Dismissed

State of Karnataka Represented by Special v. Venkanna S/O Ramanna Devapur

Karnataka HC12 Nov 2020CRL.A/3624/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Supreme Court Special Public Prosecutor appealed the acquittal of the Respondent in a corruption case. The trial court acquitted the accused because he probalised his defence using a scheme Circular. This High Court found no reason to interfere, upholding the acquittal.

What did the court decide?

Appeal dismissed as devoid of merits; records sent back to Trial Court.

State of Karnataka Represented by Special Vs Venkanna S/O… — Corruption | Karnataka HC (2020)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA KALABURAGI BENCH

¶3

DATED THIS THE 12^TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2020

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON’BLE MRS.JUSTICE M.G.UMA

¶6

CRIMINAL APPEAL No.3624 OF 2013

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

STATE OF KARNATAKA REP BY SPECIAL PUBLIC PROSECUTOR (LOKAYUKTA)

¶9

… APPELLANT

¶10

(BY SRI:SUBHASH MALLAPUR, SPL.PP)

¶11

AND:

¶12

VENKANNA SON OF RAMANNA DEVAPUR AGE: 46 YEARS OCC: SECRETARY GRAM PANCHAYAT ARKERA TQ AND DIST: YADGIR

¶13

… RESPONDENT

¶14

(BY SRI:RAJU S.KORAHALLI & SRI:CHAITANYA KUMAR, ADVS)

¶15

THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 378(1) AND (3) OF CR.P.C. PRAYING TO GRANT LEAVE TO APPEAL AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND ORDER OF

¶16

¶17

ACQUITTAL DATED 04.02.2013 PASSED IN SPECIAL CASE NO.8 OF 2010 ON THE FILE OF LEARNED SPECIAL/SESSIONS JUDGE AT YADGIR, THEREBY ACQUITTING THE ACCUSED RESPONDENTS FOR THE OFFENCES PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTIONS 7 AND 13(1)(d) READ WITH SECTION 13(2) OF THE PREVENTION OF CORRUPTION ACT, 1988; SET ASIDE THE AFORESAID JUDGMENT AND ORDER OF ACQUITTAL PASSED BY THE COURT BELOW BY ALLOWING THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL AND CONVICT AND SENTENCE THE RESPONDENT-ACCUSED WITH WHICH HE HAS CHARGED IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY.

¶18

THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL COMING ON FOR HEARING THIS DAY, THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶19

J U D G M E N T

¶20

The appellant-Lokayukta has preferred this appeal aggrieved by the impugned judgment of acquittal dated 04.02.2013 passed in Special Case No.8 of 2010 by the learned Special/Sessions Judge at Yadgiri, acquitting the accused for the offences punishable under Sections 7, 13(1)(d) read with 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (for short ‘the PC Act’).

¶21

Brief facts of the case are that, the Lokayukta

¶22

police filed charge sheet against the accused for the above

¶23

¶24

said offences after investigation on the first information lodged by the informant Sri.Devendrappa. The informant has stated in the first information that his father left behind him 19 guntas of land in Sy.No.74 of Mylapur Village. He had submitted an application to Gram Panchayat for sanction of housing loan under 'Ashraya Scheme'. It is stated that when the informant met the accused who was working as Secretary of Gram Panchayat, Arakera Village, he promised to get an amount of Rs.30,000/- under the scheme. Accordingly, the informant started construction of the house in the name of his mother. The accused released the first installment of Rs.5,000/-, second installment of Rs.7,000/- and third installment of Rs.8,000/-. It is stated that while releasing these installments, the accused collected Rs.500/- each from the informant and for the purpose of releasing the final installment of Rs.10,000/-, the accused demanded illegal gratification of Rs.2,500/-. Since the informant was not willing to pay the bribe amount, he approached the Lokayukta police and informed the above said facts. After

¶25

¶26

confirming that the accused is demanding the illegal gratification, FIR was registered against the accused for the above said offences. Pre-trap panchanama was drawn in the presence of independent official witnesses and an amount of Rs.2,000/- was entrusted to the informant, with an instruction to go and meet the accused and on his demand, to pay the tainted money which was smeared with phenolphthalein powder.

¶27

It is the contention of the prosecution that the informant met the accused along with shadow witness and when the accused again demanded the bribe amount, the informant paid the entrusted amount of Rs.2,000/- and subsequently, the accused was trapped by Lokayukta police and the trap mahazar was drawn. The tainted money was recovered from the accused. His explanation was also taken. After completing the investigation, the charge sheet was filed against the accused. The Trial Court took cognizance of the offences and summoned the accused to appear before the Court. The accused

¶28

¶29

appeared before the Trial Court and pleaded not guilty for the charges leveled against him.

¶30

The prosecution examined 11 witnesses, got marked 27 documents and identified 10 material objects in support of its contention. The accused has denied all the incriminating materials available on record in his statement recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C., but he has not chosen to lead any evidence in support of his defence. However, the accused produced the documents along with memo to substantiate his defence.

¶31

The Trial Court after taking into consideration all these materials on record came to the conclusion that the accused has probablised his defence in view of the Circular produced by him along with memo and therefore, the prosecution is not successful in proving the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt by extending the benefit of doubt in favour of the accused. Therefore, the accused was acquitted by the Trial Court.

¶32

¶33

6. Aggrieved by the said judgment of acquittal

¶34

passed by the Trial Court, the State-Lokayukta Police has preferred this appeal on various grounds. The accused was served and is represented by his advocate.

