_ V Baga1,1§Ci,.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
CIRCUIT BENCH AT DHARWAD _
DATED THIS THE 23TH DAY or ~
BEFORE J " "V
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE
CRLIMINAL AI=PEA'L._I§:o. u
CmMINAL'.%II%PEA:jL x2003 H V
In Criminal Appeal No.IV83s"/C2003
Between;
State of KérrI1aiaka._ " .
Through thé"P01ir:C I"n_sps3c'tQ1*_,=
Lokayukia P01i'C.ef:». i':,~y':{h'c- smc reap;
for the State praying that this H0r1'bIéi«VCo--1__1rt n1a'y._be..pieé1$'edv to,
enhance the sentence passed.'_ by Bagalkg), in
SpI.C.No.20/O1 dt.17.7.20.0'3,_ ' eoiivicting t the"
respondent/ accused for the 0I"fenee.._P,'U/S.7-and "U/S5. 1.3 [1)[d)
r/W. Sec.13(2) of the Prevention----o€ "Coi*1u_,1ptioIi 'Ac:t,v"1988 and
sentencing him to unde1°go"~R.1..'I"or. p_C:r.io'c1 of six months and
to pay a fine of'<'1,000/-- 1.17.,'o£"--p_2{3r1%.1ents.Ioftirne to undergo S.1.
for one month for the offence 13/ U/S17.' "o.f_"the Prevention of
Corruption Act a1'a_<1"fui'the17sveiltencing hirn..jfo" undergo R1. for a
period of one yea1':;n5_d to._p2';y~i"inei ol'*?2,QQiO/-- LD. of payment
of fine to und.eI'go S,_1--;_ i'c31f'two_m__o11;ths for the offence P/U/S.
13(1)(d] r/WI Se.e';r13[2'}-- .();{.""--:PIfE:V{?1T1ttiOL1 'of Corruption Act, the
subst.anti\(e_Vsenteriees shgii conctnrently.
In Criminal-.Ap3Viéézi;_1\4T:6i.13O§'}'.2'Ob3
Between: V
oesuagaj Abdu1Vah.gth Shaikh.
V'A.gedv-Vaborgt 52 years, ' " **** " '
7, Gee; 'Revezme. inspector,
'Rel: abilistta-tion "C_ente1',
.
R/o.Eaiste1’I1′ ;:’\.”1_’_:=~.:§1,
Appa1*'<–.Lanjd; -.
tiouse N..o.1.:_785, Gulbarga. Appellant
* V. Patii. Advocate)
– «Anti H
” Stat,e of Ke1rI1z1t’.z11{a. Respondent
i
{By Srt. M.B.G1,1nc£awade, Advocate for Lokayukta}-*
This C1’1.Ais filed u/s. 374(2) e;f,;>.c. by”t.n”eia»difoea’t.e IbuI’u
the appellant/ s against the judg.me:1t d’t;’1.7fi.3?g.2GO_3″passed by
the S.J. Bagalkot in Spl.Case NO’..28/”2001,”–..(?().1’1ViCU1?I’g_ the
apellant/accused for the offence P/WU/S~,_ 7 aim, U./s.13{i-.){gd’)~_u
1’/w. Sec.13 (2) of P.C. Aet..»i’1.9__88 an.dV’sent-eevneging him to ;
undergo R}. for a period of six ‘monthsV__arid_ to pay””iine of ‘
31,000/~ LI). of payment of fine, to.._undergo”S,_1§ for one month
for the offence P/ U/ S. 7,.of P.C,—Act’:aIid_ furthierv–.se.ntenced to
undergo RE. for a pe1’iod’of’o1ie year an_d»to’vpay fine of i’2,O0O/W
ID. of payment of fine toU;ndei’go’;*»S=.I. “fa1′;two months for the
offence P/U”/S.13[1)[d) 1-/w.._ sec-j.1s'{2) P.C. Act t.he
substantive se11ten’ee__to Ivan”eoncL11’rentiy; «.
