Dismissed

H Krishnachar S/O H Ramachar v. State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC11 May 2023CRL.A/109/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed the appeal against conviction for bribery under the Prevention of Corruption Act, confirming the Sessions Court's findings. Despite the appellant's death, the appeal did not abate under Section 394 CrPC as it involved a sentence of fine, and the legal heir was directed to pay the fine.

What did the court decide?

The judgment of conviction is confirmed; the legal representative of the appellant is directed to pay the fine amount ordered by the Sessions Judge.

H Krishnachar S/O H Ramachar Vs State of Karnataka — Corruption | Karnataka HC (2023)

¶1

Crl.A 109/2012

¶2

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶4

DATED THIS THE 11^TH DAY OF MAY, 2023

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VENKATESH NAIK T. CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.109 OF 2012

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

H. KRISHNACHAR S/o H. RAMACHAR, SINCE DECEASED, REPRESENTED BY HIS LEGAL REPRESENTATIVE: SMT. CHAYADEVI, W/O. LATE H. KRISHNACHAR, AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS, RESIDENT OF BANASHANKAR, NEAR SHARADA CLINIC, TUMKUR - 572 101.

¶9

APPELLANT

¶10

(BY SRI A.H. BHAGAVAN, ADVOCATE)

¶11

AND:

¶12

STATE OF KARNATAKA LOKAYUKTA POLICE, TUMKUR.

¶13

…RESPONDENT

¶14

(BY SRI B.S. PRASAD, SPECIAL PUBLIC PROSECUTOR)

¶15

¶16

THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 374(2) OF THE CRIMINAL PROCEDURE CODE, PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT OF CONVICTION AND SENTENCE DATED 12-1-2012 PASSED BY II ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, TUMKUR, IN SPECIAL CASE NO.25 OF 2006 CONVICTING THE APPELLANT-ACCUSED FOR THE OFFENCES P/U/S 7 AND 13(1)(D) R/W S. 13(2) OF THE PREVENTION OF CORRUPTION ACT.

¶17

THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED ON 10-3-2023, COMING ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT, THIS DAY, THE COURT PRONOUNCED THE FOLLOWING:

Crl.A 109/2012

J U D G M E N T

The appellant has filed the present appeal against the judgment of conviction and order on sentence dated 12-1-2012 passed by the II Additional District and Sessions Judge, Tumakuru, in Special Case No.25 of 2006.

¶22

Vide impugned judgment, the appellant-accused

¶23

has been convicted and sentenced for the offence punishable under Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (for short, 'P.C. Act') to suffer rigorous imprisonment for six months and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/and in default to pay the fine amount, he shall suffer rigorous imprisonment for three months and rigorous imprisonment for one year and to pay a fine of Rs.2,000/and in default to pay the fine amount, he shall suffer rigorous imprisonment for six months for the offence punishable under Section 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of the P.C. Act.

¶24

3 Crl.A 109/2012

¶25

Brief facts of the prosecution case are that, on 1-9-2004 at about 2:30 p.m. in Amruthur, the accused, being a public servant, serving as Revenue Inspector demanded and accepted a gratification of Rs.1,500/- from P.W.1-K.H. Thimmappa as a motive or reward for doing his official act for changing the katha. Hence, P.W.1 went to Lokayukta Office, Tumkur, and lodged complaint (Ex.P.1) against the accused for demanding illegal gratification. Thus, P.W.9-G.B.Rangaswamy, Investigating Officer, secured Sri Veerabhadraiah L.V. (P.W.2), Sri M.N. Nagaraju (P.W.3) and Sri Mariswamy (P.W.5) as panch witnesses and in their presence, an amount of Rs.1,500/- was given by P.W.1 to the Police Officer, the serial numbers of currency notes were noted down and phenolphthalein powder was smeared on the currency notes by P.W.5, and amount was given to P.W.1 with instructions that, when he meets the accused, the said amount shall be handed over to the accused, if he demands for money. Hence, entrustment mahazar (Ex.P.2) was prepared in Lokayukta Office.

