NITYANAND v. NAIK
Case Details
- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:22519 CRL.A No. 848 of 2012 HC-KAR IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 26TH DAY OF JUNE, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE M G UMA CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 848 OF 2012 BETWEEN: 1. H. JAGANNATHA SHETTY S/O H. SANJIVA SHETTY AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS DISTRICT MANAGER KARNATAKA BACKWARD COMMUNITIES AND MINORITIES DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LTD., UDUPI. 2. KUM. REVATHI D/O PANDU MENDON AGED ABOUT 24 YEARS PRIVATE EMPLOYEE R/O PADUKERI, MALPE TQ UDUPI. Digitally signed by SWAPNA V Location: High Court of Karnataka (BY SRI: HASMATH PASHA, SR. ADVOCATE, FOR SRI: PRAKASH M PATIL, ADVOCATE (A1) A/W SRI: NITYANAND V. NAIK, ADVOCATE (A2)) …APPELLANTS AND: THE STATE BY POLICE INSPECTOR KARNATAKA LOKAYUKTHA UDUPI.
Legal Reasoning
(BY SRI: B.S. PRASAD, ADVOCATE) …RESPONDENT THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 374(2) CR.P.C PRAYING TO SET-ASIDE CONVICTION AND SENTENCE DATED 31.07.2012 PASSED BY THE SESSIONS/SPECIAL JUDGE, UDUPI IN S.C.NO.18/2009 - CONVICTING THE APPELLANTS/ACCUSED FOR THE OFFENCE PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTIONS 7,8 AND 13(1)(D) READ - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:22519 CRL.A No. 848 of 2012 HC-KAR TO SENTENCED WITH 13(2) OF THE PREVENTION OF CORRUPTION ACT; THE APPELLANT/ACCUSED NO.1 SUFFER IS IMPRISONMENT FOR A PERIOD OF ONE AND HALF YEARS AND PAY A FINE OF RS.5,000/- AND IN DEFAULT TO PAY FINE, HE SHALL UNDERGO FURTHER IMPRISONMENT FOR A PERIOD OF 2 MONTHS FOR THE OFFENCE PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTIONS 7 AND 13(1)(D) READ WITH 13(2) OF THE PREVENTION OF CORRUPTION ACT, 1988; THE APPELLANT/ACCUSED NO.2 IS SENTENCED TO UNDERGO IMPRISONMENT FOR A PERIOD OF 6 MONTHS AND PAY A FINE OF RS.2,000/- AND IN DEFAULT TO PAY FINE, HE SHALL UNDERGO FURTHER IMPRISONMENT FOR A PERIOD OF 1 MONTH FOR THE OFFENCE PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTION 8 OF THE PREVENTION OF CORRUPTION ACT, 1988; THE APPELLANTS/ACCUSED PRAYS THAT THEY BE ACQUITTED. THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL, COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE M G UMA ORAL JUDGMENT Accused Nos.1 and 2 in Special Case No.18 of 2009 on the file of the learned Sessions/Special Judge, Udupi District at Udupi, are impugning the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 31.07.2012 convicting and sentencing accused No.1 to undergo imprisonment for a period of 1½ years and to pay fine of Rs.5,000/- for the offence punishable under Sections 7, 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of PC Act, and convicting and sentencing accused No.2 to undergo imprisonment for a period of six months for the offence punishable under Section 8 of PC Act, with default sentences. - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:22519 CRL.A No. 848 of 2012 HC-KAR 2. Brief facts of the case as made out by the prosecution is that, accused No.1 is the public servant working as District Manager in Karnataka Backward Communities and Minorities Development Corporation Ltd., Udupi District. The complainant had applied loan of Rs.86,000/- under Ganga Kalyana Scheme. To sanction the loan applied by the complainant, the accused demanded illegal gratification of Rs.4,000/-. It is also the contention of the prosecution that accused No.2 is the private employee in the said Department working under accused No.1 and she accepted Rs.1,000/- on 04.04.2008 from the complainant as motive or reward herself and also for accused No.1. Thereby, accused No.1 has committed the offences punishable under Sections 7, 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of PC Act, and accused No.2 committed the offence punishable under Section 8 of PC Act. The Investigating Officer filed the charge sheet, after completing the investigation. 3. The Trial Court took cognizance of the offences and summoned the accused. The accused appeared before the Trial Court, pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. The prosecution examined PWs.1 to 10, got marked Exs.P1 to P28 - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:22519 CRL.A No. 848 of 2012 HC-KAR and identified Mos.1 to 10 in support of its contention. The accused denied all the incriminating materials available on record in their statement recorded under Section 313 of Cr.P.C., but have not led any evidence in support of their defence. The portion of the statement of PW1 was marked during cross examination as Ex.D1. The Trial Court after taking into consideration all these materials on record, convicted and sentenced accused No.1 and 2 as stated above. Being aggrieved by the same, the accused are before this Court. 4. Heard Sri Hasmath Pasha, learned senior advocate for Sri Prakash M Patil and Sri Nityanand V Naik, learned counsel for the appellants and Sri B S Prasad, learned counsel for the respondent. Perused the materials including the Trial Court records. 