These afI’€’ mi; vforhearing this day, the
court made the fe.1’ioWing:
>gg;.};t§;I;G1~J1Is:NT
Theifearte vtvtvo against the order passed
in Sgpgeeial Case..V_VVN’o.2:8/2001 by the Sessions Judge.
the appeal filed before this Court by the
Lo}<aytt:kttia"_v»Pogliee for enhaneeinent. of punishment and
the flied by the accused is for setting aside the
K
2. The pr0secut.i0n submitted the
punishment awarded by the Sessions isA_fn40td’ii1_&
eonsonance with the gravity gof _OffeI’1*i:e’I
submitted to enhance the esame and~ t11es.vaceVi1sed:’; liiastfi
submitted that the prosectitiiotti’ itself
beyond reasonable suffers
and liable to be set aside,_ d if if 9
3- if have submitted by
elaailenging’ “S1;ecia1 Case No.28/2001
passed the Bagalkot, heard both the
partiesand pa.ssed this_ eeinmon order.
‘sis, Vvfacts”CAf,_the are as follows:
‘ The_V4e0tni5la_int has been lodged by PW. 10 who is the
br<5t.,11e19's s0;i'j_0.f' PW. 12, whose lands have been submerged
é1_11d under the special scheme he was eligible for
'fEhd5i'}:itatiOI1. Accordingly, he made an application to the
..__""Rehabi1it.atioI1 Celiter under the specific pr0vis1'0I1_s of the
K
said scheme, he could get similar extent of A}.21.n'd..'o-ffliis
choice. PW. 12 wanted to purchase certair1w_e'Xtent_:"of' lahtl vb
and the prospective seller xvhcfi «.Vrlece'1ifve:_.:
cor1siderat.ion directly from the officlieh 12 gn'avdé'–..
effort to get the compensatlorrgr the
accused who was 'vlhsbector in
Rehabilitation Center '£3,000/~ as
bribe to get from Alamatti
Office, in asked PW. 10 to make
effort tomget atnount from the accused
office. was made by PW.lO~
_ compllajhaont ar1do_l_Vst,at.efi(1 that he told the accused that he
~ for which the accused has made 21
~ as a bribe in order to release the
.compens'atiori amount towards the prospective seller of
"the land.
K
‘K
6
5. The land of PW.12–»Ran1appa was
U.K.P. Towards the same Government has sa.ur1c:tf_ienedt’ of
‘£50,000/- as compensation. ‘1’
Rehabiiitation Center at Bilagijn cOnnection,’with the’:
compensation, PW.10 had who
was the Revenue tkuehuabilitation
Center at Billagj. It accused has
demanded in order to send
the the Special Deputy
C0mn1is{si0n.er.”tAtan1at’ti_d’and. get sanctioned the amount
on compassionate’A:_jgr0u’nds*; When the complainant
requested t’h_e”aecused t,o._”redt1ce the amount, the accused
did not _c0nside1′”°ar1d tofd the compfainant that on
‘3″payrn.e’nt;,_A—Qt”$2,005’/”4″”0i11y the cheque will be issued. On
had approached the accused and gave
the ‘den1an’d.e_d’AV.::arnount of ‘1,000/ — and requested him to
issuethe {:h_e’jqLA1e. Accepting the same, the accused further
Vh”-«.__”demanded; remainirlg of £1,000/–» for which PW.1O
requested the accused that he would pay the.r.rje:1ja:’::.i::~g
amount on 18.12.1997. On the said
approached the Lokayuktha
recorded the complaint. whichis rn’-arked Aéi11d”=e
registered a case in Crime / offence
punishable under .t.’/’ of the
Prevention of Corr_1iptionV_Aet.VVah4d Thereafter,
entrustment EX.P.2. In the
presence of been collected from
the rflotes of ’50/- denomination
each] before’ the Lokayukata Inspector
appleiti “Phenop’i1th’a1ein powder to the said currency notes
to count and again it was given to the
co!n’p1ain’atfivt’.__ ‘mf’i’t[h a necessary iristructiori. When the
V .hands ofithe PW.4 were washed in sodium carbonate
it ‘:so1ui’tion,hthe said solution turned into pink colour. On the
“day, the trap party went to Bilagi and as per
“”.:i.nstr1,1ct:ions, the cromplairiant along with PW.i had