¶26

Crl.A 109/2012

¶27

¶28

On the same day, Lokayukta Police Officer, his sub staff along with P.Ws.1 to 3 and P.W.5 went to the Office of the accused at Amruthur, where the accused demanded amount. Hence, P.W.1 handed over the amount to the accused. Thus, P.W.9 conducted trap on the accused and seized Rs.1,500/- from his pocket and conducted seizure Mahazar (Ex.P.4). P.W.9 also recorded statement of witness. After obtaining sanction from the Government, i.e Sri S.R. Umashankar (P.W.8), Deputy Commissioner, Tumkur District, Investigating Officer, filed charge-sheet before the learned Sessions Judge for the offences punishable under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of the P.C. Act. Soon after filing of the charge-sheet, the learned Sessions Judge took cognizance of offences, framed the charges against the accused for the aforesaid offences and read over the same to the accused, the accused pleaded not guilty, and claimed to be tried.

¶29

5 Crl.A 109/2012

¶30

In order to establish its case, the prosecution has

¶31

examined nine witnesses as P.W.1 to P.W.9, got marked eleven documents as Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.11 and ten material objects as M.O.1 to M.O.10 and closed its case. Thereafter, the statement of the accused under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short, 'Cr.P.C.'), was recorded. The accused did not adduce any defence evidence and the case was of total denial.

¶32

Ultimately, the learned Sessions Judge, after considering the entire material on record, has recorded a finding that, the prosecution proved its case beyond reasonable doubt that on 1-9-2004 at about 2:30 p.m. in Amruthur, the accused, being a public servant, serving as Revenue Inspector demanded and accepted a gratification of Rs.1,500/- from P.W.1-K.H. Thimmappa as a motive for changing the katha. Further, the learned Sessions Judge also observed that the prosecution has proved beyond reasonable doubt that the accused as a public servant,

¶33

6 Crl.A 109/2012

¶34

working as Revenue Inspector, by misusing his official position, by corrupt or illegal means, obtained pecuniary advantage to an extent of Rs.1,500/- form P.W.1 as a motive or reward for showing official favour in changing the katha of land of P.W.1, has committed criminal misconduct. Hence, the learned Sessions Judge convicted the accused for alleged offences, holding that, the prosecution proved its case beyond all reasonable doubt.

¶35

Being aggrieved by the impugned judgment of conviction and order on sentence, the appellant has preferred this appeal.

¶36

Heard the learned counsel for the parties to the lis .

¶37

Learned counsel for the appellant-accused has contended that the judgment of Court below is opposed to law, facts and probabilities in the case; the entire prosecution case is highly improbable; it is also improbable that a demand of Rs.2,000/- would be made to change the

¶38

Crl.A 109/2012

¶39

¶40

katha in respect of land measuring 1½ guntas in a remote village; the case of the prosecution as reflected in the First Information Report-Complaint is at variance with the evidence produced in the Court and what is alleged in the complaint is that demand was being made in respect of same old transaction which is not connected with the present transaction; there is no mention about the alleged demand by the appellant in the trap mahazar; there is no specific allegation of demand by the appellant in the evidence of P.W.1 and P.W.2. The learned counsel has further contended that the owner of the land, i.e. father of P.W.1, is not examined; in Ex.P1, it is stated that the demand was for Rs.1,500/-, whereas in the evidence of P.W.1, the demand was for Rs.2,000/-; in Ex.P.1, the demand is said to have been made near the land, whereas in the evidence, it is stated that the demand was made near the Office of the appellant; when the appellant is said to have informed P.W.1 that his application has been rejected, the question of further demand and acceptance of

¶41

Crl.A 109/2012

¶42

¶43

bribe would not arise at all. The learned counsel has further contended that it is highly improbable that the appellant would demand and accept bribe in the presence of P.W.2, who is a stranger to him; P.W.1 has not mentioned about the witnesses being present or being summoned at the time of entrustment mahazar; P.W.2 does not say about demand of additional sum of Rs.500/- by the appellant; P.W.2 has also not corroborated about P.W.1 making enquiries about his work; the conversation between the appellant and P.W.1 is alleged to have been tape recorded, however, neither the tape recorder, nor the tape or transcript is produced. The learned counsel has further contended that the raiding party first went to Kunigal Taluk Office and then to Amruthur Office, which is not corroborated by P.W.1 and P.W.2; there was ill-will between P.W.1 and the appellant and they had quarreled fifteen days prior to the alleged incident; further, the contents of trap mahazar are at variance with the evidence produced by the prosecution; a false case has been filed

¶44

Crl.A 109/2012

¶45

¶46

against the appellant at the behest of P.W.1-K.H.

