SHRI. NATARAJ PARASANNANAVAR v. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA

appearing for appellant/accused, Sri. Shankar P.Hegde and Learned Special Panel Counsel, Sri. B.S. Prasad, appearing on behalf of the respondent.

I have perused the impugned judgment of the trial Court and other materials placed on record.

It is well settled that, to bring home the guilt of the accused under the provisions of the Section 7, 13(1)(d) of the Act, particularly with regard to the trap cases, the prosecution is under obligation to establish the existence of demand as well as acceptance of bribe by the public servant. To that effect, the Hon’ble Apex Court in B.Jayaraj vs. State of Andhra Pradesh reported in (2014) 13 SCC 55, it is held as under: ” 8.xxxxx The only other material available is the recovery of the tainted currency notes from the possession of the accused. In fact such possession is admitted by the accused himself. Mere possession and recovery of the currency notes from the accused without proof of demand will not bring home the offence under Section 7. The above also will be conclusive insofar as the offence under Sections 13(1)(d)(i) and (ii) is concerned as in the absence of any proof of demand for illegal gratification, the use of corrupt or illegal means or abuse of position as a public servant to obtain any - 7 - NC: 2024:KHC:33976 CRL.A No. 473 of 2011 valuable thing or pecuniary advantage cannot be held to be established.”

Now we have to ascertain whether prosecution is able to establish the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt. To ascertain the same, we have to read both oral and documentary evidence lead by the prosecution.

Insofar as pre-trap panchanama is concerned, the defence is not disputing the same. The only defence of the accused is that the prosecution has not proved the demand and acceptance, which are the main ingredients of the offence alleged against the accused. He submits that, when charges were framed by the trial Court, the said charges were not at all properly framed by the trial Court which is fatal to the case of the prosecution. It is his submission that, once a charge is framed, it cannot be altered after the judgment. Even in the event of the alteration of the charge, the law mandates that there shall be a de novo trial. According to his submission, the charge states that, there was a demand for bribe by the accused - 8 - NC: 2024:KHC:33976 CRL.A No. 473 of 2011 on 04.01.2006 and it shows that there was acceptance of the bribe amount on 05.01.2006. It is his submission that there is no evidence to show that the complainant made the application on 04.01.2006 that he has demanded the money. Even the appellant has proved that there is no demand or acceptance. There is a clear admission of PW.1 in his evidence on oath.

He further submits that, in the case of present nature, when the evidence regarding demand and acceptance is weak, then corroboration is must in view of the following judgments: “Corroboration is must i) ii) Meena Balwant Hemke v/s State of Maharashtra (2000) 5 SCC 21. Sri. R Samba Murthy v/s State of Karnataka Crl.A. 662/2010 decided by Hon’ble High Court of Karnataka dated 20.12.2019.”

He submits that the evidence of the complainant is an error of fact. When the evidence of the accomplices is to be scrutinized by the Court, the Court must be aware that the complainant is an inimical witness and can also be - 9 - NC: 2024:KHC:33976 CRL.A No. 473 of 2011 termed an interested witness. In support of his submission, he relied upon judgment of Hon’ble Apex Court in Panalal Damodar Rathi v. State of Maharashtra, reported in (1979) 4 SCC 526. According to him, the evidence of this complainant and other witnesses has to be appreciated very cautiously. He submits that a higher degree of proof is very much required in proving the case of the prosecution. He submits that the entrustment panchnama as ExP.3 is also not duly proved in accordance with the law. He submits that the evidence of PW-1 and 2 so spoken in cross- examination shows that there was a demand, but it was not at all believable, as spoken to by them. Even evidence of P.W.2 is very silent about a recovery of the bribe amount from the possession of the accused. It is stated by PW.3 that the said amount was kept on the table and recovered by the IO. It has come to light in the evidence of PW-1 that he gave money along with the application. Further, he submits that, with the accused, there was no work pending. Therefore, he submits that the theory set - 10 - NC: 2024:KHC:33976 CRL.A No. 473 of 2011 up by the accused is probable. According to his submission, as per the evidence spoken to by PW-1, he has already taken 1000 saplings earlier to 05.01.2006. This fact is clearly admitted by the PW-1. Further, he submits that the accused demanded another 200 saplings and when the accused refused blatantly, this complainant, though he knew the accused, developed a grouse and enmity. Thus, he cheated the appellant by keeping the money along with the application. Thus, the immediate evidence of PW-2 attracts the doctrine of res-gestae.

It is the further submission that, as per the contents of Ex.P.6, it is an application filed by the complainant and Ex.P.7 is a cash receipt. Ex.P.9 is the stock register. As per the submission of the appellant, the office of the accused had received just 1200 saplings to supply the entire village. When the complainant gave an application on 05.01.2006 along with money, as spoken by PW.2, already most of the saplings were distributed. It has come to in PW.1’s evidence that, when the - 11 - NC: 2024:KHC:33976 CRL.A No. 473 of 2011 complainant filed the application, the appellant was speaking on telephone. He has searched application. The appellant, along with other officials in his office, shouted by ringing a bell, “Call that person who has kept the money forcibly on his table.” It is further submitted that, when the complainant entered the office of the accused, there were 4-5 persons. Also, he was informed that the officials of the Lokayukta also entered the office of the accused. He pointed out contradictions, omissions and discrepancies so brought on record. In view of the evidence of PW-1 and other witnesses, according to his submission, there is no demand or acceptance. Further, he submits that, when the complainant has already received 1000 saplings and he wants 200 more saplings, a false complaint is filed against the accused so as to falsely implicate the accused. According to him, the evidence in PWs.1, 2 and 3 cannot be believed at any stretch of imagination.

As against this submission, the learned Panel Counsel, Sri.B.S.Prasad appearing for the respondent- - 12 - NC: 2024:KHC:33976 CRL.A No. 473 of 2011 Lokayukta submits that the evidence of PWs-1,3 and 7 duly prove the demand and acceptance by the accused. Accordingly, the pre-trap and post-trap panchanama’s were conducted and it was the accused who demanded the bribe to supply 200 gooseberry saplings.

He submits that, though there are contradictions and omissions in the evidence of the prosecution witnesses, they will not shake the basic case of the prosecution. Therefore, he submits that the prosecution is able to establish the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubt. In support of his submission, he relied upon the following judgments. i) ii) Neeraj Dutta v. State (government of N.C.T. of Delhi)- AIR Online 2022 SC 1160. Phula Singh v. State of Himachal Pradesh- AIR 2014 SC 1256. iii) M.Narsinga Rao v. State of A.P- AIR 2001 SC 318. iv) Krishna Ram v. State of Rajasthan- 2009 v) ORDER Appeal is allowed. The impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed by the Principal District and Sessions Judge, Chitradurga, in Special Case (P.C.A) No.8/2006 dated 30.03.2011, is hereby set aside. iii. Consequentially, accused is acquitted of the charges for the offences punishable under Section 7 and Section 13(1)(d) R/W Section 13(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. iv. His bail-bond stands cancelled. Accused is set at liberty. v. Send back the trial Court records along with a copy of this judgment forthwith. Sd/- (RAMACHANDRA D. HUDDAR) JUDGE AMM List No.: 19 Sl No.: 1