\
approached the accused and as it is stated by _1’_4d’;a;i’d’
1.0 that the accused demanded ‘L000/–
the same has been paid to the
been collected and counted and thereafter
to the trap party, they _intorV_ and
conducted the trap. was
recorded and and 8 also
have been conducted, the
prosecution as per EXP. 1. As
per the f, the trap team went to
Bilagi at 16:00: hou”r–s: at 17.20 hours near
Rehabilitation trap was conducted at 19.30
ho_urs -referred in EX.P.1 that after csondueting the
trap; ih’e_1’1ar1djs .o¥{;;.the accused were Washed in the sodium
(:arbona.t’e.s’o}Liti.on and it returned into expetrted (pink)
» _¢o1;o:.1:~. ‘ *-
<3
6. On the basis of the case made
prosecution. the case has been registered in”-speiciai eas.e_
No.28 / 2001 on the file of Sessioz’:g.sHdttidge;i_Biagatiiiotvt”The
prosecution has examined _witnesses of which “PW.’1<is
the shadow witness who stzppoited the PW.2
is the police constablewiio thehéotirt. PW.3
is the sanctioning authoritgtzpp accused as
per Ex.P.7. during the
entrustment the witnesses to the
recovery of '<C7!'VEtff1'C)_§'lI1t'. PWS 5 and 9 who were
presenting..pdu1~ir;"gtth'e,_'t:p-Jjoceedings. PW.6 is the police
_ constabtlewho br_ot1ght'FSL from Bangalore. PWS. '7 and 8.
Re11ab:1.itation=–._officers at Bllagi. PW.10 ls complainant.
Officer. PW. 12 is the land owner
_whose Iand'*has been submerged. The documents have
uh'"4t:beeris_.rnarked by the prosecution. which were marked as
to Ex.P.13 of which Ex.P.1 is trap panchanama.
is the entrusi.n1e{<. panchanama, Ex.P.6 is the
l(l
sealed cover containing FIR. Ex.P.7 is t.he sanctioning
order. EX.P.l0 is the Complaint. On the basi4s..Vv_ic1+f:'i~the
accused none have been examined as defense
and documents have been markedmas E};§l);'1–:'_t0l"'EX.VD3.
I53x.D.l is the statement made
police«PW.5. Ex.D.2 is marked portion» on
is the statement of PW. 12.
7. The learned counsel submitted
that on t.he=basf;s o:i'”f:.;the’~prosect1’ti’on evidence of PWs.l, 3
7, 8 10 ai1_d’1’_2′ 10 is the complainant, he
has deposedlin his’vehA1ei”e§tamination that the landowner
yottngei’ ‘i::ro’ther of his father, they are residing
in PW.l2 M his uncle owned two acres of
landand the was subinerged. The Government was
..h_lf_j:,.«decided ‘to__A’distribut:ir’1g Compensation of “£30,000/– to the
A }ji*ospec:ive seller. Since PW.l2 was aged he was looking
the Office work. §<e identified the accused present
before the Court and fnrtlier he submitted that in the
month of November, 1997 the accused has dE?II1&1.ifI'€llE:.?:(Zl_:.I1lfl€
said amount. He asked him to how n1uch_.A"an<1olL1vn't:l
would pay, in response he told that._l1e
'i,0O0/- for which the accused di"d.iVno_t "a;gfée,f;rl_
as a bribe of which of Rs, 1,OOl0.l/:l;~».g11notiat for" 7
the remaining amount. he v.treqi;1eslt'e,d for"'-some time.
Accordingly, he made the police at
Billagi on 18. 1 2. 7199.7.
8. Vi-t_ is in the chief examination
since he ditllnot agree~.Vtllo’..play the balance amount and he
.__th€”lllO}i8;y’LEl{tha police on l7.l2.l997 at
Lokayuktha Officer was not available
anti was taken to Bijapur lokayukatha police
lll7’*’.,..44_lst,ation dmring the said night. He further deposed that
carried FIR to the open Court and the amount
“9–oizlvliich was collected from the complainant of a
ll
approached the Lokayuktha and made a
is the Deputy Commissioner of Gulbarga _& it
chief examination satisfying
committed by the accused. _I~fIe has ‘givenT,s!ah:ction:
prosecution.
