T.C. Nagaraju vs State

V. Jagannathan

This Criminal Revision Petition is by A-1, who calls in question the order of the trial court refusing to discharge him from the case.

Brief facts are that, a complaint lodged by one Ikramulla Khan, Advocate, with the Dy. S.P., Lokayuktha, alleging demand of bribe by the petitioner in a sum of Rs. 15,000/- for registering the sale deed of one Syed Shoyeb and the petitioner, after negotiation, agreed to receive Rs. 10.000/- as bribe amount and, as per the complaint allegations, the petitioner directed the amount to be paid to A-2. Based on the complaint lodged by the above named advocate, a case was registered and charge sheet was submitted against A-1 i.e., the petitioner herein, and A-2 for the offences punishable under Sections 7, 8, 12 and 13(1)(d) r/w 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.

The application filed by the petitioner for discharge came to be rejected and learned senior counsel Shri Ashok Haranahalli for the petitioner referring to the statements of the purchaser viz., Syed Shoyeb, as well as A-2, submitted that the statements of these two witnesses would go to show that there was no demand of bribe amount by the petitioner nor any amount was paid by the complainant to the petitioner.

As far as the document is concerned, it is argued that there is inconsistency in the stand taken by the complainant inasmuch as, at one stage in the complaint, it is stated that demand was made at the time of registration of the document, whereas at a later stage, it is stated that the bribe amount was demanded for handing over the document. As far as the endorsement "do not deliver" is concerned, referring to the statement of one Shambhulinga, it is argued that the said endorsement was made by the said person Shambhulinga and not by the petitioner. In the light of the aforesaid statement of the witness, it is, therefore argued that: the trial court was not justified in rejecting the prayer of the petitioner for discharge.

On the other hand, learned counsel Shri S.G. Rajendra Reddy for the respondent Lokayuktha submitted that the statement of the complainant and the shadow witness would go to show that there was demand made by the petitioner and the petitioner also directed the complainant to give the amount to A-2 and, therefore, the material on record has rightly led to the trial court rejecting the prayer of the petitioner for discharge. It is also submitted that the statement of the purchaser, Syed Shoyeb, and that of Shambhulinga were recorded long after the trap incident. Therefore, no case is made out for this court to interfere with the order of the trial court.

Having thus heard both sides, in my view the trial court committed no error in refusing to discharge the accused as it has taken note of the material placed at this juncture in the form of the statements of the complainant and the shadow witness apart from the alleged material. The contention now put forward by the learned senior counsel by referring to the statements of A-2, purchaser of the property Syed Shoyeb and that of Shambhulinga can be taken advantage of by the petitioner at the time of trial in support of his defence, but, at this stage, no case is made out for this court to interfere with the order of the court below.

The petition is accordingly rejected. It is also made clear that the rejection will not in any way influence the trial court while deciding the case on merits at a later stage.