Dismissed

The State by the Inspector of Police v. Basir Ahmedkhan @ Saradar Ahmedkhan

Karnataka HC4 Sept 2013CRL.A/2557/2009

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Criminal appeal by the State against the acquittal of an accused Inspector of Weights & Measures for corruption under the Prevention of Corruption Act. The High Court dismissed the appeal, upholding the acquittal due to total inconsistency between the complainant and investigating officer, and fatal lack of corroboration from the shadow witness.

What did the court decide?

Appeal dismissed; acquittal of the respondent is upheld. Fine amount if any shall be refunded to the respondent.

The State by the Inspector of Police Vs Basir Ahmedkhan @… — Corruption | Karnataka HC (2013)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA DHARWAD BENCH

¶3

DATED THIS THE 4^TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2013

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ANAND BYRAREDDY

¶6

CRIMINAL APPEAL No.2557 OF 2009

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

The State, By the Inspector of Police, Karwar Lokayukta Police Station, Karwar.

¶9

…APPELLANT

¶10

(By Shri Jagadish Patil, Advocate)

¶11

AND:

¶12

Basir Ahmedkhan @ Saradar Ahmedkhan, S/o. Tabrejkhan Pathan, Aged 56 years, Inspector of Weights & Measures, Sirsi Sub Division, Resident of House No.MIG 2-82, Hubli Gandhinagar, District: Dharwad. (By Shri Sadiq N. Goodwala, Advocate)

¶13

…RESPONDENT

¶14

¶15

This appeal is filed under Section 378(1) and (3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 praying to grant leave to appellant to appeal against the judgment and order of acquittal dated 31.12.2008 passed in Spl.Case No.6/1999 on the file of the Court of the District and Sessions Judge, Uttara Kannada, Karwar, and etc.

¶16

This appeal coming on for final hearing this day, the Court delivered the following:

¶17

JUDGMENT

¶18

Heard the learned Special Public Prosecutor and the learned counsel for the respondent. The State is in appeal questioning the acquittal of the accused for the alleged commission of offence punishable under Sections 7, 13(1) (d) read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the PC Act’, for brevity). The facts are as follows:

¶19

The respondent was working as an Inspector of the Weights and Measures at Sirsi and it was alleged that it was his practice to collect a mamul of Rs.500/- per year, from every shop keeper. The complainant was running an automobile shop

¶20

¶21

and as usual, the respondent is said to have made a demand for Rs.500/-. Since the complainant was not inclined to pay any such amount, he had lodged a complaint with the Lokayukta police and accordingly, a trap was laid to apprehend the respondent red-handed, while receiving such money, and it was executed. A case having been registered against the complainant, he had pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. The prosecution tendered evidence and thereafter the court below had framed the following points for consideration:

¶22

“1) Whether prosecution proves that the accused had demanded Rs.500/- as illegal gratification from C.W.1 on 25-4-1998 in order to enable C.W.1 for funning automobile center without trouble from him and was caught red handed while accepting bribe amount of Rs.500/on 13-5-1998 at Bidakibailu, Sirsi, as alleged?

¶23

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

¶24

¶25

The court below answered the points in the negative and acquitted the accused - respondent. It is that which is under challenge in the present appeal.

¶26

Though several grounds are raised questioning the judgment of the court below, the significant finding of the court below is that there is total inconsistency between the evidence of the complainant and the Investigating Officer PW-7, and this is fatal to the case of the prosecution. In that, the complainant had stated that the bait amount which was handed over by him on a demand made by the respondent was kept in the pocket of the respondent and when he gave the signal to the waiting Lokayukta police, the moment he saw the Lokayukta police about to apprehend him, he had removed the money from his pocket and threw it on the table. However, the Investigating Officer who had tendered his evidence as PW-7, has to the contrary, stated that the complainant was apprehended, his hands were washed with sodium carbonate solution and

¶27

¶28

thereafter he was asked to remove the money from his pocket, which he did. This is contrary to the evidence of the complainant. Secondly, the court below has also found that the shadow witness had categorically stated that he was 100 yards away from the respondent when the raid had taken place and he did not hear or see what transpired in the chamber of the respondent. He had also stated that the bait money was kept on his table after the event and this he had noticed. Therefore, the significant circumstance of the demand having been made and receipt of the bribe amount, was not established through the medium of the shadow witness whose corroboration was vital to the case of the prosecution. Therefore, the court below having acquitted the accused on those findings, cannot be faulted. The effort of the counsel for the appellant to yet question the finding in the face of these glaring circumstances, is futile. Therefore, the appeal is dismissed.

¶29

¶30

The fine amount if any shall be refunded to the

¶31

respondent.

¶32

Sd/JUDGE

¶33

The State by the Inspector of Police v. Basir Ahmedkhan @ Saradar Ahmedkhan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

The State by the Inspector of Police v. Basir Ahmedkhan @ Saradar Ahmedkhan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Gudadappa Vs State of Karnataka

Vasavi Credit Co. Op Society Ltd. Vs H L Manjunath S/O L Mariyappa

Raju Pandu Teli Vs the State of Karnataka

Shri Shankar Ramachandra Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri.Anand Rupasing Nayak, Vs the State of Karnataka

State of Karnataka Vs Kotresh S/O Kenchappa Madivalar