State of Karnataka vs Manjunath and Others

G. Narendra, J.

The brief facts of the case are as follows:--

"The complainant who is employed as a conductor with the North Western Road Transport Corporation, Gadag had lodged a complaint with the appellant. The cause for the complaint is that the accused, who are employed as Traffic Inspectors, had on 17.7.2007 intercepted the bus wherein the complainant was performing duty as conductor. The said bus was plying on the Siddalmganagar-Betagen route and had reached Betagen bus stand at 11.00 a.m. There the accused inspected the bus and also checked the cash of the conductor and it was found that he was holding Rs. 30/- in excess. Whereupon the accused are alleged to have told the complainant that if they mention the excess amount in the report he would be suspended. Upon which the complainant is said to have explained to the accused that he had mentioned the excess amount in the way bill, but it was pointed out by the accused that he had not obtained signature from the supervisor and hence threatened to issue an offence memo. Upon which the driver of the said bus is said to have requested the accused not to book any case as they had left in a hurry. In response the accused are alleged to have demanded a bribe of Rs. 1000/- failing which they would issue an offence memo and if the said amount is paid, they would register a NINC case which is comparatively a minor offence and the consequences are not severe. The complainant is alleged to have told that he did not possess such a big amount whereupon the accused discussed amongst themselves and said to have demanded at least Rs. 500/- for not mentioning the excess amount and it is further alleged that the accused told the complainant that if the amount is paid, they would not harass him further or else they would book cases whenever they inspect the complainant''s bus. It is an admitted case that the accused registered a NINC case for Rs. 30/- and issued an offence memo."

It is alleged by the complainant that he was determined not to pay the bribe amount and as the accused had demanded that he has to pay the bribe amount next day, he decided to lodge a complaint with the appellant. Accordingly, a case was registered under the provisions of Sections 7, 13(1)(d) r/w the provisions of Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 r/w. S. 34 of IPC.

The appellant secured the panchas viz. Hanumanthappa Channabasappa Honnali from the office of the District Social Welfare Department Gadag and one Parasappa Manyappa Gangapur from the office of Panchayath Raj Engineering Sub Division Gadag. The I.O from the office of the appellant introduced the complainant to the panchas and conducted the entrustment panchanama. Further, Rs. 500/- in Rs. 100/-denomination were handed over to the complainant Sri. H.C. Honnali. The panchas counted the currency notes and noted down the serial numbers. Thereafter, the officer from the appellant-department smeared the notes with phenolphthalein powder. The panchas also made a body search of the complainant and it was verified that the complainant did not posses any other notes. Thereafter the said panch witness kept the currency notes in the pocket of the complainant and washed his hands in the sodium carbonate solution which turned into pink colour which is marked as Article No. 5 and sealed with English letter A''.

After the above said preparation the complainant was directed to approach the accused persons and he was further instructed to give a signal if the accused persons demanded the bribe amount. A small tape recorder was also handed over to the complainant to record the conversation between the complainant and the accused. The panch witness Gangapur was asked to accompany the complainant and observe the proceedings regarding the payment of bribe amount and to assist in the preparation of panchanama.

It is alleged that the accused were contacted over phone whereupon they were asked to come to Betagen bus stand by 5.00 p.m. It is further stated that the appellant police departed in their departmental vehicle and the pre-trap panchanama was crystallised in the form of photograph and all the above mentioned persons went to Betagen bus stand and alighted from their vehicle near Veerabhadreshwara temple at about 6.10 p.m. to meet the accused and the others took up positions at various places in the bus stand. And that about 6.15 p.m. the complainant came out and wiped his face with the kerchief which was the prearranged signal. Whereupon the I.O., staff and panchas went to the complainant who took them inside and identified A1 and A2. It is alleged by the complainant that A1 took the bribe amount of Rs. 500/-. It is further alleged that A1 demanded the amount and the complainant handed over the amount which A1 kept in his right pocket of his pant. The amount is alleged to have been recovered and the hands of A1 was washed and the solution turned pink suggesting that the accused had touched the bribe money. It is also alleged that the I.O. organized a fresh pair of pants for A1 and seized the pants that A1 was wearing.

The offence memo book bearing No. 3900 was produced from which the offence memo receipt NO.098323 was issued to the complainant. The penalty book 2692 containing the counter foil/penalty receipt No. 067286 issued to the complainant was also seized by making xerox copies of the same. Upon inspection of the office memo and the penalty book it is seen that the complainant had not issued tickets to one of the passengers. I.O. is said to have prepared the spot mahazar and also taken the tape recorder but as the voice recorded was not clear, the same was not seized by the I.O. Charge sheet came to be submitted on 23.12.2008 for the aforementioned offences. Upon questioning by the court the accused pleaded not guilty and prayed that they may be tried.

In the above facts and circumstances the learned Trial Judge after a detailed consideration has arrived at the conclusion that no offence is made out against the accused and was pleased to acquit the accused under Section 235 of the Cr.P.C. Aggrieved by the same, the State is before this Court.

Heard the learned counsel for the appellant and learned counsel for the respondents.

The appellant''s counsel would assail the order of the trial Court on various grounds. He would submit that the offence had become complete once the accused (A1) received the amount. He would submit that mere receipt of money constitutes offence under the Prevention of Corruption Act. He would submit that the reasoning of the trial court is perverse as it has held that the prosecution failed to establish that money was paid for a corrupt practice. He would further assail the reasoning of the learned Judge that payment or receipt of money after the booking of NINC case with the intention of wrecking vengeance on the accused who have executed their duties in a competent manner. He would further argue that the trial Court erred in taking into the account the inconsistencies committed by the panch witness for acquitting the accused.

The learned counsel for the respondents would reiterate the findings by the Trial Court. He would submit that mere receipt of money does not constitute a corrupt practice as held by the Apex Court in catena of decisions. He would refer to the decisions rendered by the Hon''ble Apex court reported in (2012) 5 SUPREME 232 and the order rendered by this Court in Criminal Appeal No. 1323/2007.

As can be observed the essence of the complaint is that the accused would forbear in registering the complaint against the complainant even if he is found in possession of excess cash subject to his paying Rs. 500/-. On the contrary the fact remains that, the accused have actually registered a NINC case against the complainant and got issued an offence memo. This fact has been critically appreciated by the trial Court to arrive at a finding of ''not guilty''. Thus, the trial Court has concluded that on the date of complaint there was no work pending with accused No. 1 so as to empower him to show some official favour or desist from performing his duty. The trial court has rightly concluded that the complaint appears to be more of a measure of revenge as the accused had dared to charge the complainant and got issued an offence memo. The court below, in its considered opinion, has rightly rejected the contention of the prosecution that the bribe money was demanded and paid to show official favour i.e., the accused would forbear from registering offences against the complainant whenever he is found with excess cash. The court has tended to disbelieve the prosecution version and it is rightly so because it was a known fact that the accused were on deputation for a short period only. The court below has also relied upon the decision in 2012 (1) KCCR 414 wherein this court has held that mere possession of bribe money in the absence of any evidence regarding demand cannot be taken as receipt of amount. It is further held by this Court that the gravamen/gravity of the offence lies in the fact that money is paid for a corrupt purpose i.e. the money is ought to be paid for showing the official favour i.e. either forbearing to do or discharge a duty cast upon the accused or abusing the official position to benefit the complainant. This court has succinctly held that mere acceptance of money is not sufficient to fasten the guilt on the accused.

Apart from the above reasoning which goes to the root of the matter the court also found certain inconsistencies. It is seen that as per the complaint it was the panch witness Gangapur who was asked to accompany the complainant and to observe the act of giving and taking of bribe for the purpose of narrating the incident during the drawing up of the panchanama but it is seen that panch witness Honnali has accompanied the complainant. In one breath it is said that the shadow witness accompanied the complainant but in the same breath they say that the complainant went into a room, came out and gave a signal whereupon the I.O., the staff and panch witness rushed to the complainant''s side, who thereafter led them to the room and pointed out to A1 and A2.

This also cast a doubt on the version of the prosecution. Admittedly though a tape recorder was handed over to record the conversation, the same is not part of the record or evidence before the court of law. The explanation given by the prosecution is that the same has not been produced before the Court because there was no clarity in the recording. Be that as it may, a duty was cast upon the prosecution to place it before the Court in order to enable the court to assess the same. Apart from the allegations against accused No. 1 there is no specific allegation against the second accused. It is not even alleged that the second accused even made a demand. The only allegation is that the first accused spoke with the second accused and after that he reduced the bribe amount from Rs. 1000/- to Rs. 500/-. Apart from stating so, even the complaint is silent about the conversation which transpired between A1 and A2. The complainant does not even say what was discussed between A1 and A2 in order to array him as an accomplice. There is not even a whisper about A2 and he has been made to suffer the ignominy of arrest and suffer a trial. The court below has rightly castigated the authority and has held that the perusal of sanction papers demonstrates absolute non application of mind. Merely because somebody is present when accused demands a bribe will not automatically render him an accomplice..

In the above facts and circumstances this Court does not find any ground to interfere with the judgment and order rendered by the trial court. Accordingly, the appeal deserves to be dismissed and it is accordingly rejected as devoid of merits.