STATE BY POLICE INSPECTOR v. SRI G. OM PRAKASH
Case at a glance
Outcome
Dismissed
Appeal is dismissed accordingly
Provisions considered
- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 ss. 313, 378(1)(3)
- Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 ss. 7, 13(1)(d), 13(2), 20
- Arms Act, 1959
Key paragraphs
- Para 77. Sri Venkatesh S. Arbatti, learned counsel appearing for the State submitted that ; (a) PW1 to PW9 have supported the case of the prosecution, clearly establishing factum of accused Nos.1 and 2 demanding and receiving the bribe amount of Rs.2,000/- from the complainant to…
Judgment
trap formalities. One Shri Narayana Bhat as a shadow witness and one Claudy D'Zousa, panch witness along with Janardhana entered the Office of the accused. Accused No. 2 demanded the bribe amount, which was paid to him by Janardhana. That accused No.2 kept the bribe amount in his shirt pocket, which was in the resting room of the Police Station. Accused No.2 asked - 5 - Janardhana to take the gun with him. As instructed upon Janardhana giving a signal, the Lokayukta police raiding team caught accused No.2 and his hands were washed in Sodium Carbonate solution, which turned pink. The trap was successful. The bribe amount was recovered. Thereafter, post-trap formalities were completed. The charge sheet was filed.
Since the accused persons pleaded not guilty and sought trial, the prosecution examined the complainant as PW1, the panch witness, namely, Claudy D'souza as PW2, the shadow witness, Narayana Bhat, as PW3, the ASI as PW4, the police constable as PW.5, Sheshappa Gowda as PW6, police constables belonging to Lokayuktha police station as PWs 7 and 8, Investigation Officer as PW9 and other official witnesses as PWs10 and 11 and produced 11 Material Objects as MO.1 to MO.11 and exhibited 35 documents as Ex.P1 to Ex.P.35.
Statement of the accused was recorded under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and exhibited 5 documents as Ex.D1 to Ex.D5.
The trial Court framed the following points for its consideration; - 6 - "(1) Whether the prosecution proves beyond doubt that the accused Nos.1 and 2 in order to do favor or official favor demanded complainant and his father to the tune of Rs.2000? illegal gratification (2) Whether the prosecution proves beyond doubt that accused No.2 at the instance of accused No.1 received illegal gratification? (3) What order?"
On appreciation of evidence, the trial Court answered point Nos. 1 and 2 in the negative and consequently acquitted the accused for the offences punishable as noted above. Being aggrieved, the State is before this Court in this appeal.
Sri Venkatesh S. Arbatti, learned counsel appearing for the State submitted that ; (a) PW1 to PW9 have supported the case of the prosecution, clearly establishing factum of accused Nos.1 and 2 demanding and receiving the bribe amount of Rs.2,000/- from the complainant to do the official favour. (b) There is clear evidence of accused No.2 taking the gun from the house of PW6 under the guise of examining it and making PW1 and PW6 to repeatedly approach the police station seeking release of it. There is also evidence of accused persons demanding the bribe amount of Rs.3,000/-. - 7 - (c) that there was no allegation or complaint against PW1 and PW6 of they possessing the firearm without valid license, or of they committing any offence under the Arms Act. (d) that accused No.2 has not explained the reason for he taking the gun from the lawful possession of PW6 which indicates the ulterior intention and motive of the accused in taking the gun illegally to extract bribe money from PW1 and PW6.
(e) that the trial Court erred in holding prosecution had not proved the pendency of any official work of PW1 with the accused at the time of filing of the complaint. (f) that the accused have not disputed the recovery of tainted notes from the shirt pocket of accused No.2. It is the case of the accused that the tainted notes were thrust upon accused No.2. No explanation is given with regard to possession of the money, as such presumption was required to be drawn under Section 20 of the PC Act. (g) The fact that, upon receipt of the bribe amount, the gun was returned to the complainant is neither disputed nor denied. The evidence of PW2 and PW3 has been - 8 - corroborated with the evidence of PW1 and PW6 and the facts and circumstances, read holistically, would establish the case of the prosecution beyond reasonable doubt. (h) that the money recovered from the shirt pocket of accused No.2 tallied with the notes mentioned in the entrustment Mahazar.
This has been corroborated by the evidence of PW4 and PW5 who were present at the time of the trap. There is no personal ill-will or grudge between the accused and the prosecution witnesses. (i) that the trial Court at paragraph No.20 of the impugned judgment has, though held that the evidence of PW1 and PW6 coupled with the documents available on record would show that there was demand by accused Nos.1 and 2, has however disbelieved evidence regarding the trap and seizure at paragraph Nos.21 to 31. This is contrary and conflicting to the very understanding of the trial Court. (j) that since even according to the trial Court demand stands proved, it ought to have drawn the presumption under Section 20 of the PC Act which encompasses all eventualities such as acceptance, obtainment, attempt to - 9 - accept, or attempt to obtain. Thus, Section 7 of the PC Act can be invoked even when an attempt being made is proved. He relies upon the following judgments in support of his submissions; (i) (ii) SONELAL TIWARI VS. STATE OF M.P. reported in (1998) 2 SCC 431 HAZARI LAL VS. STATE (DELHI ADMINISTRATION) reported in (1980) 2 SCC 390.
Questions this judgment answers
What did the Court decide in this case?
The Court recorded the following disposition: Appeal is dismissed accordingly
Which statutory provisions did this judgment involve?
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — ss. 313, 378(1)(3); Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 — ss. 7, 13(1)(d), 13(2), 20; Arms Act, 1959.
Precedent status how later indexed judgments have treated this case
No known negative treatment found in the Courts & Cases corpus.
This is a result about the indexed corpus, not a finding that the judgment remains good law. Coverage may be incomplete.