M.R. PURUSHOTHAM Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA
LAWS(SC)-2014-9-104
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA (FROM: KARNATAKA)
Decided on
September 24,2014
M.R. Purushotham
Appellant
VERSUS
STATE OF KARNATAKA
Respondents
Cited Judgements :-
JAGDISHCHANDRA TRIBHUVANDAS THAKAR VS. STATE OF GUJARAT [LAWS(GJH)-2018-3-194] [REFERRED TO]SHANKARBHAI SALIYABHAI RATHAVA VS. STATE OF GUJARAT [LAWS(GJH)-2018-4-64] [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF GUJARAT VS. VIKRAMBHAI KANJIBHAI PARMAR [LAWS(GJH)-2018-3-19] [REFERRED TO]
JETHALAL AMRABHAI KHIMSURIYA VS. STATE OF GUJARAT [LAWS(GJH)-2015-5-92] [REFERRED TO]
ARVIND DIGAMBAR PETKAR VS. STATE OF GUJARAT [LAWS(GJH)-2015-4-98] [REFERRED TO]
DEVENDRABHAI RATILAL VORA VS. STATE OF GUJARAT [LAWS(GJH)-2015-4-93] [REFERRED TO]
DINESHBHAI MULJIBHAI PRAJAPATI VS. STATE OF GUJARAT [LAWS(GJH)-2015-4-147] [REFERRED TO]
KAMLESHKUMAR KRUSHNAKUMAR MISHRA VS. STATE OF GUJARAT [LAWS(GJH)-2015-4-154] [REFERRED TO]
BHARATSINH GANDAJI DABHI VS. STATE OF GUJARAT [LAWS(GJH)-2015-3-172] [REFERRED TO]
SUSHIL KUMAR PATI VS. STATE OF ODISHA (VIG ) [LAWS(ORI)-2018-5-69] [REFERRED TO]
PRADEEPTA KUMAR PRAHARAJ VS. STATE OF ODISHA [LAWS(ORI)-2023-8-140] [REFERRED TO]
MANUBHAI GAMBHABHAI PARMAR VS. STATE OF GUJARAT [LAWS(GJH)-2015-5-64] [REFERRED TO]
HASMUKHBHAI RAIJIBHAI PATEL VS. STATE OF GUJARAT [LAWS(GJH)-2015-4-165] [REFERRED TO]
YASHWANTRAO HANDURAO BORSE VS. STATE OF GUJARAT [LAWS(GJH)-2015-4-177] [REFERRED TO]
PARESHKUMAR RASIKLAL DARJI VS. STATE OF GUJARAT [LAWS(GJH)-2015-3-321] [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF GUJARAT VS. ASHOKKUMAR RAVISHANKAR PANDYA [LAWS(GJH)-2015-3-320] [REFERRED TO]
KRUSHNAKUMAR NARSINHJI CHAVADA VS. STATE OF GUJARAT [LAWS(GJH)-2016-5-27] [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF GUJARAT VS. SURESHBHAI SHANKARBHAI PATEL [LAWS(GJH)-2017-6-119] [REFERRED TO]
AMRISH BALSHANKAR PANDYA VS. STATE OF GUJARAT [LAWS(GJH)-2017-6-293] [REFERRED TO]
HITENDRA CHANDRA CHAKRABOR TY (DR.) VS. STATE OF ASSAM [LAWS(GAU)-2016-1-40] [REFERRED TO]
PARKASH CHAND VS. STATE OF PUNJAB [LAWS(P&H)-2015-8-66] [REFERRED TO]
RAM KISHAN VS. STATE OF HARYANA [LAWS(P&H)-2015-11-79] [REFERRED TO]
ASHOK KUMAR VS. STATE OF PUNJAB [LAWS(P&H)-2015-7-8] [REFERRED TO]
SITARAM SINGH VS. STATE OF BIHAR [LAWS(PAT)-2018-7-381] [REFERRED TO]
V.GOPAL REDDY VS. STATE OF TELANGANA [LAWS(TLNG)-2019-4-98] [REFERRED TO]
T.GOPALAIAH VS. STATE [LAWS(KAR)-2020-3-101] [REFERRED TO]
GOVINDSINH KARANSINH JADEJA VS. STATE OF GUJARAT [LAWS(GJH)-2015-4-170] [REFERRED TO]
KISHORBHAI MEGHJIBHAI GOHIL VS. STATE OF GUJARAT [LAWS(GJH)-2015-4-104] [REFERRED TO]
JOHN VS. STATE OF KERALA [LAWS(KER)-2015-11-40] [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF GUJARAT VS. RAJENDRA HARPALSINH THAKUR [LAWS(GJH)-2017-6-36] [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF GUJARAT VS. JASWANTSINGH PRATAPSINGH GOHIL [LAWS(GJH)-2017-6-68] [REFERRED TO]