10. Pw.4 is the during the
entrustment mahaaar at tfirecovereol the
amount frorriitne examination, he
has ‘t.hei’.V_panch’a”Witnesses conducted the
trap, the}-eaEft_er the hands which turned into
expecteda coiourt’ V i’
.5 th-e«”head constable who was present
tjroceedings who also supported the
pr0s’ect1tion–cuase and the soiution collected after Washing
T-is s_eized__aIici. the aznount collectecl frorn__the_ .. . _
;a:~Lcu_séa is also seized. Pw.6 is the police constable, who
…_’1jjifot1ght the FSL report;Kfrom Bangalore wherein a
accordingly it was prepared and narrated _…t.he_'”v.%1qo’ie
proceedings at Billagi to trap the accused.H__ln.,vi’eW of t’n–e_
said evidence on behalf of the
counsel for the prosecution »submitted~that.vt–i1e:’cAasé3 hasfi
been made out beyond accused
was charged for the of1″en”c.es Sections 7,
13{l](d) r/w. 32% of the proper
punishment accused. Hence
he made punishment on the
accused: 1 . anheal and also further
submitted’ filed by the accused.
_ _ accused’; also filed an appeal in
by challenging the order passed by the
on the following grounds;
I51’irn’arily it is submitted by him that the accused
retired from his service and at this point of time if
punishment. is irnpdéed, it is only hardship to the
16
person and no where a servant, for the purpose_loi’V”i1e–.h’is
punishment. Consequently, he has submitted thjatlll’the;;e_ V’
is in built flaw in the prosecution case’. .. “l’_he’ prosecution
has not proved its case beyond reasonable 1
trap panchanama Ex.P.l the the
trap team went it lclornlpound of
Rehabilitation office the who in chief
examination parked the jeep one
km. away in chief examination
has depose_d.Aawarelof the proceedings went
in the of1A’iceTof The accused himself has
made ;a”Written’ s_tatern’ent as per Ex.P.12 that there were
members together in the office. while going
outl’s.i_dell’§ro:m office someone put these currency notes
V in his he did not notice and the accused has
alleged demand made by PW.10. PVV.-4 in his
..[«’_–(:h’.-ief “examination himself has deposed that he was not
aizlieire about how much amount paid to the accused and
i
aiso not aware about the powder which was..__’v_.sed’=.for
solution and he parked his vehicle one km a\3’vayvtironi’iti;e_ V’
office and he has also deposed
were washed and it did not turn to ‘pink co1o,i._tr.:. “IrI”o\xfe«\.fer;”wVs
he answered the question
parking the jeep one respect of
insistence in ttije.’–V’p1*osecution in
their evidence, ‘learned referred in the
evidence of he has deposed
that 100 feet away from the
office and »Was– about the main door of the
Reha];§i1ita.tion office’ and the evidence of PW.7 in respect of
itofjfjersons ail 1.00w15O members in front of the
‘co.rrobore1ted. The statement of the accused has
-vstated that”someone from gathering put the notes into
V ‘ :p.atrrt ocket.
K
13. PW.8 has deposed that on
information received from Special Deputy Clommflssiionerl
pertaining to the uncle of the”; coinpvlainaiitln*3gnd”V’Vori«
17.12.1997 the accused has fo’miardedp,’.–“.the 2
pertaining to the uncle of the an
endorsement. to his offi’c:e_I’:.In 1(‘)H,'”tlV’AiVe learned
counsel submitted said to have
been paid to was issued. It is
mentioned issuance of receipt which
itself shows not been established
that the With regard to the time
of preparing th’e.._V_en_tru:stment panchanama which varies
AW_fl’.O’Ii1, onev..witr.1ess to another witness. Under these
ci’ri=cum’st,anIee_s’,~1..the learned counsel submitted to allow
-this and set aside the order.
it it ‘*-..i4.”‘Ii1 support of his submission relied upon the
reported in 2004 {2} KCCR 1233 in the case of
‘K.
