The State of Karnataka vs Beera Krishna Gouda

Anand Byrareddy, J.—Heard the learned counsel for the appellant. The appellant is the State through the Lokayukta police. The respondent was the accused, in the following circumstances:

That on 24.07.1998, when the accused was working as a Section Forester in Janmane Range Forest within the limits of Karnataka Lokayukta Police, had demanded and accepted Rs. 1,000/- from the complainant one Raju Hegde as illegal gratification for classifying certain seized wooden logs as ''C'' class instead of ''A'' class and thereby, the accused had committed offences punishable under Sections 7, 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as ''the PC Act'', for brevity). The prosecution, in support of its case, had examined PWs 1 to 11 and had marked Exhibits P1 to P15 and Material objects 1 to 19. The statement of the accused u/s 313 Cr.P.C. having been recorded and after hearing the parties, the court below framed the following points for determination:

1) Whether prosecution proves that the accused demanded and accepted bribe of Rs. 1,000/- from C W.1 Raju Hegde on 24-7-1998 for classifying seized Bharanige wooden frames belonging to C.W. 1 as ''C'' class instead of ''A'' class and was trapped successfully as alleged?

2) Whether prosecution proves that the accused is guilty of the offences alleged?

The court below had held the same in the negative and acquitted the accused. It is that which is under challenge in the present appeal. Having heard the learned counsel for the appellant at length, it is to be noticed that the Trial Court has acquitted the accused on two primary and glaring circumstances. One is that the prosecution sought to prove the commission of the offence by examination of the complainant and a shadow witness. According to the evidence of the shadow witness., he did not observe the accused making a demand and the complainant handing over the bribe amount on such demand being made. Since the shadow witness was all alone sitting outside the chamber of the accused and was not in a position either to witness the act of demand and receipt or to overhear the conversation in this regard, therefore, that was one circumstance the court below has taken into account in holding that the prosecution had failed to establish its case beyond all reasonable doubt. The second glaring circumstance was that, the demand for bribe was made in order to accommodate the complainant to the extent of ensuring that there was a lesser offence committed in the seized logs being classified as ''C'' class instead of ''A'' class, whereby even if the complainant was convicted for possessing forest produce without a permit, the fine attracted would be lesser. However, it was found that the accused had already classified the logs as ''C'' class and had produced documents in that regard even before the complaint was lodged and therefore, there was no indication that there was any possibility of illegal gratification being demanded as on the date of the complaint. This is the other circumstance which has been taken into account in dislodging the case of the prosecution.

Though the learned counsel for the appellant would make a serious effort to contend otherwise, these two circumstances cannot be overcome, as it is plain from the material on record. Therefore, there is no merit in this appeal and the same stands dismissed.