G. VASU VS. DEPUTY SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, VIGILANCE AND ANTI CORRUPTION WING [LAWS(MAD)-2015-7-374] [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF GUJARAT VS. DAHYABHAI KALIDAS PARMAR [LAWS(GJH)-2023-2-899] [REFERRED TO]
K.V. RAGHURAM AND ORS. VS. STATE [LAWS(KAR)-2015-9-36] [REFERRED TO]
IVATURI VENKATA SUBBA RAO VS. STATE OF A.P. [LAWS(TLNG)-2023-3-86] [REFERRED TO]
RAJESH VS. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA [LAWS(BOM)-2016-3-138] [REFERRED TO]
RATNAKANT VS. THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA [LAWS(BOM)-2015-7-253] [REFERRED TO]
SUBHASH AND ORS. VS. THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA [LAWS(BOM)-2015-12-161] [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH THROUGH SPECIAL POLICE EST VS. BABULAL DEWANGAN [LAWS(CHH)-2018-1-19] [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF GUJARAT VS. JAYESHKUMAR RAMNIKLAL JANI [LAWS(GJH)-2015-3-182] [REFERRED TO]
JAVANTILAL NATHALAL VALAND VS. STATE OF GUJARAT [LAWS(GJH)-2015-5-7] [REFERRED TO]
PARDEEP KUMAR SHARMA VS. STATE [LAWS(J&K)-2018-1-1] [REFERRED TO]
DEVIDAS LOKDOJI KADAM VS. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS [LAWS(BOM)-2017-12-270] [REFERRED TO]
KRISHNA NARAYAN GUNTHAWAR VS. STATE OF MAH.THR.P.S.O.GONDIA [LAWS(BOM)-2017-7-79] [REFERRED TO]
SAYAJI DASHRATH KAWADE VS. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA [LAWS(BOM)-2022-8-179] [REFERRED TO]
KISHOR VS. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA [LAWS(BOM)-2015-8-125] [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF GUJARAT VS. MANGUBHAI RANCHHODBHAI BARIA [LAWS(GJH)-2023-6-12] [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF GUJARAT VS. RATILAL HIRJI JOBANPUTRA [LAWS(GJH)-2023-2-1052] [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF GUJARAT VS. DINESHCHANDRA BHAISHANKER RAVAL [LAWS(GJH)-2023-2-101] [REFERRED TO]
VINOD KUMAR VS. STATE OF PUNJAB [LAWS(SC)-2015-1-69] [REFERRED TO]
STATE BY LOKAYUKTHA POLICE SHIMOGA VS. K C HOOVAPPA S/O CHINNAPPA GOWDA [LAWS(KAR)-2018-3-393] [REFERRED TO]
VASTABHAI JOITARAM PRAJAPATI VS. STATE OF GUJARAT [LAWS(GJH)-2023-8-3] [REFERRED TO]
NARAYANAN VS. STATE [LAWS(MAD)-2018-10-243] [REFERRED TO]
VIJAY KUMAR SHANKAR VS. STATE OF JHARKHAND [LAWS(JHAR)-2023-2-14] [REFERRED TO]
JATINBHAI VIDYUTBHAI VORA VS. STATE OF GUJARAT [LAWS(GJH)-2018-6-94] [REFERRED TO]
RAM KARAN PATHAK VS. STATE [LAWS(DLH)-2015-5-6] [REFERRED TO]
RANGNATH VS. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA [LAWS(BOM)-2024-2-66] [REFERRED TO]
MAFAJI SHIVAJI LAKUM (DARBAR) VS. STATE OF GUJARAT [LAWS(GJH)-2017-5-30] [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF GUJARAT VS. AMARNATH TRIBHOVANNATH SHARMA [LAWS(GJH)-2016-6-369] [REFERRED]
