9911796707
TMI Blog2025 (4) TMI 950X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the High Court. BRIEF FACTS 2. The factual matrix of the case is that on 24.01.1995, the complainant gave an application to the tahsildar, Belgaum requesting change of mutation entries in the Revenue Records in respect of certain agricultural lands which had fallen to his share in partition between himself and his brothers. After some time, complainant met the accused who was working as Village Accountant in Kadoli and enquired about his application. The accused informed that he had not received his application. Allegedly, the accused asked the complainant to file another application. Accordingly, on 03.04.1995, he submitted a new application (Ex.P.18). At that time, allegedly, the accused asked for Rs.2,000/- as bribe for attending his work. Since, his inability to pay Rs.2,000/- was expressed, they initially agreed for Rs. 1,500/-. Further, when he was unable to pay Rs.1,500/- at once, it was agreed that Rs. 1000/- would be paid immediately and balance Rs.500/- would be paid after the competition of work. He told the Respondent-Accused that he would come back in 4 days with the money. PW.1 was not willing to pay the bribe as demanded by the accused. Subsequently, P.W.1/Compla ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f conviction are on the basis of evidence on record and without giving scope for contrary view and are not liable for setting aside, only on the basis of minor contradictions pointed out by the Appellate Court and which will not go to the root of the case. It was submitted that only one stray sentence in the evidence of PW.1 to the effect that right hand wash has not shown any change of colour and thereby doubting the evidence of PW.1 is not proper. The Learned Counsel for the appellant also submitted that the importance of Sections 20 of the P.C. Act is not properly appreciated. It was also submitted that the bribe money of M.O.2 recovered from the possession of the accused under trap mahazar Ex.P.2, clearly proves that the accused had accepted the bribe - money and though he had stated in Ex.P.8 that the money was forcibly kept in his pocket, but the same was denied by the complainant and shadow witness and the presumption has been raised as contemplated under Section 20 of the P.C. Act. Learned Counsel for the state further submitted that the Ex.P.2 trap mahazar clearly discloses numbers of currency notes recovered from the possession of the accused and also number of currency n ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... cy notes by both the hands and when the fingers of both hands were washed separately in sodium carbonate solution, the solution turned into pink colour indicating handling of marked currency notes by both hands. According to PW.2, the police seized the pant and marked with the help of a ball point pen on the right side pant pocket of the accused indicating that the money had been kept in the right pocket of the pant. P.W-2 has also not stated whether or not the inner lining of the pant pocket was washed. Thus there is no consistency in the evidence of PWs. 1 and 2 with regard to handling of marked currency notes by the accused and as to in which side of the pocket of the pant the marked currency notes had been kept... ..This creates great amount of doubt as to the acceptance of the marked currency notes by the accused. ...However, the witness again stated that PW-1 told him about the accused keeping the currency notes in the left side pant pocket... Therefore, the possibility of the currency notes which were in possession of PW.1 having been seized cannot be ruled out. In any case the evidence of PWs.1 and 2 with regard to the acceptance of bribe by the accused is not consist ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... y stating that he had not received the application, then the application - Ex. P18 was submitted. The accused then asked for the bribe amount and with this demand the accused stated that if PW1 complainant pays the amount of bribe, he will do the needful. For this obligation the accused made a demand for Rs. 1500/- and when the PW1 complainant expressed his inability to pay an amount of Rs. 1500/-, the accused stated that he should pay at least Rs. 500/-. As the complainant was not willing to pay the bribe amount he approached a Lokayukt Police. It may not be necessary to refer to the facts again in detail as reference is already made to these facts in earlier part of this judgment. Perusal of the testimony of PW1, shows that though there is a little departure in his testimony prompting the Special Public Prosecutor to declare the witness as hostile but in our opinion, the limited part of the version of this witness in respect of the date of submitting the application this minor departure is not sufficient to discard the other detailed and reliable version of the witness in so far as the demand and acceptance of the accused is concerned. PW1 stated before the court that on 07.04.19 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the demand in so far as the prosecution failed to show that colour of the solution from both the hands did not change and further the accused kept the bribe amount in his pant pockets. 17. The High Court observed that the version of PW 1 is doubtful as PW1 stated in the complaint, as well as, before the Court that he had filed an application before the Tehsildar two months prior to 07.04.1995, whereas there was an application submitted to the Tehsildar only on 06.04.1995 and as such the version of PW1 that he met with the accused on 03.04.1995 is doubtful. Now, on perusal of the record clearly shows that even before the application dated 06.04.1995, an earlier application (Ex 22) was already submitted by PW1 and the same was collected during the course of investigation and the Investigating Officer in his testimony stated about collecting this application in course of investigation. 18. Another very important factum which missed the attention of the High Court is that the incident took place in the year 1995, the trial got delayed and after span of 10 years the witnesses were subjected to their ocular testimony before the Court. PW 1 was examined on 24.03.2005, PW 2 was examined ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ning the just and cogent reasons. 23. Considering all these aspects, we are of the opinion that that the prosecution proved its case against the accused beyond the reasonable doubt and the charges against the accused namely under Section 7,13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of P.C. Act are proved so as to hold the accused guilty of these offences. 24. On the contrary, the High Court committed the serious error in setting aside the judgment of the Trial Court. Needless to state that in this situation the appeal needs to be allowed. In so far as, the sentence awarded the accused is concerned the learned Senior Counsel Mr. Nuli appearing for the respondent-accused attempt to submit before this Court that as the incident is of the year 1995 and by passage of time now the accused in his advanced age, this court may consider reducing the quantum of sentence. Somewhat similar submission was made before the Trial Court that some leniency be shown to the accused while awarding sentence and the learned Trial judge in Para. 67 and 68 dealt with this aspect of sentence in following words: "67) In this case, the accused is convicted for the offence under Sec. 7 and Sec. 13(1) (d) read with Se ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