¶35

Heard the learned Counsel for the appellant. Learned Counsel for the respondent is absent. Perused the materials including the Trial Court records.

¶36

Learned Counsel for the appellant submitted

¶37

that PW1 is the first informant and partly supported the case of prosecution. The informant has not chosen to fully support the case of prosecution for the reasons best known to him. But, however, PW2 who is the shadow witness has fully supported the case of prosecution. The defence taken by the accused is at belated stage and it cannot be believed. Even though PW3 - the President of Gram Panchayath is examined, nothing has been elicited from him to contend that the accused had collected Rs.2,000/as per the Circular referred to by the accused. Similarly,

¶38

¶39

PWs.4 and 6 are the panchayath officials and it was not suggested to these witnesses that the accused has accepted the amount as per the Circular in question. Learned Counsel also submitted that Ex.P27 is the explanation submitted by the accused at the initial stage. In the said explanation, the accused had not referred to the Circular. However, subsequently he relied on it, which shows that the accused has taken a false defence, but he has not probabalised the same. Learned Counsel also submitted that the accused had not stepped into the witness box for the reasons best known to him. Therefore, the so called defence taken by the accused at a belated stage cannot be accepted. The evidence of PWs.2 to 4, 6 and 11 supports the case of the prosecution and there is no reason to reject these evidences. Hence, he prays for allowing the appeal by setting aside the impugned judgment of acquittal passed by the Trial Court.

¶40

On perusal of the Trial Court records, it is found that PW1 – the first informant stated that the

¶41

¶42

accused was releasing and issuing cheques towards the installments of loan under 'Ashraya scheme'. The accused had released three installments to the first informant and collected Rs.500/- each while issuing the cheques. At the time of releasing final installment of Rs.10,000/-, the accused had informed the informant to deposit Rs.5,000/to the Government to get Rs.10,000/-. Accordingly, the accused insisted to pay atleast Rs.2,500/- to be paid to the Government. The informant also states that when he paid Rs.2,000/- to the accused, the accused specifically stated that he has to deposit the said amount to the Government.

¶43

The accused has produced the Circular dated 23.03.2007 issued by the Managing Director of Rajiv Gandhi Rural Housing Corporation Ltd., As per the Circular, the subsidy amount under Rural Housing Scheme for the years 2005-06 is increased from Rs.20,000/- to Rs.25,000/-. It is pertinent to note that the first, second and third installment of Rs.5,000/- is required to be released and the last installment has to be released only

¶44

¶45

after completion of the construction of the house. It is also pertinent to note that the beneficiary under general category are required to repay Rs.5,000/- from out of the subsidy amount. It is stated that when the accused is about to release the amount in favour of the beneficiary, with his consent, an amount of Rs.5,000/- can be taken back and credited to the loan account. Now, it is the defence taken by the accused that since all the three installments under the housing scheme was already released in favour of the mother of the informant and the last installment was due to be released, he asked the informant to pay the amount of Rs.5,000/- to be deposited to the Government as per the Circular referred to above and out of this amount, the informant had paid Rs.2,000/on the date of incident and the amount which was recovered from the Investigating Officer was not received by him as bribe or illegal gratification.

¶46

PW6 was the Secretary of Gram Panchayat,

¶47

Arakera Grama and was working along with the accused.

¶48

¶49

He has stated during the cross examination that, there is a Circular issued requiring the beneficiary to return the portion of the amount out of the subsidy amount. This evidence of PW6 also supports the defence taken by the accused and also Circular produced by him.

¶50

As per the evidence of the prosecution, the informant had paid Rs.2,000/- to the accused which was subsequently recovered and the accused was trapped. These facts were proved by the prosecution. Ex.P27 is the explanation given by the accused, but in the said explanation, the accused had not raised this specific defence that he received the amount from the informant for the purpose of depositing it to the Government as per the Circular referred to above. Nevertheless, simply because he has not raised such defence at the initial sage, it cannot be a ground to reject the Circular and the defence taken by the accused. These materials placed before the Court makes out a probable defence for the accused and reasonable explanation for the accused to be

¶51

¶52

found in possession of the tainted money paid by the informant. The evidences of PWs1 and 6 along with the Circular referred to above give rise to a reasonable doubt in the case made out by the prosecution.

¶53

It is well settled proposition of law that the accused will be entitled to be acquitted for any such reasonable doubt. Therefore, I am of the opinion that the accused is successful in probablising the defence. Hence, it cannot be said that the prosecution is successful in proving the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt.

¶54

I have gone through the impugned judgment of acquittal passed by the Trial Court. The Trial Court taking into consideration the Circular referred to above, held that it makes out a probable defence in favour of the accused. I do not find any reasons to interfere with the said judgment of acquittal passed by the Trial Court. In the result, the appeal deserves to be dismissed.

¶55

¶56

Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed as devoid of

¶57

merits.

¶58

Office is directed to send back the Trial Court

¶59

records, forthwith.

¶60

Sd/JUDGE

¶61

*bgn/-

State of Karnataka Represented by Special v. Venkanna S/O Ramanna Devapur

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

State of Karnataka Represented by Special v. Venkanna S/O Ramanna Devapur

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

Mahabubsab S/O Peersab Sindagi Jagirdhar Vs the State of Karnataka

Chandu @ Chandrakanth S/O Chennappa Vs the State of Karnataka

Moti @ Motiram S/O Pandu Rathod Vs the State of Karnataka

Kiran Vs the State through

Sunil S/O Vithalrao Dhule Vs the State of Karnataka

Bheemsha S/O Maruti Kuri Doddadi Vs the State through Chincholi Ps