State vs Sridhara Railrar

V. Jagannathan

This appeal is by the State through Lokayuktha calling in question the acquittal of the respondent by the trial court in respect of the offences punishable under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) r/w 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. The prosecution case in short is that the accused while working as the Revenue Inspector at Holalur village, Shimoga taluk, demanded Rs. 500/- from the complainant as bribe amount for effecting the change of khata in the name of the complainant from the name of the complainant''s wife who had died. As the complainant not willing to pay the bribe amount, approached the Lokayuktha police with his complaint as per Ex. P(sic) and thereafter, the pre-trap mahazar was drawn an per Ex. P1 and the trap was also successful according to the prosecution as per Ex. P2 and after obtaining the sanction order Ex. P10, charge sheet was submitted.

At the trial, following the accused not pleading guilty, the prosecution examined 8 witnesses and 16 documents were marked along with 5 M.Os. Trial court after appreciating the material placed before it, acquitted the respondent.

I have heard Learned Counsel Sri S.G. Rajendra Reddy for the appellant-Lokayuktha. None appears for the respondent.

Submission of Learned Counsel for the appellant is that the trial court had not even discussed the evidence of the material witnesses namely, PW-6 the complainant and PW-1 Basavaraja-the shadow witness. Both of them have supported the prosecution case. It is therefore argued that the trial court has totally lost sight of the evidence of these witnesses and has took into account only one aspect namely that the file was not pending with the accused. Submission therefore made is that it is a fit case to convict the accused and if for any reason, this Court inclined to remand the case, the same also could be considered. Having thus heard the appellant''s Counsel and after going through the judgments of the court below, I find that the trial court has not considered the basic evidence placed by the prosecution through the complainant PW-6 and the shadow witness PW-1. Though the trial court has excepted certain portions of the evidence of PWs 2, 4, 6 and 8, it has not considered the evidence of the complainant and shadow witness from proper angle. Though the trial court has recorded a finding that the prosecution has failed to prove the demand and acceptance of the bribe by the accused, this finding of the trial court is not backed up by any material to take such a view of the matter. In the absence of the evidence of the material witnesses being not properly appreciated by the trial court, I am of the view that the matter requires remand to the trial court, so that the evidence of the witnesses is appreciated as it is required under law and as such without going much further, the following order is passed;

(i) The judgment of the court below acquitting the respondent is Bet aside and the matter stands remitted back to the trial court to property appreciate the evidence of the witnesses and then to render the judgment and in this regard, if the court finds it necessary, it can also heard the arguments of both sides before deciding the case.

(ii) As the matter is being remanded only for proper appreciation of the evidence already on record and hear the Counsel if need the trial court shall proceed to consider the arguments afresh of both sides and then dispose of the mater within one month from the date of appearance of the parties before it.

(iii) Both parties are directed to appear before the trial court on 09.04.2012.

Revision petition is disposed of accordingly with the above observations.