rs.1,000/- shall be confiscated to the State Government and Mos.1 to 9 and 11 to 13 shall be destroyed after the expiry of appeal period and M.O.14 metal shall be returned to the Lokayukta after appeal period is over.

Furnish free copy of the Judgment to accused forthwith."

16. Being aggrieved by the same, appellant is

before this Court on challenging the validity of the said

judgment on the following grounds:

 That the judgment of the Lower Court is manifestly perverse, singularly untenable and totally incorrect.

 That the Trial Court did not consider that the charge framed against the Accused / Appellant is contrary and not proved either by oral evidence of PW-1, PW-2 and Pw-5 or documentary evidence with the facts of the case, which shows that there is erroneous consideration by the Trial Court while appreciating the evidence on record.

 That the Trial Court erred in coming to the conclusion that as per the evidence of PW- 2 there was a demand and acceptance of bribe. But it is pertinent to mention that PW-2 never states about the demand of bribe by the Appellant at any point of time

rather he speaks about the Government fees to be paid to effect the change of Katha.

 That the Trial Court erred in coming to conclusion that the evidence of PW-2 is corroborated with the evidence of shadow witness PW-1.

 That the Trial Court erred in not appreciating the evidence of PW-2 that he met Appellant / Accused as per the say of his (PW-2)'s wife on 3/4/2005 and initially there was a demand by the Appellant/Accused in his Office. It is pertinent to mention that it is excited that 3/4/2005 is a Sunday and no Government Offices usually work on Sunday. This aspect was never discussed by the Trial Court to come to a particular conclusion that whether there was any prior demand as deposed by pw-2 as it never finds any place in entire Prosecution records.

 That the Trial Court failed to appreciate the evidence of PW-2 admitting that he has to pay Property Tax or Stamp Duty fees of Rs.800/- to Rs.900/- as told by the

Accused Appellant as per Ex.P-5 the written explanation and Ex.P-4 File.

 That the Trial Court failed to appreciate further admissions of Complainant that the same was reiterated in Written explanation given by the Appellant/ Accused for possession of tainted money as per Ex. P-5, Hence it is discernible that the work on file of the Complainant is yet to be started till he pays the Government fees and is very well known to the Complainant and thereby the Complainant is vague but this aspect is thrown out by the Trial Court.

 That the Trial Court failed to appreciate that the evidence of PW- 1 is of tutored in nature as such he himself admitted that he never heard about any conversation with regard to pendency of work nor he heard any demand from the Appellant / Accused.

 That the Trial Court erred in appreciating the fact as admitted by PW.1, PW-2 and PW-5 that the Appellant was having the tainted currency notes in his either hand

at either time of taking the hand washes of the Accused / Appellant which creates doubt to the entire story of the Prosecution.

 That the Trial Court erred that the Appellant/Accused had pendency of work with him as on the date of Trap and erred in misconstruing the same even though the file of PW-2 was not yet started since he has to pay some Government Fees as per the marked documents at Ex.D-1 and Ex.D-2.

 That the Trial Court erred in considering only the evidence of PW-2 which never corroborates with PW-1 on material aspects and the evidence of PW-1 is as like as the evidence of a tutored witness.

 That the Trial Court manifestly erred while considering the fact that the documentary evidence dilutes the Prosecution case with the substantive oral evidence of Prosecution witnesses and Defence exhibits.

 That the Learned Special Judge failed to appreciate that the Appellant did not demand and much less accepted illegal gratification on 7/4/2005 near his Office when the trap Party went to organize the trap but it was the amount which was to be paid by the Complainant to the Government to effect the change of Katha. The Trial Court failed to notice that mere recovery of currency notes and positive result of phenolphthalein test would not establish the case of the Prosecution unless demand is proved beyond reasonable doubt.

 That the Learned Special Judge failed to notice that there is no motive to demand illegal gratification by the Appellant and no necessary for the Complainant PW-2 to Pay bribe as he was incomplete in furnishing his entire remuneration to the Government i.e., Property tax/Stamp duty fees to effect katha change / transfer or to start the work of the Complainant by the Accused / Appellant.

