IN RE: DATTATRAYA GANGADHAR SAMANT Vs.
LAWS(KAR)-1966-12-13
HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
Decided on December 15,1966

In Re: Dattatraya Gangadhar Samant Appellant
VERSUS
Respondents


Referred Judgements :-

H N RISHBUD VS. STATE OF DELHI [REFERRED TO]
RAMASWAMY NADAR VS. STATE OF MADRAS [REFERRED TO]
MUNNALAL VS. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH [REFERRED TO]
LUMBHARDAR ZUTSHI VS. KING [REFERRED TO]


JUDGEMENT

M.SANTHOSH, J. - (1.)THE appellant Dattatray Gangadhar Bamant in Criminal Appeal No. 331 of 196S was the first accused in Special Case No. 5 of 1961 on the tile of the Special Judge, Belgaum. He and the second accused Kashinath Krishna Bapat were charged with having committed offences under Section 161 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 5 (a) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. The appellant (accused -1) was convicted by the learned Special Judge of the offence under Section 161 I.P.C., and sentenced to one year's R. I. and a fine of Rs. 200/., in default, to suffer rigorous imprisonment for three months. In Cr. A. 331/65 the appellant questions the correctness and legality of the said conviction and sentence.
Accused -2 Kashinath Krishna Bapat has been acquitted by the learned Special Judge of both the charges. Criminal Appeal 4 of 1966 is the appeal filed by the State questioning the correctness of the acquittal of the second accused foe both the charges and the acquittal of accused -1 of the charge under Section 5 (2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act. When Criminal Appeal 4 of 1966 came up for admission, this Court admitted the appeal as against the second accused only and rejected the appeal filed by the State against the acquittal of accused 1 of the charge under Section 5 (2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act. Hence the question of acquittal of accused -1 of the charge under Section 5 (2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act is not before us.

(2.)ACCUSED -1 was employed as a Head Clerk -cum -Accountant in Belgaum Municipal School Board. Accused.2 was a Primary school teacher serving under the same Municipal School Board. The case of the prosecution is that accused -1 was operating through accused.2 for the purpose of demanding and collecting bribes from school teachers for getting things clone by the Administrative Officer (A. O.) of the School Board, Belgaum. P. W. l Appasaheb was serving in the year 1960 in School No. 12 as Headmaster. On 19 -7 -1960, he was transferred to School No. 15. As P. W. 1 Appasaheb was a disabled person having lost the use of his right hand and left leg due to rheumatic trouble, he was very much up. get by his transfer.
The prosecution case is that accused -2 thereafter approached P. W. l Appasaheb and suggested that if he paid same money to accused -1, this transfer could be cancelled. Accused -2 arranged a meeting of P. W. 1 Appasaheb with accused.1 in the backyard of the Municipal School Board Office on 22 -7 -1960. Accused 1 demanded Rs. 100/ - for getting the transfer can. celled. P. W l Appasaheb pleaded his inability to. pay this big amount. Thereupon accused -1 made an alternative proposal that if he paid Rs. 50/, he would get him transferred to School No. 7, which was near his house, as Assistant Teacher. P. W. 1 Appasaheb agreed to this proposal. Then accused l told him that he could pay this amount to him through accused -2. He also asked P.W. 1 Appasaheb to send an application enclosing a medical certificate.

(3.)ON 2.8.1960, when P. W. 1 Appasaheb received his pay, he paid Rs. 25/ - to accused -2 by way of first instalment, requesting him to wait for some time for the second instalment. Then, on, 16.8.1960. P. W. 1 Appasaheb made the second payment of Rs. 15/ - to accused -2 requesting him for some more time for making payment of the remaining amount of Rs. 10/ -. After the payment of the second instalment, P. W. 1 Appasaheb received the order transferring him to School No. 7 from School No. 15. Thereafter, accused -2 made pressing demands for the payment of the remaining amount of Rs. 10/ -. On 8th November 1960, P.W. 1 Appasaheb wrote a note, Exhibit 66, to accused -2, to come and collect the sum of Rs. 10/ -. that was due to be paid to accused 1. Thereafter, on 9th November I960, P. W. l Appasaheb approached P. W. 36 Keshav, who was the Sub -Inspector attached to Anti -Corruption. Department. P. W 36, P. S. L Keshav got a complaint, Exhibit 67, from Appasaheb and thereafter, applied to the Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Belgaum Taluka, for sanction for laying a trap. The learned Magistrate gave the necessary sanction by Exhibit 182 (A). Then the P. S. I. sent for two Panchas and in their presence P. W. 1 Appasaheb produced currency notes of the amount of Rs. 10/ -, the numbers of which were noted in the Panohnama, Exhibit 68, and phenolphthalein powder was also applied to those notes.


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.