UMEDSINH MULUJI RATHOD VS. STATE OF GUJARAT [LAWS(GJH)-2015-5-73] [REFERRED TO]
MAHENDRASINH NANSINH RANA VS. STATE OF GUJARAT [LAWS(GJH)-2015-4-107] [REFERRED TO]
HARIDAS S/O BHAGWAN JAMUNAH VS. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA, THROUGH ANTI CORRUPTION BUREAU, AKOLA [LAWS(BOM)-2017-12-175] [REFERRED TO]
PRIYANKA KUMARI VS. STATE OF JHARKHAND [LAWS(JHAR)-2020-8-2] [REFERRED TO]
PRAKASH MADIWALAYYA MATHAPATI VS. STATE OF KARNATAKA [LAWS(KAR)-2020-2-61] [REFERRED TO]
VINUBHAI PETERBHAI CHRISTI VS. STATE OF GUJARAT [LAWS(GJH)-2016-6-91] [REFERRED TO]
RAMESHCHANDRA CHHAGANLAL JOSHI VS. STATE OF GUJARAT [LAWS(GJH)-2015-4-339] [REFERRED]
SOMABHAI BADRIBHAI KUMBHAR VS. STATE OF GUJARAT [LAWS(GJH)-2015-4-162] [REFERRED TO]
MALDE RAJDE KOLI VS. STATE OF GUJARAT [LAWS(GJH)-2015-4-188] [REFERRED TO]
NURUDIN RAJABALI VINDHANI VS. STATE OF GUJARAT [LAWS(GJH)-2015-4-295] [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF GUJARAT VS. RAMANBHAI KALABHAI CHAVDA [LAWS(GJH)-2015-3-127] [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF GUJARAT VS. RAJESHBHAI RAMNIKLAL SANGANI [LAWS(GJH)-2015-3-140] [REFERRED TO]
LAXMIDHAR VYAS VS. STATE OF RAJASTHAN [LAWS(RAJ)-2015-8-277] [REFERRED]
STATE OF GUJARAT VS. FARSAHATKHAN FAYAZKHAN [LAWS(GJH)-2023-2-2135] [REFERRED TO]
SURAJ SINGH @ DEEPAK SINGH VS. STATE OF JHARKHAND [LAWS(JHAR)-2021-3-54] [REFERRED TO]
ANOOP CHAND VS. STATE OF PUNJAB [LAWS(P&H)-2014-12-302] [REFERRED]
JAI NARAYAN VS. STATE [LAWS(DLH)-2023-9-25] [REFERRED TO]
NARINDER MOHAN SHARMA VS. STATE OF RAJASTHAN [LAWS(RAJ)-2019-7-82] [REFERRED TO]
RAMJI YADAV VS. STATE OF U.P. [LAWS(ALL)-2016-12-185] [REFERRED TO]
RAJENDRA G MUDALIYAR VS. STATE OF GUJARAT [LAWS(GJH)-2015-4-190] [REFERRED TO]
JAYESH HASMUKHBHAI HAKANI VS. STATE OF GUJARAT [LAWS(GJH)-2015-4-105] [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF GUJARAT VS. ABDULBHAI MUSABHAI SHEIKH [LAWS(GJH)-2015-4-202] [REFERRED TO]
HANSABEN WIFE KALYANSINH SUGARSINH THAKOR VS. STATE OF GUJARAT [LAWS(GJH)-2017-4-256] [REFERRED TO]
BARGAVAN PILLAI VS. STATE OF KERALA [LAWS(KER)-2015-9-189] [REFERRED TO]
JUDGEMENT
-
(1.)This appeal is directed against the judgment dated 4.1.2011 passed by the High Court of Karnataka at Bangalore in Criminal Appeal no.1130 of 2007 reversing the judgment of acquittal dated 8.12.2006 in Special Case no.36 of 2001 passed by the Principal Special Judge, Mandya. The High Court in the impugned judgment found the appellant/accused not guilty of the offence under Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred as "the Act") but guilty of offences under Section 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of the Act and sentenced him to undergo simple imprisonment for one year and to pay a fine of Rs.5000/-, in default to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of three months.