 It is submitted that the statement or written explanation given by the Appellant during the investigation is inadmissible as it is hit by Section 162 Cr.P.C. but if it favours the Appellant, he can rely upon that Explanation. Even this fact also is not appreciated by the Lower Court while rendering the Judgment against Accused / Appellant.

 That the Learned Special Judge grossly erred in ignoring the contention of the Appellant that in the absence of corroboration, and without pendency of work which is required as a motive for demand, the evidence of bribe giver cannot be accepted and further the Learned Special Judge failed to appreciate that PW-1 and PW-2 did not support the Prosecution case.

 That the Learned Judge grossly erred in ignoring the Apex Court decisions and our Hon'ble High Court decisions on this issue though cited at the time of arguments.

17. Sri B.C. Seetharama Rao, learned counsel for

the appellant reiterating the grounds urged in the appeal

memorandum vehemently contended that the prosecution

has utterly failed to establish the demand and acceptance

of the bribe money in the case on hand by placing the

cogent evidence on record which is sine qua non for

recording an order of conviction for the aforesaid offences

and sought for allowing the appeal.

18. He further pointed out that the explanation

offered by the accused marked at Ex.P.5 would clearly go

to show that there was about Rs.700/- to Rs.800/-, which

was payable by the complainant as the stamp fee charges,

which has been asked by the appellant and the same has

been misunderstood by the complainant as bribe amount.

Therefore, filed a false complaint and a motivated trap has

been laid and the amount that has been received by the

appellant is only towards the stamp duty charges and

therefore, no offence as is alleged against the appellant

has taken place, which has not been appreciated by the

learned Trial Judge in the impugned judgment resulting in

miscarriage of justice and sought for allowing the appeal.

19. He pointed out that that the discrepancy in the

oral testimony of P.Ws.1 and 2 has not been properly

appreciated by the learned Trial Judge resulting in

miscarriage of justice and sought for allowing the appeal.

20. He also pointed out that the sanction order is

invalid inasmuch as the sanctioning authority in the cross-

examination has admitted that there was a draft sanction

order prepared and he has issued the sanction order based

on the draft sanction order which shows that there is no

proper application of mind by the sanctioning authority to

prosecute the appellant resulting in vitiating the entire trial

and thus sought for allowing the appeal.

21. Per contra, Sri B.S. Prasad, learned Advocate

representing Lokayuktha supports the impugned

judgment.

22. He would further contend that the material on

record is rightly appreciated by the learned Trial Judge

while passing the order of conviction. He pointed out that

the tainted currency had been handled by the appellant in

both the hands and therefore, colour test stood positive.

The explanation offered is not supported by any material

on record and if the stamp charges are to be collected

necessary receipts should have been passed. There must

be a specific request in a official manner as to what exactly

the stamp duty. Even as per Ex.P.5, the appellant is

estimating the stamp duty of 2% which may amounting to

Rs.700/- to Rs.800/-, if it is so, why did he demand

Rs.1000/- from the complainant is not forthcoming on

record.

23. Therefore, the explanation is an afterthought

which has been rightly ignored by the learned Trial Judge

while appreciating the material evidence on record and

convicting the appellant which requires no interference by

this Court and as such sought for dismissal of the appeal.

24. In view of the rival contentions of the parties

the following points would arise for consideration:

i. Whether the material on record is sufficient enough to maintain the order of conviction recorded by the learned Trial Judge in Spl.C.C.No.16/2006 for the offences punishable under Sections 7, 13 (1) (d) r/w Section 13 (2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act?

ii. Whether the dependents of establish that the impugned judgment is suffering from legal infirmity and perversity and thus, calls for interference?

iii. If the answer to the above points are in affirmative and negative, whether the sentence needs relook?

iv. What order?