19
Rcyendran Vs. State by Police Inspector
made in para 9 of the judgment that in
corroboration for the evidence of panch_ Witr__icS’ses”‘ no
reiiance could be placed on the’–Astatemerfidpdof
complainant and conviction cafiiinotpbe 10~
complainant in his llavsstated that
the officers havepiack vital facts.
This :h}:r:’V.t”r1eVVV’:iAearned counsel in
respect of aiglother official witnesses
did notl wexamination, PW.4 has
deposed ,1″io-tpdaddvvare about the proceedings
‘V went_i;ntoa.t11eVot’fi.ce of the Lokayuktha. He further deposed
went in a jeep. which was parked 10
kin_.””.away\’_~f1fo:ij’tile office, but controversy evidence of
V and other official witnesses have deposed
the was parked 100 ft. away which is contrary to
10, that the jeep was parked by the side of the
“-«iicdorhpourtd oi’ the office. aspect the proceedings in the
18. On the basis of the submissions
the parties, the points that arise for my consid’e.1jatioe11i’are:
1. Whether the prosecutionfiliast’ proved of
trap on the accused heyond’.aiI’reason’2i.’oie ‘doiiIot?h pp
2. Whether the Session’s’Vi’e»tT..3:’ou_rt all
the aspects of _ —
My answer would theprosecution for
the followingrfl
I have the L.C.R. and the records
placed before me”andaisoippiithrough the depositions of the
partiee. ” is a ‘shadow witness Whose evidence
cor”roborates_Wi_th the case of prosecution. His evidence is
important for the prosecution. In View
V of faet.'”t11at he deposed that while accused was
44″‘deriiandih’g the bribe from P.W.}.O, he was standing and
both the parties and on the basis of the demand
by the accused, %s/.10 has taken out thousand
‘-.
“)7
rupees from the front pocket of the shirt and
to the accused. The same was counted ftfhe’ V’
pocket of his pant. This
important in View of the factcthat th-efcase
the accused had demanded anfdeiaccepted.thefbrfhe,d2vhich
is corroborated by further
deposes that on 18/ 12 they ieft the
office of r1§’;o”.V’f:c1’oc:1:<Vv":'arrd'::reached Bilagi at
5.20 p.n:1. fvehicle close to the
Rehabilitatiofn the P.W.10 informed
that the accursedv office and thereafter both
_v P.W."1 ;jar1d. 1OVWe.nVt to the office and he stood Very close to
.ffric.ticed the demand made by accused. This
proves the case of prosecution. After
the ei'1t1"yVAoI°"tcr::1p team the accused was insisted to co-
ff "'V.e;f3e1'~cate to clear} his hand and thereafter the hands were
-[washed in the soiution and the same turned into pink
“u_c:oic)t.1r. The same were marked as per 1\/1.0. No.5, 5(a), 6
K
and 6(a). On demand of the accused, he has
amount of Rs.1,000/~ in the right pocket
before them. All the notes, which :weVrfe’i’evcove1’efdffrornfthne.
accused were counted a11,d_ tialflied-._ with,.”;_t’he°
panchanama. Though P.W.1 hVas::(.iepose’dthat not
aware about what iI,oka$}uRt.a, but it
is not very material to ‘of:v:fpr’osecution. In
the cross–exan1ina:tii:on about the
bribe by the accused and
thereafter in solution, which
converted ir;t.o pink””co1,.oi3–rf’and also panchanama as per
Ex. d1’aw_n the Office itself in the presence of
:.i’§:e’«–has further deposed that Ex.P–2 was not
office of Lokayukta. The discrepancy
— eVide.rice”—Vof ‘P”:W.1 is that he does not remember in which
“qrQOfi’i-.4_thE3H’Et(:C1,1S€d was sitting in the office. There is some
..finfconsfistency with regard to the time also, but that itself
not sufficient to sa{:<t.hat the evidence of P.W.1 is
r–.3
'.JI
papers he has satisfied himself and
Lokayukta to prosecute the accused.