(2.)The case of the prosecution in brief is as follows :
The appellant/accused was working as Second Division Surveyor in the office of Assistant Director of Land Records, Nagamangala and on 18.2.2000 he demanded an illegal gratification of Rs.500/- from PW1 Ramesh for issuance of survey sketch pertaining to Survey no.255 of Hullenahalli village and it is further alleged that though the accused had surveyed the land on the application of the complainant he was postponing issuance of survey sketch, to force PW1 Ramesh to pay bribe. PW1 Ramesh lodged Exh.P1 complaint on 18.2.2000 with Lokayukta Police on which a case came to be registered in Crime no.1/2000 on the file of Mandya Lokayukta Police Station for the alleged offences under Sections 7, 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of the Act. A trap was organized and PW2 Sridhar and PW3 Kumaraswamy, Government servants, were directed to be present as panch witnesses. PW1 Ramesh produced a sum of Rs.500/- i.e. five currency notes of Rs.100/- each and the numbers of the said currency notes were recorded in the presence of panch witnesses and the currency notes got smeared with phenolphthalein powder. The complainant Ramesh took the powder smeared notes and went along with PW3 Kumaraswamy to the house of the appellant/accused. PW2 Sridhar and PW4 Inspector Santosh Kumar stood outside the said house. The accused was watching T.V. inside the room and on seeing them, he asked PW1 Ramesh as to whether he has brought what he had asked and PW1 Ramesh answered yes and gave the currency notes of Rs.500/- and accused took them by his right hand and kept the same on his table and directed PW1 Ramesh to come on Monday for obtaining copy of the Re-Survey. They came out and PW1 Ramesh gave the signal, immediately PW4 Inspector Santosh Kumar along with PW2 Sridhar went inside the house and in the solution of clean water and sodium carbonate the right hand fingers of the accused was immersed upon which it turned into light pink color and on verification the numbers of the currency notes which were lying on the table were tallied with the numbers of the notes written in Exh.P2 Mahazar. All the formalities were completed and after obtaining sanction charge sheet came to be filed against accused.
(3.)The Trial Court framed charges under Sections 7, 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of the Act and the accused pleaded not guilty. The prosecution examined four witnesses and marked Exh.P1 to P10 and M.Os. 1 to 10. The Trial Court held that the prosecution has failed to prove the charges against the accused and acquitted him. The State preferred appeal and the High Court in the impugned judgment held that the prosecution has failed to prove the offence under Section 7 of the Act and at the same time it proved the commission of offence under Section 13(1)(d) by the accused and consequently set aside the judgment of acquittal for said offences and convicted the appellant/accused for the offence punishable under Section 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of the Act and sentenced him as stated above. The said judgment is under challenge in this appeal.
(2.)The case of the prosecution in brief is as follows :
The appellant/accused was working as Second Division Surveyor in the office of Assistant Director of Land Records, Nagamangala and on 18.2.2000 he demanded an illegal gratification of Rs.500/- from PW1 Ramesh for issuance of survey sketch pertaining to Survey no.255 of Hullenahalli village and it is further alleged that though the accused had surveyed the land on the application of the complainant he was postponing issuance of survey sketch, to force PW1 Ramesh to pay bribe. PW1 Ramesh lodged Exh.P1 complaint on 18.2.2000 with Lokayukta Police on which a case came to be registered in Crime no.1/2000 on the file of Mandya Lokayukta Police Station for the alleged offences under Sections 7, 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of the Act. A trap was organized and PW2 Sridhar and PW3 Kumaraswamy, Government servants, were directed to be present as panch witnesses. PW1 Ramesh produced a sum of Rs.500/- i.e. five currency notes of Rs.100/- each and the numbers of the said currency notes were recorded in the presence of panch witnesses and the currency notes got smeared with phenolphthalein powder. The complainant Ramesh took the powder smeared notes and went along with PW3 Kumaraswamy to the house of the appellant/accused. PW2 Sridhar and PW4 Inspector Santosh Kumar stood outside the said house. The accused was watching T.V. inside the room and on seeing them, he asked PW1 Ramesh as to whether he has brought what he had asked and PW1 Ramesh answered yes and gave the currency notes of Rs.500/- and accused took them by his right hand and kept the same on his table and directed PW1 Ramesh to come on Monday for obtaining copy of the Re-Survey. They came out and PW1 Ramesh gave the signal, immediately PW4 Inspector Santosh Kumar along with PW2 Sridhar went inside the house and in the solution of clean water and sodium carbonate the right hand fingers of the accused was immersed upon which it turned into light pink color and on verification the numbers of the currency notes which were lying on the table were tallied with the numbers of the notes written in Exh.P2 Mahazar. All the formalities were completed and after obtaining sanction charge sheet came to be filed against accused.
(3.)The Trial Court framed charges under Sections 7, 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of the Act and the accused pleaded not guilty. The prosecution examined four witnesses and marked Exh.P1 to P10 and M.Os. 1 to 10. The Trial Court held that the prosecution has failed to prove the charges against the accused and acquitted him. The State preferred appeal and the High Court in the impugned judgment held that the prosecution has failed to prove the offence under Section 7 of the Act and at the same time it proved the commission of offence under Section 13(1)(d) by the accused and consequently set aside the judgment of acquittal for said offences and convicted the appellant/accused for the offence punishable under Section 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of the Act and sentenced him as stated above. The said judgment is under challenge in this appeal.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.