25. Regarding Point Nos.1 and 2: P.W.1 in the

case is the shadow witness. He deposed about the

information received by his official supervisor and he was

deputed to act as pancha for the intended raid.

26. He further deposed about co-pancha being

present along with the complainant in the office of the

Lokayuktha, head of the raid party reading out the

contents of the complaint, demonstrated chemical reaction

of phenolphthalein powder with sodium carbonate solution,

taking out ten currency notes of Rs.100/- denomination

each from the custody of complainant, smearing the

phenolphthalein powder after noting down the serial

numbers by the co-pancha, directing the complainant to

hand over the tainted currency in the hands of the accused

only after his demand, directing P.W.1 to accompany

complainant and observe the proceedings that would takes

place in the office of the appellant, drafting of entrustment

mahazar. Thereafter entire raid team leaving the office of

Lokayuktha around 3.30 p.m., and reaching the place of

appellant at about 4.00 p.m. Thereafter complainant and

P.W.1 when proceeding in the office, they spotted accused

in varanda and they greeted the appellant, appellant took

them to his office room.

27. He further deposed about the complainant

enquiring the work pending in his office namely, change of

khatha to his property and he also told him that he had

brought the necessary money.

28. He further deposed that appellant asked the

bribe money and complainant gave the tainted currency

notes to the accused and he was standing next to him

when all these proceedings went on in the chambers of the

accused.

29. Accused took the tainted currency in both

hands and then put it in the right hand. Complainant

immediately came out of the chambers of accused and

gave pre-designated signal by combing his hairs.

30. P.W.1 further deposed about the raid party

immediately rushing to the chambers of the accused and

enquiring the accused and accused replying that he is

working as revenue Inspector in the said office.

Immediately Sodium Carbonate Solution was prepared in

two separate bowls and fingers of right hand of the

accused were washed which turned into pink colour and

left hand fingers were also washed which also turned into

pink colour and they were seized and sealed by the head

of the raid party.

31. P.W.1 further deposed that subsequently, head

of the raid party told the appellant to produce the tainted

currency. Accused took out the currency which was kept

on the table and the serial numbers were tallied with the

entrustment mahazar by himself and co-pancha

Saraswathi. After which, they got tallied with the serial

numbers in the entrustment mahazar, tainted currency

were seized. Thereafter, attendance register of the

appellant was secured through Assistant Revenue Officer

wherein appellant identified his signature and photocopy of

the said page in the attendance register was also seized by

the head of the raid party. Thereafter head of the raid

party asked the accused to produce the file pertaining to

the complainant. At that juncture, accused went out and

took out file from his scooter box and produced it. The

same was also seized. Thereafter accused was arrested.

Tape recorder and cassette were also taken out from the

complainant. However, it was not audible. P.W.1 further

deposed that all these proceedings were reduced into

writing in the form of draft trap mahazar.

32. In the cross-examination of P.W.1, he has

answered that entrustment mahazar proceedings took

place in the office of Lokayuktha between 2.00 pm., to

3.00 p.m., and he has read over the contents of mahazar.

He has further answered that himself and complainant had

been to the chambers of the appellant. He denied the

suggestion that on the way to the chambers of the

appellant there was raining. He has further answered that

when they met the appellant in varanda and when they

actual demand was made for the tainted currency in the

chambers of appellant, he was present by the side of the

complainant and he has witnessed what transpired in the

chambers of the appellant.

33. He has further answered that the trap mahazar

was prepared in between the time 4.30 p.m., to 6.00 p.m.

He has further answered about the conducting the colour

test and he has denied the suggestion that he has deposed

falsely to help the Lokayuktha.

34. Complainant is examined as P.W.2. He

deposed about purchasing of the property located at

Ganganagar on 09.03.2005. He further deposed about

contacting the appellant in the office of the appellant for

change of khatha of the property and accused initially

demanded Rs.3,000/- and on negotiation, the bribe

amount was settled at Rs.1,000/-.

35. He further deposed that since he was not

willing to pay the bribe amount, intimated the same by

way of complaint to Lokayuktha police. Further he

deposed about, securing of pancha witnesses by

Lokayuktha police, forming raid team, conduct of

entrustment mahazar, instructions being obtained from

head of the raid party to hand over the tainted currency to

the hands of appellant only on demand. P.W.1 was

directed to accompany him and himself and P.W.1 was

proceeding to the office of the accused wherein they

spotted the accused in varanda. Later on, accused taking

them to his chambers wherein he enquired about the

pending work and appellant demanding sum of Rs.1,000/-

and he handed over the same to the accused, which was

taken by accused in both the hands and kept in right hand

and thereafter he came out and gave the pre designated

signal by combing his hairs, raid party entering the

chambers of appellant.

36. He further deposed about the colour test being

conducted of both the hands of the appellant separately

which turning into pink and seizure of the same, head of

the raid party enquiring about the tainted currency for

which the appellant took out the same which was kept in

his table and later on the notes being tallied by P.W.1 and

co-pancha Saraswathi, seizure of the attendance register,

arresting the accused, drafting of trap mahazar.

37. In his cross-examination the suggestions made

that he has deposed falsely and the trap is a motivated

trap is denied by him. No doubt, a categorical suggestion

was made in the cross-examination that 2% of the sale

value of the property is to be collected as stamp duty and

said Rs.1000/- denoted the same. But, P.W.1 has

specifically denied that the demand was towards the stamp

duty, but he reiterated that the demand was illegal

gratification (bribe).

38. P.W.3 is the person who issued sanction order

vide Ex.P.20. In his cross-examination he admits that

Lokayuktha had sent a model draft sanction order. He has

denied the suggestion that sanction order is issued

mechanically.

39. P.W.4 is the co-pancha. She deposed about

deputing her to the office of the Lokayuktha by her official

superior for acting as pancha at the request of Lokayuktha.

40. She further deposed about the presence of co-

pancha - P.W.1, complainant and other sub-staff of the

Lokayuktha. She deposed in the line with the

examination-in-chief of P.W.1 insofar as entrustment

mahazar is concerned.

41. She further deposed about waiting with other

members of the raid team for pre-designated signal from

P.W.1 and P.W.2 and soon such signal was given by P.W.2,

the raid party rushed to the chambers of the appellant.

She also deposed that colour test was conducted by asking

the appellant to wash his right hand fingers and left hand

fingers separately in separate bowls containing sodium

carbonate solution which turning into pink colour, seizure

of the same thereafter head of the raid party demanding

the tainted currency from accused.

42. She further deposed about the appellant

handing over tainted currency kept in his table to head of

the raid party which was in turn given to her for tallying

the serial numbers noting in the entrustment mahazar.

She verified the same, the serial numbers in the tainted

currency were tallying with the serial numbers noted in the

entrustment mahazar and thereafter tainted currency were

seized.

43. She also deposed about the collection of

attendance register extract, file where the application of

P.W.2 was pending, arrest of appellant and she signing the

trap mahazar after the same was read over. She identified

the articles seized by the head of the raid party during

entrustment mahazar and trap mahazar, tainted currency

notes, micro cassettes, sealed cover which were marked at

M.Os.1 to 13.

44. In her cross-examination she has answered

that by the time she went to the office of Lokayuktha

already complaint was lodged with Lokayuktha vide

Ex.P.14.

45. She has further answered that P.W.2 did not

furnish any other documents along with the complaint.

She has answered that she does not remember where the

tainted currency was kept on the table of the accused.

She admits that photographs of the appellant were taken

after holding the wrist of the accused when they went

inside the office of the accused. She admits that the

tainted currency was lying on the table and the same is

visible in photographs - Exs.P.8 to P.12. She admits

having signed the explanation given by the accused vide

Ex.P.5. She admits that accused had told that he had kept

the case file in the scooter box.

