I c7r1.A.NQ,3éj1-..2_é;;>;:.
IN ms: HIGH CGURT OF KARNATAKA CIRCUIT B.ENC.E_i 'A;T_"
DHARWAD ~
DATED THIS THE; €)8'?Pi my' 0? £}ECEMBE;'R---f2'Q,i ®: _ " 2
BEFORE % %jTy," .%xn"__
THE H€)N'BLE MRJUSTICE K.GO.V1N_DARA.5JUL:L? " "
CRIMINAL APPEAL'my-;..3s:A'2Qo5%VVT' j
BETWEEN:
State of Karnataka, «
Reptd. By Lokayuktha Poiice,' '
Beigaum.
...AppeHan'c
{By Sri M.B,<3unda:xzé;a§é;%\S%1§:?} i
AND: %%%% M
Sri Shivaji Kachu; Agasg.-g4e;<at%,%T.%_~% '
Vi1IageAccouhtah:, ' 'V
Mannur and i/CLX{i1}age._ A
Accountar:;i,*K_od01i,V-. _ " "
_____
. V' V' ..,ReSPOnde:1t
{B}! V35-...§'i»'Iei<ki, Adv)
ClrfL'rr;i:;i3s$T Appeal £3 filed under Sectisn 3?'8{1} 85 {3}
_ ~Cr.PgC. praying :0 grant heave to file an appeai against the
"jL3:ig:iirE::}t dateé }6.08.:200é¥-- passed by thé Sp}. {P11 S€SSiCrt1S}
. {_;E2,:;cE§;€:?V B"e:"~3gauVm} in 'Splg Case No.10{?g/E99? acquitting the
~ f is$;::_o:':a§i€:2*:is~s.<:cused fer the effenee gunishabfié under
' -EI';$_<i*:iG::§ *2: 1Z7%{1}{d) rfxzs" Se<:,13{2') af the P.C,;§x::t.
f\)
Cr:.A.No.3s:";:o0s.
This Criminal Appeal coming on for hearir1_§2; 't1'1'i$;V:-fiezjgé
the Court delivered the fefiowing:
JUDGMENT
The State is in appeal Challenging:the*.ecqL1it§e;i’
by sp1. Judge? Belgaum, in em. 16¢/.19~§?=.
2. The accused was Aeeefietant in
Manna? village and Wes also. While
so, on a sum of
?3,00{)/»~ from Anandaehe for
certification to land RSQNO. 80/ 2
ef Kaéioii Vflia ge_ in the name ef father—
in~Ia.w of “k*.:;”I’Z€..<.'e'O1'1'1p"1i§".'_L1"V1'V1V3L1"1'£.v. So the accused is charged for
ofi'"e_n§:fe«.§§:ni§;i}£«at§1e..e%under Section 7, 13(1)(d.) r/w 13(2) of
Preve:*i¥ii{3:?1_ Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred te as
'.;~A¢:,e E988 )"'; '
of 'she State through LC}.-P.W.?' is that
.._'_A.e,i,5:.q{};;::ej;A:;s1'c;i}iij1–»éz:;;:At jnae appeared and fiiefi a written eemplaiziii, he
e»g,,»»«~'
3 cfr2.A.Ng,3 2;: 2:305.
registered 2: ease in Crime No.5/1997′, id€flfZ.ifi€§S’-T?T.h’€
eemplaint as Ex.P.15 and FIR as E1:>«:.P.19. T’herea;{7ter,.
case ef the 1.0 that he secured peglrteehae-‘,4 :je’ee:£\*e{:iv«.it§he~..
intended bribe money of Rs.3,OOO/1?, »the
money in the presence of complainant atid.__p’a1j1ChVeéitrteeses ‘V
while preparing entrustmeht..tnah&az’att:_e.eVVpter P.–.1.E§It is the
further case ef the LO. he héie’t1er:;ett;ect:’&:th’e.:jhhenophthatene
reaction to Sodi1;.rrzL ‘”$;V,r’1v:i1e recording
entrustment ieltates that he directed
cemplainantve,t3–.r:i:eet his work, pay bribe
money only en At the same time, he
has also as1<te'cZ_'_' thex" to accompany the
eQtnp1aina:htv, t'wateh"the h.:1ppeni1:1gs in between them and
then"re&pert'. i ' "" "
It th_e~tt,}j’:*the:* ease of the 1.0. that after receiving
he ettteifeet the effiee ef the AGO and found tainted
the accused and thereafter he seized it while
trap mehezar as p82″ E2<;P.2. He States he received
3%/vw,W,,,,
reply ef accused as per I-33X.P.3.
information regarding {fling of’ -eharge.v_ ‘ehee§.;” jer;mp1eteCi_ >
investigation and filed ehe.rgesheet.:’=. :’ .