Disciplinary Authority of the
the Court that he is satisfied the_aC:as'e"of':i'theKp
prosecution which aiso suppor"'ts:.V'the mPV.W.4
is a pancha for recovery"i~ancT_VAheeserituthroughout
the proceediiigsiy an Assistant
Executive ':11 he has
narrated Went on in the
office Recovery Office and he
has supported He has deposed that
V the tearri to Bilagi by jeep and it was parked
Though the said evidence goes
of P.W.1, 10 and ii, but it is not
very useful to disbelieve the case of prosecutioii. He has
it deposed that the accused was trapped and also he
-ffwa’s aflwitness to Ex.P–2 the panehanama. In his cross
“gexa.r11inatio11 also he fortifies the case of prosecution
*{
T his evidence goes to show that accused was xt.rapp’ed:;~byx
the team of P.W.l 1. which supports proseetitioh % {Io _« V’
erossexamination P.W.7 has
18/ 12/ 1997′ when he was working if: offieel.
150 persons were standing ‘of. and
accused was working trap team has
taken the accusedinsideHth’§::..o1;iiee: he learnt that
they are the P.W.8, who is
also an of Rehabilitation, has
also was also trapped on
18/ 12/ 1 99?
_1;8.” PW; l’E).,_V_VVwhoV’ is the Complainant has deposed
1viO«..and 12 were living in the joint family and
tlii’e.’l2i.£_}d PW. I2, which was submerged and he
V was e’z1titl:ed”‘.Vfor the Rehabilitation Scheme for which
was granted as a compensation and in order
advislblurse the said amou;<1t the accused had demanded a
K
sum of Rs.5.000/– and in the month of
has paid Rs.l,0OO/~ to accused and
time to pay the remaining 'cH1'1OUT1'E:.l¢':l11C!_l lbeflorei
to the Lokayukta Office a.r1d m_ade elompla:intt..l..
the sealed cover containing sentlto the
Court and he has has also
deposed in his — was
given to the smeared vsdth
powder kept in his shirt
and accused inside the office.
Thereafter has”wgii/’er;sthemsigrial as per the instruction of
Lokayiiktha police: V Everi in the cross–e:x:amir1atioI1 at para
ll\l.o;7?’_.lll1e _has.ide.r1ied the suggestions made by accused that
he, has a””ialse complaint in order to knock out
.Rs.6G;OOvQ/évbayable to the prospective seller. At para
his evidence he has deposed that the jeep in which
been to Bilagi was parked near Badagandi road,
K
the said distance is at a place of less than a..,_i{:i1o1net1*e
from the Rehabilitation Office 0i”Bi1agi.
19.P.W.iI is aiso an
narrated before the Court inthe crosséexamination a.bout*a
the trap conducted where the accused taken into
custody. P.W.}2, who the Scheme in
his crossmexarnination he had not
executed any of tto’5P;’w”JfiO and further he
was date””1:ne application was filed
in the ” informed P.W.1O to get the
cheque for the cornperzsatibon amount and P.W. 10 in turn
“has he awarded Rs.60,000/– and hence
.to_.the office. In his crosswexamination he
has’f_urt11er– that P.W.1O has informed him about
the bl’ib€ ff3€I1″1E11’1d(~3d by accused. Later he has informed
about the demand made by accused. In turn he
directed P.W.1O Chandrashekar to file a complaint.
‘<
hours he responded that accused was present in__'the'chair
and then P.W.1 and 4 went to the spot and K V'
P.W.10 came outside and made ._to_ _:t-éahm';
then trap team went inside _the4"offi<:e andlrtliey
introduced themselves to the'v"i'a:ccIJ'sedV" also
disclosed that he is and on
deputation h_e is iyorking 10 was asked
about what in response he
has stated 1,000/–on demand
and the" counted from both the
hands anddiept in side pocket of pant. One
V Biradar"was as'l{.eVd to tgnrepare the solution and thereafter
in 1ooth_.Vthe."'llianid's_of accused were washed and the liquid has
tt:rn'e_d« colour and the same was stored in the
V bottle" an'd.r1'3a1'ked as MO. No.1, 5 and 5(a). It is further
it EXP-1 that accused had taken Rs. 1,000/– from
tjocket, of his pant and the same was counted and all
notes were tallied with the entrustment and the same
K
Judge, Bijapur on 18/12/1997 and F3x.P~»4 is
of P.W.2. Ex.P–4 is the report made to the _& it
about handing over of the c11r1'enc;§} notes.'