46. P.W.5 Sri D.S. Rajendra was the Inspector of

Lokayuktha and head of the raid party. He deposed about

receipt of complaint, registering criminal case, securing

pancha witnesses, explaining the contents of the complaint

to pancha witnesses after they were secured, drafting of

entrustment mahazar after demonstrating the chemical

reaction of phenolphthalein power with sodium carbonate

solution.

47. He also deposed that all of them left to the

office of the accused situated at queens road, at about

4.00 p.m. At about 4.15 p.m., himself and other members

of the raid party including the co-pancha received the pre-

designated signal from the complainant and they

immediately went into the inside of the office of accused

and after disclosing his identity, colourless solutions were

prepared in two separate bowls and hands of the accused

were asked to be dipped into the solution. When the

fingers were washed in the said solution, it turned into

pink colour and he collected in bottles and seized the

same. Later on, tainted currency handed over by the

complainant to the accused was demanded which was kept

on the table was taken out by him. On verification, it

tallied with the serial numbers mentioned in entrustment

mahazar. They were also seized. Thereafter version of

the complainant and shadow witness, mahazar details

were recorded in a mahazar. Accused was arrested and he

seized the file, wherein the application of the complainant

was kept and then which was taken out by the accused

from his scooter box and later on completed the

investigation and filed the charge sheet.

48. He admits that along with the complaint,

necessary document supporting the allegation of the

complainant that work was pending with the accused was

not enclosed. He denied other suggestions stating that

based on the false complaint lodged by the complaint,

accused has been trapped with ulterior motives.

49. The above evidence on record is sought to be

re-appreciated on behalf of the dependents of the

appellant.

50. In the light of the appeal grounds, this Court

bestowed its best attention to the material evidence on

record and re-appreciated the same.

51. Sri B.C. Seetharama Rao, learned counsel for

the appellant wanted to appreciate the fact that about

Rs.700/- to Rs.800/- was the necessary fee towards the

2% stamp duty on the value of the property purchased by

the complainant and the complainant has handed over

Rs.1000/- towards the said fee and not as a bribe.

52. In order to appreciate the said argument of the

counsel for the appellant, it is necessary for this Court to

cull out Section 7 and 13 (1) (d) of the P.O. Act which

reads as under:

"7. Public servant taking gratification other than legal remuneration in respect of an official act.--

Whoever, being, or expecting to be a public servant, accepts or obtains or agrees to accept or attempts to obtain from any person, for himself or for any other person, any gratification whatever, other than legal remuneration, as a motive or reward for doing or forbearing to do any official act or for showing or forbearing to show, in the exercise of his official functions, favour or disfavour to any person or for rendering or attempting to render any service or disservice to any person, with the Central Government or any State Government or Parliament or the Legislature of any State or with any local authority, corporation or Government company referred to in clause (c) of Section 2, or with any public servant, whether named or otherwise, shall be punishable with imprisonment which shall be not less than six months but which may extend to seven years and shall also be liable to fine. Explanations.--(a) "Expecting to be a public servant". If a person not expecting to be in office obtains a gratification by deceiving others into a belief that he is about to be in office, and that he will then serve them, he may be guilty of cheating, but he is not guilty of the offence defined in this section.

(b) "Gratification". The word "gratification" is not restricted to pecuniary gratifications or to gratifications estimable in money.

(c) "Legal remuneration". The words "legal remuneration" are not restricted to remuneration which a public servant can lawfully demand, but include all remuneration which he is permitted by the Government or the organisation, which he serves, to accept.

(d) "A motive or reward for doing". A person who receives a gratification as a motive or reward for doing what he does not intend or is not in a position to do, or has not done, comes within this expression.

(e) Where a public servant induces a person erroneously to believe that his influence with the Government has obtained a title for that person and thus induces that person to give the public servant, money or any other gratification as a reward for this service, the public servant has committed an offence under this section.