S. The first Challenge is that the
complainant has n0f:’egppefte’e1:’§He prosecution’
It is rebutted v’.§’}::§…;é’?id€f}C€ Act’ it i8
the quality o_f..t.he’ and not quantum of
evidence. tfieéage, there is admission of
shadow witr1eS;<§".seeir1Vg taking of bribe money. So
there A"'r'1:1.a_tervia1 1:0 prove the demand and
aee'e.p'te.n'ee e;:§(:iei1:.}?j:<_.P.3 also there is admissien.
this Court in D.Rajem:Zran 2235 State by
fnsgeeC%ci>’r,.v’B.O.f. [.’2004{2) KCCR I233) 13 to believe the
éjeegee:L:e§:.Veef;1plainant, versien ef shadow wimees is necessary.
. wards, corroboration is necessary. The Ceurt has
1 L : _” I(7″‘i;>§.Ef§i’1<'3I' held that:
So he §:e1~3ee:ed i3;’zr__i:her.A
iéeséi/’
5 Cr§.A.NC,e.38 E .2005.
“The Very purpose of examining the shadQw_:”««.’_ ‘~
witness is to rule Gut: pessibiiity of c0n’1p1af~;’i9ia:r3Ii”—..:_”‘
accomplishing their revenge against the__ p~1;bEiT§:*
servant: for not obliging <:e:*1:ai:'1"dV:-:€r'1'::.:::,;*1;?iS .;f
public. Therefore unless the”*evide’:9i_b<:\:'a:eV_
with each other it is not é;afe to zioriviét the
accused pe:'s0ns." ' V
In the facts of the case}. ..i:}:_1'is (:.Q::ro'%5e.r::i"ti.o1*i is lacking as
Compiainarlt has 41117;: sgiippefteii Vthe._e'as'e uc5f"'t'he 1.0. Evidence
of complainant egzaizaizyed as. E 5'.–Vv–' better appreciation is
extracted. r63~ds}V
23%?
‘~°§E3J$~’3§.>§fi3 ea
i/V ».’3’ 8.; ’73
Nczesaig ,u>n:;«.._a;~:; was §:»’e§%§§ 303 waeazcfsoeh e:.j§: …… .,.;> ‘.1 ~ *
N39 6:235 123%» :.z;xéo::c:i’s wzeeiemac :59 §»?i«T.:§:€©$C$:,
3 (“A G U;
:::L aeésefifsjxs :5 asyqs :z3:§3::f;$:*’\,x°”;a*,§:. ~.;.«E.> 2: 25
‘«%
” 2.mé%9?
*”%}\\ THE ‘ ‘A ‘3’:”e=\ “.-3′?-«ax \ ~23» ‘3’°¥\ zvfigx (=m::–,–3 =*«
Ci.» .wf;€i}{,3 51»; was ~:.».§C%~’ ‘~» *«:~».;: ~’.m»:;3a§s:.é.J3.3h
6 Cri.A.N0.38V1”.2{}O5.
, s 3 s , ..2 ‘ ‘ ‘ GNW.
aw. :§3/j”‘:;,””‘sGé'”3*~ w©?$3~T’£”*s¢v’$§¥Egfi
zsdsfimss
ex «-je—e 99 .43 «ewe
<a.;§J E :\.& «xsco “52<,s. :45»: 3.2:-.53, 7-Tao. =}"§C3{.\
Learned SPP's next contenti<i'::.:is. that 'th:ere .is t:::1V<V;V1s:1cy
among witnesses to change "their rriii1t1{'§1f:'ér.'trapsbutv it is not
a ground to over some the ratio, A L
7. 80 Court €€}«_*:11p1.airj..at:t”hV§i§?ihg not supported
the cor1c1usiQ_:f1_V rt3§fc:1’11¥::;i tfiial Judge of proof of
demand, E:1C{:1ff€fp’E_’E3..*.16€j§7′.£S«v.fiE1pf’QV:5’€.f_’approach. It is not justified.
8. In i:h_e_ Iigh5:~Vof the Q.-}:,><V3'x2s§ Court holds that subject sf
'?Qr1fi§tn€'ss"'"'urV otherwise of sanction will net
i}TI1F}i"QVV*cV ihe 55 the pmsecution. So, Appeal is dismissed
Mwvfi
Q E
aw: