AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
A.N. Venugopala Gowda
This Criminal Appeal is directed against the Judgment dated 30.06.2007 passed by the learned Special Judge at Hassan, acquitting the accused of the charge under Ss. 7, 13(1)(d) r/w S.13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (for short "the Act"). Smt. T.M. Gayathri, learned advocate, for the appellant, raised challenge to the impugned Judgment, contending that, there is cogent evidence in support of the prosecution case and learned Trial Judge has erred in coming to the conclusion that the evidence of PW-1 has not been corroborated by the evidence of PWs. 2 and 3. She submitted that the inconsistency and contradiction, if any, in the evidence of PWs. 1 to 3 is insignificant. She contended that the learned Trial Judge has erred in holding that the non-examination of the Investigation Officer is fatal to the prosecution case.
Sri K.A. Chandrashekara, learned advocate appearing for the respondents, on the other hand supported the impugned Judgment and contended that, there is no evidence to prove the charge, so as to attract the offence under S.7 of the Act. He submitted that there is inconsistency in the evidence of PWs. 1 to 3 and that, the sanction order was not marked and hence, cannot be taken into consideration and further that the Investigation Officer was also not examined. He submitted that there is no cogent and reliable evidence brought on record of the case to support the prosecution charge against the respondents and in the circumstances, the Trial Court was justified in passing the Judgment of acquittal and hence, interference in the matter is not warranted.
Perused the record. Keeping in view of the rival contentions, the point for consideration is:
Whether the Prosecution has proved that, the respondents had demanded any amount as gratification to show official favour i.e., to select and recommend for further approval., the name of CW-1/PW-1 Manjunatha, working as Lecturer on contract basis in B.M. Shetty Government First Grade College, Konanur and thereby, committed the offences under Ss. 7 and 13(1)(d) and 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988?
The prosecution case mainly rested upon the evidence of PW-1. It was to him, that the accused No. 1 had allegedly made a demand of gratification to show the official favour, i.e., to select and recommend his name, for further approval.
PW- 1 was working as a Lecturer in B.M. Shetty Government First Grade College, Konanur, on contract basis. Evidence of PW-1 has been noticed by the learned Trial Judge, in detail, at para 9 of the impugned Judgment. It is relevant to notice that, PW-1 has said that, he left Hassan at 10.30 a.m., on 31.8.1994 and reached Konanur at 3.30 p.m. According to him, at the time of trap, i.e., on 1.9.1994, the college was working. He has admitted that, his attendance register/Ex. P7 of 31.8.1994 and 1.9.1994, shows his signature. According to him, Rs. 2,000/-was paid by the accused No. 2 to the accused No. 1 and that accused No. 1 gave the said money to him.
PW-3 has said that, on the instructions of accused No. 1, the accused No. 2 gave the money to the complainant. PW-2 has not deposed anything with regard to the payment of amount by either of the accused to the complainant. Thus, there is not only inconsistency in the evidence of PWs. 1 to 3, but also contradictions, noticed supra. In the circumstances of the case and the charge framed against the respondents, corroboration is necessary, which is not forthcoming.
It is trite that, conviction of an accused cannot be founded on the basis of inference. The offence should be proved against the accused by leading cogent evidence.
The prosecution did not examine the Investigation Officer. The sanction order has not been marked. The prosecution has failed to establish through the evidence of PWs. 1 to 3, that there was a demand of gratification by accused No. 1, for showing official favour to CW-1/PW-1. The prosecution has failed to prove from the evidence of PWs. 1 to 3 that the money was received from the accused No. 1 by the complainant.
The evidence brought on record by the prosecution is not sufficient to convict the accused, when the substantive evidence is not reliable. PW-1 is not a reliable witness. Ex. P7 shows that he has worked in the college on 31.8.1994 and 1.9.1994. If, that be so, the prosecution case with regard to the complaint being lodged on 31.8.1994 and the trap conducted on 1.9.1994 is suspect. The non-examination of Investigation Officer in the circumstances of the case is fatal to the prosecution.
Having examined the record of the case and the findings of the Trial Court, I am satisfied that, the appellant has failed to prove the case, that there was a demand of illegal gratification by the accused to show official favour to CW-1/PW-1. The prosecution has failed in establishing its case against the accused beyond reasonable doubt. The findings of the Trial Court are neither perverse nor illegal. In the circumstances, the Trial Court has not committed error or illegality in passing the Judgment of acquittal.
In the result, the appeal being devoid of merit is dismissed.