the Acknowledgment to that'e_ffectlli–sllas peril-";E33§§v§'P?8
the Special Court about receiifin:g'of F the
statement made by P.W;?.. of the
accused preparedpby as Ex.Pw12,
wherein it is himself has
collected the. VVhen the hands of
accusedivglwereiriit did not turn into pink
colour. TheplFi.SiL;o. rnarked as per Ex. P-13, item
V Nos.5,.;6 and '?.,disclose that one sealed quarter bottle
1'7,Clfi}1'E£tlIiSF'tlflCl:4SQluti0I1 in which the right hand of A.G.O.
was 'Item No. 6 contains the solution in which
V the left was washed. In the opinion it has been
"refcrmd as "presence of ions of phenoiphthalate were
-.jdelt’ected by Spectral and T.L.C. Prodiles in solution in
“particle No. 1, 5, 6: powder in article No.2 currency in
K
3:}:
article No. 7 and pant in article No.8.” This
goes to show that when the accused handsp’tmere.A_:vuashed
in solution, the sa.me turned into };)ink_Ac'(,-«-Eo’=,,1r’1an_c_1’itwproyes
that the accused has committred the”o_ft”ence of7r.2orrupt;ion_ up
21. In the light of ail theuivdfriaterials ‘placed hgefore the
Sessions Court. the held that the
prosecution has proved..b.e.yond. ali doubt that
the accused the bribe from
P.W.10,vvi’Vv’hich’:i:is &vnfo’thi’nhg”‘-hut”‘a11′”:offence. The materials
are produced on accused as per E.x.D–1 to 3.
The statement made police as per Ex.P~5 and EX.D-
V’ .:poirtionx’on'”EX.P– 10 and Ex.D«~3 statement of
“way heipfui to the accused which fail to
disprove the” of the prosecution. The complaint was
T33-‘«.___Vmade before the police and the F.I.R. was forwarded to the
pv.(“?Vdt)u.rtf.on the very same day without loss of any time and
and 4 were summoned to the office on the same day
and entrust par1ehar1arna was prepared and immediately
trap teantt went to the spot and after ConduetingvViheiiitaid
the currency notes which were collected from-the’
were talhed with the entrust panehanarn-at”a’s::per”VE_XiP=~2″V’
and the Certificate issued by the
authority after satisfying theveiase rr’rade.onit_agai~ns’t thee’
accused and the evidence of 8 to’the effect that
the raid was made against-‘the the said date
and time and thg;fp.resenee PH’\rV:;~1V\1 his team on the
said date theyVgo=bey_oan..d reasonable doubt and proves
the case ofprose<:1.i'tion."'—._After examining the materials
V and e'fy'i(ier1ee orrpvbehaiif of the prosecution I have gone
thr'ei,iig11jtIdgment of the Sessions Court and examined
itar1'd__I f(Jiind'~no infirrnities or scope to interfere in this
V –()rder:" Aeeordingiy, I am satisfied with the reasons
'}ass'ign4ed therein and also the evidence of prosecution No
-.i.ap’ses’AAhave been committed by the lower Court. The
taken by the prosecution in the appeal is for
<
enhancement, of the sentence. I find it is not worth.'éit'» this
stage since the accused has already retired i'ron1._ser'vice ii.)
enhance the punishrnent. Accordingly, the.Ve;:o1:.1:ea1A_i.filed V'
prosecution for enhancement. of pu11.is'hnLient".is_"elsc
dismissed. Since I answer the abovAe"'points5Tin "feivoLa1'<ol'*g
prosecution, the appeal of accused for'Vs_et'ting inside the
order does not arise.
Accordingly, appeals -are
sd/2..
J UD-GE