13. Criminal misconduct by a public servant. --

(1) A public servant is said to commit the offence of criminal misconduct, --

xxxx

(d) if he, --

(i) by corrupt or illegal means, obtains for himself or for any other person any valuable thing or pecuniary advantage; or

(ii) by abusing his position as a public servant, obtains for himself or for any other person any valuable thing or pecuniary advantage; or

(iii) while holding office as a public servant, obtains for any person any valuable thing or pecuniary advantage without any public interest; or"

53. On careful reading of the aforesaid provisions,

it is crystal clear that handling of the tainted currency by

the accused having been established by the prosecution,

accused is required to prove that he received tainted

currency towards the stamp duty. In that regard there is

no defence evidence.

54. Admittedly, no defence evidence has been

placed on record nor any explanation is offered by the

appellant while recording the accused statement. Except

denying the incriminatory circumstances, appellant did not

place on record necessary documents to show that he had

processed the file and there was a demand raised with

regard to 2% stamp duty to be collected by the appellant

as per the Government order/circular and intimated the

same to the complainant in writing.

55. In Ex.P.4, which is the photo copy of the file

where the application filed by the complainant is found

which was taken out from the scooter box contains a note

sheet. The note sheet contains that the property standing

in the name of Hafeeza and annual tax for the property is

Rs.900/-. File also contains the copy of the sale deed

which depicts that the complainant has purchased the

property from Hafeeza and thereafter applied for change of

khatha. The application filed by the complainant with copy

of the khatha in the name of Hafeeza are all part of such

file. Two National Savings Certificates in a sum of

Rs.200/- is also forthcoming in the said file.

56. If the arguments on behalf of the appellant is

to be accepted that 2% stamp duty to the tune of Rs.700/-

or Rs.800/- is what has been received by the appellant is

to be appreciated as per Ex.P.5, such a note should have

been made in the note sheet for processing further. No

such note is forthcoming in Ex.P.4.

57. Shadow witness and complainant have

specifically deposed about the handing over the tainted

currency to the accused. Therefore, prosecution is

successful in establishing the fact of demand and

acceptance of bribe.

58. Admittedly, shadow witness did not nurture

any previous enmity or animosity and is a total stranger to

the appellant. Why would he depose falsely is a question

that remains unanswered on behalf of the appellant.

59. Further, colour test having turned positive and

the same has been established by the prosecution,

handling of tainted currency has been proved by the

prosecution by placing cogent evidence on record.

Admittedly, the work of the complainant being pending as

on the date of trap, the learned Trial Judge was justified in

convicting the accused and sentencing him as referred to

supra.

60. Explanation offered by the appellant having

been no significance in the absence of placing at least

plausible evidence placed on record, this Court, even after

re-appreciation of the material evidence on record is

unable to accept that the impugned judgment is based on

surmises and conjunctures and thus to be termed as

perverse.

61. On the contrary the impugned judgment is

based on sound and logical reasons on cumulative

consideration of oral and documentary evidence placed on

record.

Accordingly, point Nos.1 and 2 are answered in

affirmative and negative respectively.

62. Regarding point No.3: learned Trial Judge

has sentenced the appellant to undergo six months

rigorous imprisonment for the offence punishable under

Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act and one year

rigorous imprisonment for the offence punishable under

Section 13 (1) (d) r/w Section 13 (2) of Prevention of

Corruption Act.

63. Needless to emphasise that since the appellant

is no more and his legal representatives are only pursuing

the matter, jail sentence would get extinguished on

account of death of appellant and fine amount if not

already paid needs to be paid by the legal representatives

of the appellant. As such, sentence needs no modification.

Hence, point No.3 is answered in Negative.

64. Regarding Point No.4: In view of the finding

of this Court on point Nos.1 to 3 as above, following order

is passed:

ORDER

(i) Appeal grounds are meritless. Consequently,

appeal is dismissed.

(ii) Time is granted till 28.02.2025 to pay the

fine amount, if not already paid, failing

which, the same shall be recovered as arrears

of land revenue.