S.N. Satyanarayana, J.@mdash1. Accused in Special Case No. 119/2001, on the file of IV Addl. District and Sessions Court, Belagavi, has come up in this appeal challenging his conviction and sentencing him to undergo imprisonment and as well as payment of fine for the offence punishable under Section 7, 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.
2. The brief facts leading to this appeal are that the appellant herein was working as village accountant in Akkol village of Chikodi taluk, Belagavi district, in the year 2000. During that period, P.W.2-complainant by name Girish Narahari Kulkarni, approached him seeking rectification of mutation entry which was issued with reference to plot No. 248/D of Chikodi village measuring 6 1/4 gunta in wrongly showing the same as plot No. 248/5 measuring 9 1/4 guntas. Though an application was given on 19.9.2000, the same was not attended to immediately and the complainant P.W.2 was made to visit the office of accused everyday till 11.11.2000. Thereafter a demand was placed by the accused for illegal gratification of payment of Rs. 500/- to do official work, which he was duty bound to carryout. Pursuant to the demand, the accused collected a sum of Rs. 300/- from the complainant to carryout necessary correction to the mutation entry. Further intimated that the work will be completed within a few days, after the work is completed, another Rs. 200/- which is balance bribe amount should be paid to him.
3. In this background, the complainant paid the initial bribe amount of Rs. 300/-. Thereafter on 23.11.2000, he approached respondent Lokayukta Police with a complaint regarding demand made by the accused and also part payment collected for doing the official work. Based on the said complaint, which is at Ex. P.6, the Investigating Officer A.L. Desai-CW. 13 arranged for a trap. The Investigating Officer entrusted a sum of Rs. 200/- to complainant in the form of two currency notes of Rs. 100/- each. They were smeared with phenolphthalein powder, instructions were given to complainant that after payment, indication should be given to Investigating Officer by wiping his face with a hand kerchief.
4. The entrustment panchanama was prepared in the office of Lokayukta between 10.20 to 11.45 a.m., on 23.11.2000. On the same day at about 3.15 p.m., as per the instruction of Investigating Officer, complainant went and met the accused, on his demand paid to him a sum of Rs. 200/- in the form of two currency notes of Rs. 100/-. He indicated the same to Investigating Officer regarding completion of trap. Thereafter the Investigating Officer along with P.W.6-B.S. Devadi, a police constable, who was assisting him in the said case went into the office of the accused and apprehended him. On his physical verification found the aforesaid currency notes, when he was made to wash his hands with the sodium carbonate solution, it confirmed that he has received the notes which were smeared with chemical. Trap panchanama was completed and thereafter he was taken into custody.
5. In this proceedings it is seen that investigation is conducted by CW.13 with the assistance of P.W.6. Thereafter the final report was filed after securing sanction from P.W.5-the Deputy Commissioner. The sanction which is given is at Ex. P.1. Thereafter the prosecution was launched, final report which was filed was accepted, cognizance was taken, a criminal case was registered as Special Case No. 119/2001 for the offence punishable under Section 7, 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.
6. In the proceedings before the Sessions Court, on behalf of prosecution the complainant was examined as P.W.2, the shadow witness who was present along with the complainant right from the time of entrusting him with the money to complete the trap was examined as P.W.1 and another person who was witness to the panchanama of trap and panchanama of entrustment along with P.W.1 was examined as P.W.3. The sketch of the place where the offence has taken place was drawn by P.W.4-Bharat, PWD engineer. The person who has issued sanction for prosecution viz., the Deputy Commissioner of Belagavi was examined as P.W.5. In the instant case the Investigating Officer CW.13 namely A.L. Desai was not examined. In his place B.S. Devadi, Head Constable of Police, who was accompanying the Investigating Officer CW.13 from the time of receiving the complaint till drawing of panchanama and conducting investigation was examined as P.W.6. The chemical examiner, who gave a report that the note which was found in the custody of accused is the same note which was handed over to him by the Investigating Officer, by conducting chemical examination was examined as P.W.7.
7. In the proceedings the relevant documents which were filed were all marked through the said witnesses. In the proceedings the accused was examined as DW.1. However he was not able to substantiate the defence that was taken by him that he is not guilty of the offences alleged against him. He got 5 documents marked as Ex. D.1 to D.5, which are with reference to the work that was entrusted to him during the said period.
8. The learned Sessions Judge while appreciating the complaint and as well as the evidence available on record, rightly did not give importance to the documents Ex. D.1 to D.5 for the reason that those were the documents with reference to the work that was entrusted to accused for the said week by the Deputy Commissioner. In any event the other material which are available on record would clearly establish his presence in the office on 23.11.2000 at about 3.15 p.m., when the trap was executed through P.W.1 to 3, wherein P.W.2 the complainant met the accused in his office and on his demand delivered to him two currency notes of Rs. 100/-each and the trap which was conducted was in the presence of P.W.1 and P.W.3 and also in the presence of P.W.4 who prepared the sketch. The said officers who have given evidence in support of their presence at the place of occurrence of crime have stood by their statement in the cross examination. Similarly they have also been able to establish that FSL report, the presence of currency notes in his pocket, which were smeared with chemicals.
9. As against this clinching evidence which is recorded on behalf of the prosecution, the accused has miserably failed to establish his so called innocence of the offence alleged against him. The attempt which was made by him in trying to rely upon Ex. D.1 to D.5 are also of not great importance to him. They are communications, which are given to him with reference to his work at the relevant time. But there is nothing on record to substantiate that he was not in the office at the relevant point of time of trap and he was outside the premises of his office where the alleged trap was laid and said to have been apprehended.
10. It is his defence that the amount which was collected by him, which was found during trap is by the sale of flags which was entrusted to him to be sold to the general public for raising funds to collect money for independence day celebration. Though such a defence is taken by him, there is nothing on record that he had requested the complainant to buy such stamps for Rs. 200/-. In fact the learned Special Judge of Special Court has rightly appreciated the evidence of P.W.1 to P.W.7. So far as sale of flag is concerned, the same could not be substantiated by the accused as against the evidence of P.W.5-the Deputy Commissioner who had issued the said order according to the accused. Accordingly the learned Sessions Jude has ignored the defence which was raised in stating that the amount of Rs. 200/- was received for sale of Independence Day Flags of the year 2000. In that view of the matter this Court find the judgment rendered by the Special Judge in the aforesaid matter appears to be just and proper, which does not call for interference.
11. Now coming to the sentence that is passed in the instant case also appears to be far below the extent of sentence that the Special Judge would have imposed on the accused. As could be seen, for the offence punishable under Section 7 of the Act, the accused is ordered to undergo simple imprisonment for six months and for the offence punishable under Section 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of the Act, he is ordered to undergo simple imprisonment for one year, besides the fine, which is imposed for both the offences.
12. While doing so it is further stated that the sentence of imprisonment shall run concurrently. With this, the effective period of sentence that has to be undergone by the accused is only one year, which is a lesser period of sentence compared to the grave nature of offence committed by him. In that view of the matter, this Court find that neither there is any error in the judgment convicting the accused nor in sentencing directing him to undergo imprisonment for the aforesaid offences as specified in the sentence passed on 29.9.2009. Accordingly the appeal filed by the accused in Special Case No. 119/2001 is hereby dismissed.
13. In view of appeal being dismissed, the Lokayukta Police is directed to immediately take the accused into custody and send him to the prison within ten days from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.