¶47

Thimmappa and P.W.7-Gangadharappa.

¶48

The learned counsel has further contended that,

¶49

in fact, the appellant collected the amount for the purchase of NSE bonds from P.W.1 and this aspect has been admitted by P.W.1; the evidence of shadow and trap witness cannot be believed as P.W.1 has not mentioned about the presence of shadow witness in his testimony; as per the case of the prosecution, the appellant demanded Rs.1,500/- and in the evidence, it reveals that he demanded Rs.2,000/- and therefore, it is a clear case of fabrication. The learned counsel has further contended that the appellant filed the present appeal on 23-1-2012. After filing of the appeal, the appellant-H. Krishnachar died on 16-11-2021 and hence, on 14-12-2021, his counsel has filed application for bringing the legal heir of the appellant on record. Accordingly, on 2-1-2023, the wife of the appellant has been brought on record as the legal heir of

¶50

10 Crl.A 109/2012

¶51

the appellant and she has been prosecuting the appeal. Hence, the sentence of imprisonment now becomes unworkable.

¶52

The learned counsel has further contended that, examination of the accused under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C. was wholly improper and the evidence brought on record would manifestly indicate that P.W.2 and P.W.3, seizure witnesses, have been created one for the purpose of this case. In fact, the complainant could not have had any grievance against the accused and there was no work pending for changing the katha. Hence, he prayed to set aside the judgment and order of conviction and sentence passed by the learned Sessions Judge. In support of his arguments, the learned counsel has relied upon the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of RAMESAN (DEAD) THROUGH LEGAL REPRESENTATIVE, GIRIJA A. v. STATE OF KERALA , reported in (2020) 3 SCC 45.

¶53

11 Crl.A 109/2012

¶54

Learned Special Public Prosecutor has vehemently contended that the appellant, being a public servant, working as a Revenue Inspector, demanded and accepted the gratification of Rs.1,500/- from P.W.1 as a motive for changing the katha and in support of his oral testimony, P.W.1 has clearly deposed on oath regarding demand and acceptance of the gratification of Rs.1,500/-. Shadow witness (P.W.2) and panch witness (P.W.3) have clearly deposed as to the demand and acceptance of bribe amount by the appellant; the Investigating Officer has also clearly deposed about the complaint made by P.W.1, trap procedure and seizure conducted in the Office of the appellant; once demand and acceptance are approved, then the burden shifts on the appellant and if the appellant wants to discharge the burden, the Court shall draw presumption under Section 20 of the P.C. Act; the F.S.L. Report also supports the case of the prosecution; the appellant has not satisfactorily offered any explanation and

¶55

Crl.A 109/2012

¶56

¶57

he has not rebutted the evidence to discredit the case of the prosecution.

¶58

Learned Special Public Prosecutor has further contended that the learned Sessions Judge has rightly appreciated the prosecution evidence and has rightly convicted the appellant for the aforesaid offences. He further contends that, all witnesses have categorically deposed about the role of the accused in this case. There is no illegality in the sanction order and no grounds are made out to acquit the appellant and hence, he prays for dismissal of the appeal.

¶59

Learned Special Public Prosecutor has further

¶60

contended that since the appellant has died and his legal representative has been prosecuting the case, no sympathy should be extended to her as it is a case against the society. He further contends that, there is no reason to hold that the learned Sessions Judge has committed an error. He, therefore, submits that, Section 394 of the

¶61

13 Crl.A 109/2012

¶62

Cr.P.C. saves the appeal, which arises against sentence of fine only. When there is composite sentence of imprisonment as well as fine, when the appeal is abate, there can only be a sentence of fine.

¶63

In view of the rival contentions urged between

¶64

the learned counsel for the parties, the points that arise for consideration in this appeal are:

¶65

i. Whether the prosecution has proved its case beyond reasonable doubt that on 1-9-2004 at about 2:30 p.m. in Amruthur, the appellant, being a public servant, serving as Revenue Inspector, demanded and accepted a gratification of Rs.1,500/from P.W.1-K.H. Thimmappa as a motive for changing the katha and thereby, committed the offences punishable under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of the P.C. Act?