5. In view of the rival contentions urged by learned counsel for both the parties, the point that would arise for my consideration is: "Whether the appellants have made out any grounds to interfere with the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed by the Trial Court and to acquit them for the charges leveled against them?" - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC:22519 CRL.A No. 848 of 2012 HC-KAR My answer to the above point is in the 'Affirmative' for the following: REASONS 6. It is the specific contention of the prosecution that accused No.1 was the District Manager in Karnataka Backward Communities and Minorities Development Corporation Ltd., Udupi. The complainant had applied loan of Rs.86,000/- under Ganga Kalyana Scheme and for sanction of said loan, he demanded bribe of Rs.4,000/-. 7. My attention was drawn by the learned senior advocate to Ex.P6, which is produced and relied on by the prosecution as part of the records which was seized from the office of the accused, where there is endorsement made by accused No.1 on 12.02.2008 to the effect that since the complainant had already obtained loans under Shrama Shakti Scheme, as per Rule, she is not entitled for two different loans at a time and therefore, the application was rejected. Even according to the prosecution, the case papers as per Ex.P6 was seized from the office of accused No.1 immediately after the incident while trapping the accused. - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC:22519 CRL.A No. 848 of 2012 HC-KAR 8. Ex.P8 is the explanation given by accused No.1 immediately after his trap where he has taken a defence that even though the complainant had applied for loan under Ganga Kalyana Scheme, it was found that she had already obtained loan in a different scheme and since she is a defaulter, she is not entitled for two loans at a time. Hence, the application was rejected. As per the endorsement found in the case file, the explanation given by accused No.1 as per Ex.P8 at the earliest point of time corroborates with the endorsement produced by the prosecution itself. When the document produced by the prosecution itself discloses that the loan applied by the complainant was already rejected by accused No.1, it cannot be said that any official work of the complainant was pending with accused No.1. 9. Learned Special Prosecutor for the respondent tried to contend that even though such endorsement is found in Ex.P6 that might not have been communicated to the complainant, but unfortunately that is not the contention taken by the prosecution before the Trial Court. Even according to the case made out by the prosecution, PW1 - the complainant tendered tainted amount of Rs.1,000/- to accused No.2 and not - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC:22519 CRL.A No. 848 of 2012 HC-KAR to accused No.1. It is the contention of the prosecution that accused No.2 is not a regular employee of the Department, but she is a private employee (contract employee) who received Rs.1,000/- for and on behalf of accused No.1. 10. Accused No.2 gave her explanation as per Ex.P9 to the Investigating officer immediately after the trap stating that the complainant came and offered Rs.1,000/- towards installment of the loan obtained by one Wilson Prasanna and accordingly, she accepted Rs.1,000/- and gave receipt in the name of Wilson Prasanna. Even the receipt book is seized by the Investigating Office at the time of drawing trap panchanama and it is as per Ex.P7. Ex.7(b) is the relevant receipt dated 04.04.2008 which fully corroborates the explanation given by accused No.2 at the earliest point of time, as per Ex.P9. 11. When the prosecution itself is relying on Exs.P6 and P7, which corroborate the defence taken by accused Nos.1 and 2, I do not find any substance in the contention taken by either against accused No.1 or against accused No.2 for any of the offences under special enactment. No amount of oral evidence led by the prosecution will cure the inconsistency in their - 8 - NC: 2025:KHC:22519 CRL.A No. 848 of 2012 HC-KAR contention. Exs.P6 and P7 cut their case at the root. Therefore, I am of the opinion that the explanation offered by both accused Nos.1 and 2 are more probable and it has to be accepted. Under such circumstances, I hold that the prosecution has miserably failed to prove the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt and therefore, the accused are entitled for acquittal. 12. I have gone through the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed by the Trial Court. The Trial Court proceeded to convict both the accused without application of mind, solely on the basis of oral evidence given by the witnesses, ignoring the material documents i.e., Exs.P6, P8 and P9. Under such circumstances, I am of the opinion that the appeal preferred by accused Nos.1 and 2 deserves to be allowed. Accordingly, I answer the above point in the affirmative and proceed to pass the following: (i) The Criminal Appeal is allowed.
Decision
ORDER (ii) The judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 31.07.2012 passed in SC No.18 of 2009 on the file of - 9 - NC: 2025:KHC:22519 CRL.A No. 848 of 2012 HC-KAR learned Sessions/Special Judge, Udupi District, Udupi, is hereby set aside. (iii) Consequently, accused No.1 is acquitted for the offences punishable under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of PC Act and accused No.2 is acquitted for the offence punishable under Section 8 of PC Act. (iv) Bail bond of the accused and that of their sureties shall stand cancelled. Fine amount, if any, deposited by accused Nos.1 and 2 is ordered to be refunded to them after appeal period is over, on due identification. Registry to send back the Trial Court records along with copy of this judgment for information and for needful action. Sd/- (M G UMA) JUDGE *bgn/- CT:VS List No.: 1 Sl No.: 8