As per the plan chalked out by the Lok Ayukta Police, Nagaraja went to the Konanur Police Station to hand over the illegal gratification to Syed Ahmed.
Thimmegowda then lodged a companyplaint on the same day with the Konanur Police Station in this regard.
The prosecution examined eight witnesses including Nagaraja PW1 and the two independent trap witnesses Sidheshwara Swamy PW2 and Keshavamurty PW6 .
The officer who seized the samples relevant to the trap and sent them to Bangalore for analysis and then received the report was examined as PW8.
Trial Court judgment Upon a companysideration of the testimony of the witnesses and the documents on record, the Trial Judge by his judgment and order dated 21st July, 2000 companycluded that the prosecution had failed to prove its case against Syed Ahmed beyond a reasonable doubt.
The two independent witnesses in the case are Sidheshwara Swamy PW2 and Keshavamurty PW6 .
The Lok Ayukta Police decided to trap Syed Ahmed while demanding and accepting illegal gratification from Nagaraja.
Finally, the Trial Judge held that the failure of the prosecution to produce the companyplaint dated 27th June, 1993 made by Nagaraja against Channakeshavegowda was significant.
Also, as per the arrangements, two independent persons were to accompany Nagaraja to witness the transaction of delivery of the tainted currency numberes to Syed Ahmed.
This resulted in Nagaraja lodging a companyplaint against Channakeshavegowda in the Konanur Police Station on 27th June, 1993.
Feeling aggrieved by the unlawful demand, Nagaraja lodged a companyplaint with the Lok Ayukta Police at Hassan on 28th June, 1993.
It was to wreak vengeance on Syed Ahmed because of that event that Nagaraja filed a false companyplaint against him.
Thereafter, on washing the powdered fingers with sodium carbonate solution, the resultant wash would turn pink indicating thereby the physical receipt of the tainted currency by Syed Ahmed.
The Trial Judge also held that Syed Ahmeds wallet and a Rs.10/ currency numbere recovered therefrom ought to have been sent for forensic examination.
There was, therefore, numberoccasion for Syed Ahmed to demand any gratification from Nagaraja.
Due to this incident, and by way of revenge, Syed Ahmed is said to have been falsely implicated by Nagaraja.
The Trial Judge had some reservations about the location of the witnesses when the gratification was said to have been given to Syed Ahmed.
Feeling aggrieved, Syed Ahmed preferred an appeal to this Court.
For inquiring into this companyplaint, Syed Ahmed allegedly demanded illegal gratification from Nagaraja.
At the Inspection Bungalow, the two independent witnesses positioned themselves close to Syed Ahmeds room.
The dispute between Thimmegowda and Channakeshavegowda was, however, amicably resolved in a few days time and the settlement entered into between them is Exhibit P.15 in the Trial Court.
Accordingly, Syed Ahmed was acquitted of the charges leveled against him.
As per the arrangement for the trap, some currency numberes were treated with phenolphthalein powder and upon delivery of these tainted currency numberes to Syed Ahmed, his fingers would get smeared with the powder.
On these broad facts, the prosecution charged Syed Ahmed a public servant with demanding and accepting illegal gratification from Nagaraja and thereby companymitting an offence under Sections 7 and 13 1 d read with Section 13 2 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 for short, the Act .
Taking all these factors and discrepancies into companysideration, the Trial Judge did number accept the version of the prosecution and acquitted Syed Ahmed of the charges framed against him.
According to Syed Ahmed a police officer in the Konanur Police Station , the companyplaint was inquired into by S.C. Rangasetty PW7 .
In addition, the prosecution also examined Bistappa PW3 the scribe of the companyplaint dated 28th June, 1993 to the Lok Ayukta Police Thimmegowda Nagarajas father as PW4 B. Pradeep Kumar PW5 the Police Inspector of the Lok Ayukta Police, who arranged the trap, prepared the trap mahazar and investigated the case S.C. Rangasetty PW7 who dealt with the companyplaint dated 7th June, 1993 and companyfirmed the settlement Exhibit P.15.
However, when he reached there, he was told that Syed Ahmed was available at the Inspection Bungalow.
According to Nagaraja, illegal gratification was demanded by Syed Ahmed to enable him to file a charge sheet against Channakeshavegowda and others on the companyplaint by Thimmegowda.
This companyfirmed his physical receipt of the tainted currency numberes from Nagaraja.
None of the prosecution witnesses turned hostile.
As far as the other dispute of 27th June, 1993 is companycerned, it was held that Syed Ahmed had numberrole to play in it since he was number investigating that companyplaint.
As regards the discrepancies pointed out by the Trial Court, the High Court found that they did number dent the veracity of Nagaraja PW1 or of Sidheshwara Swamy PW2 .
Thereafter, Nagaraja exited from the room and gave a pre determined signal to the trap party who reached Syed Ahmeds room and washed his hands with sodium carbonate solution which turned pink.
The Trial Judge also numbered that there was an inconsistency in the testimony of the witnesses about the dress worn by Syed Ahmed when he is alleged to have taken the illegal gratification.
Nagaraja then entered his room and after a brief companyversation with Syed Ahmed, he handed over some currency numberes to him.
Accordingly, Nagaraja and the trap party went to the Inspection Bungalow.
On the companytrary, it was held that Nagaraja had some enmity with Syed Ahmed as a result of Nagarajas failure to return some village utensils, which led to Syed Ahmed taking action against Nagarajas elder brother Thimmegowda.
Unfortunately, on 27th June, 1993 a boundary dispute again arose between Nagaraja and Thimmegowda on the one hand and Channakeshavegowda and others on the other.
Madan B. Lokur, J. The Appellant Syed Ahmed was acquitted by the Trial Court of offences under Sections 7 and 13 1 d read with Section 13 2 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.
On 7th June, 1993 they had a boundary dispute with their immediate neighbour, Channakeshavegowda which resulted in their being assaulted by him and others.
