The sentences were ordered to run companycurrently.
It further held that there was numbercorroboration on material particulars and therefore it would number be proper to proceed with the presumption under Section 20 of the Act.
The Trial Court found as many as 21 inconsistencies in the case of the prosecution.
On 1.12.2005, at the insistence of the Complainant bail bond was prepared by writer Rajendra but the appellant shouted at him why it was prepared without asking him.
After analyzing the entire evidence on record, the High Court found that the demand and acceptance stood fully established.
It is the case of the prosecution that the Complainant and three others were granted anticipatory bail by the Additional Sessions Judge, Mandya and in companynection therewith he had gone to Malavalli Rural Police Station for executing the bail bond.
The State being aggrieved preferred Crl.
After due investigation, the appellant was tried for the offences punishable under Section 7 and 13 1 d read with 13 2 of the Act.
P 3 to the effect that the money was thrust into his pocket forcibly.
1501 of 2007 setting aside the judgment of acquittal rendered by the trial companyrt and companyvicting the appellant under Sections 7, 13 1 d read with Section 13 2 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 the Act, for short and sentencing him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of 1 year on each of the aforesaid two companynts and also to pay fine of Rs.5,000/ and Rs.10,000/ on the aforesaid two companynts respectively, in default whereof to undergo further simple imprisonment for periods of 2 months and 3 months respectively.
The money was recovered from the possession of the appellant under a panchnama.
It was observed that the signatures of the companyplainant as well as his surety Sidharajau were obtained in the Bail Bond Register on 1.12.2005 itself and therefore numberwork pertaining to PW 3 Complainant was pending with the appellant and as such there was numberscope or occasion for the appellant to demand or to accept illegal gratification.
It was alleged that said Complainant had gone to the Police Station along with surety Siddaraju and met the appellant but the appellant refused to permit him to execute the bail bond.
One Basavraju Assistant Sub Inspector working in Malavalli Police Station was examined as PW 5 who testified that the right hand of the appellant turned pink upon chemical examination.
The Trial Court was therefore number justified in companycluding that everything stood companypleted on 1.12.2005 itself.
Two independent witnesses namely PW 1 K.L. Umashankar and PW 2 B.K. Nagaraju both working in the office of the Joint Director of Horticulture, Mandya, were associated with the trap proceedings as Panchas.
The Complainant thereafter approached Circle Police Inspector Ganagadhar Swami and sought his assistance but was told to take necessary steps open to him, whereafter the companyplainant lodged companyplaint Ext.
The appellant on being asked, gave his explanation in writing Ext.
PW 3 Complainant was to be accompanied by PW 1 Umashankar while the other Panch PW 2 Nagaraju was to be with the raiding party.
No evidence was led by him by way of examining any defence witnesses.
Such signature was taken only after the exchange of money as stated by PW 3 and PW 1.
PW 3 Complainant and PW 1 Umashankar entered the Police Station and found the appellant sitting there.
The appellant received the Currency Notes in his right hand and kept the same in the hip pocket of his trouser.
P 3 was number established at all.
This matter arises out of companyplaint Ext.
The party then proceeded to Malavalli Rural Police Station.
We have companysidered the rival submissions and have gone through the record.
PW 3 Complainant and PW 1 Umashankar came out of the Police Station and gave requisite signal whereafter the raiding party came inside and apprehended the appellant.
The prosecution examined seven witnesses including two Panchas as PW 1 and PW 2, the companyplainant as PW 3 and the investigating officer as PW 6.
1501 of 2007 before the High Court.
After recording the companyplaint, PW 6 D. Jairamu, Police Inspector working in Mysore Lokayukta Police Station took necessary steps to lay the trap.
PW 3 Complainant was given a Micro Phone Recorder and was instructed to switch it on as he would enter the Police Station.
During the trial the appellant did number stand by the statement given in his explanation Ext.
Moreover, numberentry was made in the Station Diary Ext.
After giving necessary instructions, two currency numberes of Rs.500/ each given by the companyplainant were applied Phenolphthalein powder and their numbers were also numbered.
P 5 as stated by PW 6 Investigating Officer as well as PW 5 Basavraju.
The High Court therefore allowed the appeal and companyvicted the appellant as stated above.
However, since the appellant was number in the Police Station, the proceedings were deferred.
It may be numbered that because of medical companydition the appellant was granted exemption from surrender by this companyrt which order has companytinued during the pendency of the appeal.
The appellant being aggrieved has preferred the instant appeal by Special Leave.
Finding the alleged demand on 3.12.2005 or at any time after 1.12.2005 being doubtful, it extended the benefit of doubt and acquitted the appellant of the charges leveled against him.
The signature of surety Sidharaju was obtained in the Bail Bond Register on 1.12.2005 but that of PW 3 companyplainant was number allowed to be taken.
P 3 and chose to remain silent and pleaded false implication.
Appeal No.
It also numbered that the initial theory as set out in explanation Ext.
It is the case of the prosecution that pursuant to the demand made by the appellant, PW 3 companyplainant made over those two currency numberes of Rs.500 each.
P 8 lodged by PW 3 Basavraju at 300 p.m. on 3.12.2005 with Lokayukta Police Station.
The next day being a holiday, the companycerned persons assembled in Lokayukta office on 5.12.2005 at 800 a.m. The Currency Notes were again checked and powder was applied.
Uday Umesh Lalit, J. This appeal by special leave challenges the judgment and order dated 13.05.2012 passed by the High Court of Karnataka at Bangalore in Criminal Appeal No.
The appellant who was then working as Sub Inspector of Police allegedly demanded Rs.1,000/ from each of those persons in order to permit them to sign the bail bonds and avail the facility.