¶66

ii. Whether the prosecution has proved its case beyond reasonable doubt that on the aforesaid date, time, and place, the appellant, being a public servant, working as a Revenue Inspector,

¶67

Crl.A 109/2012

¶68

¶69

misused his official position for his illegal gain of Rs.1,500/- from P.W.1 as a motive for changing the katha?

¶70

iii. Whether the appellant proves the judgment passed by the learned Sessions Judge is not in accordance with law and calls for interference by this Court?

¶71

I have given my anxious consideration to the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the parties and perused the entire material including the original record carefully.

¶72

In order to re-appreciate the entire evidence on

¶73

record, it is appropriate to have a cursory look at the evidence of the prosecution witnesses and the documents relied upon.

¶74

a. P.W.1-K.H. Thimmappa is the complainant. He has

¶75

deposed that his father, Sri Honnappa, purchased the land and hence, he filed an application for changing the katha

¶76

15 Crl.A 109/2012

¶77

before the accused and when the application was moved, the accused demanded Rs.2,000/- for changing the katha. Hence, he lodged the complaint as per Ex.P.1 to the Lokayukta Police. He has further deposed that he visited the Office of the accused, and when he questioned the accused as to what he has done to his case, the accused demanded for bribe, at that time, he handed over Rs.1,500/- and again the accused asked him to pay remaining amount of Rs.500/-. Later, Lokayukta Police came to the spot, caught hold the accused and seized Rs.1,500/- by drawing seizure mahazar as per Ex.P.4.

¶78

b. P.W.2-Veerabhadraiah L.V. is a shadow witness, working as a Second Division Assistant in Fishery Department. He has deposed that on 1-9-2004, his higher officer instructed him to visit the Office of the Lokayukta and accordingly, he visited the Office of the Lokayukta. P.W.9-Investigating Officer introduced him to P.Ws.1, 3 and 5 and informed regarding the complaint lodged by

¶79

Crl.A 109/2012

¶80

¶81

P.W.1. Lokayukta Police smeared phenolphthalein powder on fifteen currency notes of Rs.100/- each and later, the same was given to P.W.5, he verified the currency notes and handed over the same to P.W.1. When the accused demanded for bribe, P.W.1 gave the said currency notes to the accused. Immediately, P.W.1 gave signal to the Lokayukta Police and they caught hold the accused and the hands of the accused were dipped in sodium carbonate solution, the solution turned into pink colour. Hence, Lokayukta Police seized the same by drawing seizure mahazar as per Ex.P.4.

¶82

c. P.W.3-M.N. Nagaraju, Principal, Government Science College, Tumakuru, is a panch witness. He was instructed to visit the Office of the Lokayukta and accordingly, he visited the Office of the Lokayukta. He has deposed on par with P.Ws.2 and 5.

¶83

d. P.W.4-H. Hanumantharaju, Assistant Engineer, who prepared the sketch of the spot as per Ex.P.5.

¶84

17 Crl.A 109/2012

¶85

e. P.W.5-Mariswamy, Engineer, deposed that on 1-9-2004, his higher officer instructed him to visit the Office of the Lokayukta and accordingly, he visited the Office of the Lokayukta. P.W.9-Investigating Officer introduced him to P.Ws.1, 2 and 3 and informed regarding the complaint lodged by P.W.1. Lokayukta Police smeared phenolphthalein powder on fifteen currency notes of Rs.100/- each and later, the same was given to him, he verified the currency notes and handed over the same to P.W.1. Further, he has deposed on similar lines with P.Ws.2 and 3.

¶86

f. P.W.6-Girigowda is an independent witness. He has deposed that he knows the accused and P.W.1 and further deposed that, prior to the incident, there was quarrel between the accused and P.W.1 in respect of changing the katha.

¶87

g. P.W.7-Gangadharappa, Village Accountant, deposed that he was working as Secretary, Kodigehalli Village, from 1995 to 2005. On 16-7-2004, the accused had sent an

¶88

18 Crl.A 109/2012

¶89

application submitted by P.W.1 to him and he has returned the same application to the accused on 16-8-2004 and has issued report as per M.O.9.

¶90

h. P.W.8-S.R. Umashankar, District Commissioner, Tumakuru District, is the sanctioning authority. He has deposed that on 1-7-2005, he received a letter along with documents from the Additional Director General of Police, Karnataka Lokayukta, and on perusal of the documents, as he was satisfied that to discharge his duty as a Government servant, the accused had demanded bribe. Hence, on 6-8-2005, he accorded sanction to prosecute the accused as per Ex.P.6.

¶91

j. P.W.9-G.B. Rangaswamy, Inspector, Lokayukta, conducted raid on the accused, investigated the matter and filed charge-sheet against the accused.

¶92

The substance of the prosecution case is that, on 1-9-2004 at about 2:30 p.m. in Nada Kacheri of Amruthur

¶93

Crl.A 109/2012

¶94

¶95

Village, Kunigal Taluk, Tumakuru, the accused, being a public servant, serving as Revenue Inspector, demanded and accepted a gratification of Rs.1,500/- from P.W.1K.H. Thimmappa as a motive or reward for doing his official act for changing the katha.

¶96

In the background of oral and documentary evidence relied upon by the prosecution, in order to disprove demand and acceptance, the learned counsel appearing for the appellant has vehemently contended that, to prove the offences punishable under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of the P.C. Act, the prosecution has to prove both the demand and acceptance of bribe beyond all reasonable doubt. Further, this Court in the case SMT. MAMTAZ BEGUM

¶97

v. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA reported in

¶98

2013 (1) KCCR 381 has held as under:

¶99

20 Crl.A 109/2012

¶100

“ Held, unless both demand and acceptance is proved by the prosecution beyond all reasonable doubt, the accused cannot be convicted for the offence under Sections 7 or 13 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. Strict observance of the requirements of law are to be complied in respect of the prosecution in the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. Both P.W.1 and P.W.4 have been treated hostile by the prosecution and their version regarding demand and acceptance varies from each other and from the documentary evidence. Hence, the prosecution has not proved that the accused herself has demanded the illegal gratification of Rs.500/- from the complainant P.W.4 and the benefit of this doubt goes to the accused. ”

¶101

Insofar as the offence under Section 7 of the P.C. Act is concerned, it is a settled position in law that demand of illegal gratification is sine qua non to

¶102

21 Crl.A 109/2012

¶103

constitute the said offence and mere recovery of currency notes cannot constitute an offence under Section 7 of the P.C. Act, unless it is proved beyond all reasonable doubt that, the accused voluntarily accepted the money knowing it to be a bribe. Mere possession and recovery of the currency notes from the accused without proof of demand will not bring home the offence under Section 7 of the P.C. Act. The above also will be conclusive insofar as the offence under Section 13(1)(d)(i) and (ii) is concerned, as in the absence of any proof of demand for illegal gratification, the use of corrupt or illegal means or abuse of position as a public servant to obtain any valuable thing or pecuniary advantage cannot be held to be established. Insofar as the presumption to be drawn under Section 20 of the P.C. Act is concerned, such presumption can only be available in respect of the offence under Section 7 of the P.C. Act and not for the offences under Section 13(1)(d)(i) and (ii) of the P.C. Act. In any event, it is

¶104

Crl.A 109/2012

¶105

¶106

only on proof of acceptance of illegal gratification that presumption can be drawn under Section 20 of the P.C. Act that such gratification was received for doing or forbearing to do any official act. Proof of acceptance of illegal gratification can follow only if there is proof of demand.

¶107

In this appeal, it is to be noticed that P.W.1, the complainant, has stated that his father had purchased the land and in this regard, he submitted an application for changing the katha. According to P.W.1, since he was not willing to pay the bribe to the accused, he went to Lokayukta Police and gave complaint as per Ex.P.1. Lokayukta Inspector secured two panchas, i.e. P.Ws.2 and 3, and in their presence, the Police Inspector prepared entrustment mahazar as per Ex.P.2 and on the same day, they went to the Office of the accused as per the instructions of Lokayukta Inspector. As the accused made demand, P.W.1 handed over the bribe amount of Rs.1,500/- to the accused and Lokayukta Inspector

¶108

23 Crl.A 109/2012

¶109

conducted raid and seized the same by drawing panchanama as per Ex.P.4.

¶110

P.Ws.2, 3 and 5 are the witnesses to entrustment panchanama (Ex.P.2) and seizure panchanama (Ex.P.4). P.W.9-Investigating Officer introduced himself to them and informed regarding the complaint lodged by P.W.1. Lokayukta Police smeared phenolphthalein powder on fifteen currency notes of Rs.100/- each and later, the same was given to P.W.5, he verified the currency notes and handed over the same to P.W.1. When the accused demanded for bribe, P.W.1 gave the said currency notes to the accused. Immediately, P.W.1 gave signal to the Lokayukta Police and they caught hold the accused and the hands of the accused were dipped in sodium carbonate solution, the solution turned into pink colour. Later, the Police Officer enquired about the amount, thus accused handed over the said amount to the Police Officer, the serial numbers of the currency notes given by the accused were tallied with the serial numbers of the currency notes noted

¶111

24 Crl.A 109/2012

¶112

in Lokayukta Office while conducting entrustment mahazar as per Ex.P.2. In this regard, Lokayukta Police seized the amount and conducted seizure panchanama as per Ex.P.4. They have supported the case of the prosecution.

¶113

In order to prove the offences under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of the P.C. Act, the prosecution has to prove that, the accused had demanded and accepted illegal gratification from the complainant. In the instant case, there is clear and convincing evidence on record to show that the accused had demanded and accepted bribe amount of Rs.1,500/from P.W.1complainant for changing the katha. In this regard, the entrustment and seizure mahazar witnesses, P.Ws.2, 3 and 5 have categorically deposed about the demand made by the accused and the amount received by him and thus, P.W.9, Investigating Officer, conducted entrustment mahazar and seizure mahazar. Therefore, presumption under Section 20 of the P.C. Act comes to the aid of the

¶114

25 Crl.A 109/2012

¶115

prosecution and accordingly, the learned Sessions Judge has drawn a presumption that, the accused had received amount of Rs.1,500/- as a motive or reward to show official favour i.e. for changing the katha. The learned Sessions Judge has appreciated the evidence of the P.Ws.2, 3, 5 and 9 in its right perspective and concluded that the evidence of prosecution witnesses is consistent, clear and corroborative in clear terms and the prosecution proved its case beyond reasonable doubt.

¶116

Learned counsel for the appellant has vehemently submitted that, during the pendency of the appeal, the accused died. Thus, the case against the accused be abated.

¶117

Section 394 of the Cr.P.C. deals with abatement of appeals, which reads as under:

¶118

Crl.A 109/2012

¶119

¶120

"394. Abatement of appeals:

¶121

1) Every appeal under Section 377 or Section 378 shall finally abate on the death of the accused;

¶122

2) Every other appeal under this chapter (except an appeal from a sentence of fine) shall finally abate on the death of the appellant;

¶123

Provided that where the appeal is against a conviction and sentence of death or of imprisonment, and the appellant dies during the pendency of the appeal, any of his near relatives may, within thirty days of the death of the appellant, apply to the appellate Court for leave to continue the appeal; and if leave is granted, the appeal shall not abate."

¶124

Explanation.-In this Section, "near relative" means a parent, spouse, lineal descendant, brother or sister".

¶125

The fine as per the provisions of the Cr.P.C. is recoverable from movable and immovable properties of the accused.

¶126

Crl.A 109/2012

¶127

¶128

Section 421 of the Cr.P.C. provided as follows:

¶129

"421. Warrant for levy of one

¶130

1) When an offender has been sentenced to pay a fine, the Court passing the sentence may take action for the recovery of the fine in either or both of the following ways, that is to say, it may-

¶131

a) Issue a warrant for the levy of the amount by attachment and sale of any movable property belonging to the offender;

¶132

b) Issue a warrant to the Collector of District, authorising him to realise the amount as arrears of land revenue from the movable or immovable property, or both, of the defaulter;

¶133

Provided that, if the sentence directs that in default of payment of the fine, the offender shall be imprisoned, and if such offender has undergone the whole of such imprisonment in default, no Court shall issue such warrant unless,

¶134

28 Crl.A 109/2012

¶135

for special reasons to be recorded in writing, it considers it necessary so to do, or unless it has made an order for the payment of expenses or compensation out of the fine under Section 357 of Cr.P.C."

¶136

In the instant case, the learned Sessions Judge sentenced the accused to suffer rigorous imprisonment for six months and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- and rigorous imprisonment for one year and to pay a fine of Rs.2,000/for the offences punishable under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of the P.C. Act.

¶137

The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Ramesan stated supra, clearly held that "if sentence of fine is imposed along with the sentence of imprisonment, under Section 431 of the Cr.P.C., such appeal shall not abate. Thus, the appeal in the present case, where the accused was sentenced for imprisonment as well as for fine, has to be treated as an appeal against fine and was not to abate. Hence, the High Court cannot direct for abatement of

¶138

Crl.A 109/2012

¶139

¶140

appeal and shall proceed to consider the appeal on merits."

¶141

The relevant paragraphs read as under:

¶142

"16. The above judgment categorically laid down that even if sentence of fine is imposed along with the sentence of imprisonment under Section 431, such appeal shall not abate. The similar expression, which was used in Section 431 i.e. “except an appeal from the sentence of fine” has been used in Section 394 CrPC. Thus, the appeal in the present case where the accused was sentenced for imprisonment as well as for fine has to be treated as an appeal against fine and was not to abate and the High Court did not commit any error in deciding the appeal on merits.

¶143

xxx xxx xxx

¶144

19. We, thus, conclude that the appeal filed by accused Ramesan in the High Court was not to abate on death of the accused. The High Court rightly did not direct for abatement of appeal and proceeded to consider the appeal on merits. The appeal before the High Court being against sentence of fine was required to be heard against the sentence of fine despite death of the appellant-accused.

¶145

20. Although, we have upheld the view of the High Court that appeal filed by the accused was not to abate

¶146

30 Crl.A 109/2012

¶147

and was required to be heard and decided on merits but there is one aspect of hearing of the appeal before the High Court, which needs to be noted. From the judgment of the High Court, it does not appear that after the death of the appellant-accused, his legal heirs were given opportunity to proceed with the appeal against the sentence of fine. The judgment of the High Court does not also mention that any counsel has appeared for the legal heirs. The High Court ought to have given an opportunity to the legal heirs of the accused to make their submissions against the sentence of fine, which fine could have been very well recovered from the assets of the accused in the hands of the legal heirs."

¶148

For the reasons stated above, I am of the view that, ends of justice will be served if an opportunity be given to the legal heir of the accused to make her submission against the sentence of fine. Accordingly, the case against appellant be abated and the legal heir of the appellant is directed to pay fine amount imposed by the learned Sessions Judge, failing which, the fine could be

¶149

31 Crl.A 109/2012

¶150

recovered by way of recovery of land revenue out of the assets of the accused, in the hands of the legal heir.

¶151

In view of the above proposition of law and decisions cited supra, I found that there is sufficient evidence to show that the accused demanded and accepted bribe amount of Rs.1,500/- from P.W.1, the complainant. The findings recorded by the learned Sessions Judge do not suffer from any manifest error and improper appreciation of the evidence on record. Therefore, the judgment and order of conviction and sentencing the accused is sustainable in law.

¶152

In the result, the following:

¶153

O R D E R

¶154

i) The appeal is dismissed ;

¶155

ii) The judgment of conviction dated 12-1-2012 passed by the II Additional District and Sessions Judge, Tumakuru, in Special Case No.25 of 2006, in

¶156

32 Crl.A 109/2012

¶157

so far as convicting the appellant for the offences punishable under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of the Corruption Act, 1988, is hereby confirmed, and

¶158

iii) In view of the confirmation of the judgment of conviction passed by the learned Sessions Judge and since the appellant is no more, the legal representative of the accused, i.e., his wife, Smt. Chayadevi, is directed to pay the fine amount, as ordered by the learned Sessions Judge.

¶159

Sd/JUDGE

¶160

kvk

H Krishnachar S/O H Ramachar v. State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

H Krishnachar S/O H Ramachar v. State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sri. M.V Prakash Vs State of Karnataka

Jayaraju, Vs the State of Karnataka

Mr.K.R.Padmanabha Vs Mr.Shailesh K

Somashekhar @ Somesh Vs the Station House Officer

Vasanth Hublikar Vs State of Karnataka

Maratti Ravi S/O Shankarappa Vs the State of Karnataka by