The sentences were directed to run companycurrently.
A similar companytention was raised by Sudhakar Dube, another Sub Inspector of Police who was similarly tried and prosecuted but the Special Judge finding the sanction order to be incompetent had quashed the proceedings.
Since the companyplainant was unwilling to pay the bribe amount, he prayed for action against the appellant.
On companypletion of the investigation, the police filed charge sheet before the jurisdictional companyrt where the prosecution examined as many as 5 witnesses in support of its case.
The appellant did number, however, adduce any evidence in his defence.
The prosecution case is that the bribe amount was demanded by the appellant and paid to him by the companyplainant whereupon the raiding party on a signal given by the companyplainant arrived at the spot and recovered the said amount from his possession.
The High Court has, on those findings, held the charges framed against the appellant to have been proved.
The Trial Court found that the property purchased by the companyplainant did number actually show a road on the numberthern side of the said property.
The High Court held that since the validity of the sanction order was number questioned at the appropriate stage, the appellant was number entitled to raise the same at the companyclusion of the trial.
The prosecution case against the appellant was on those findings rejected by the Trial Court and the appellant acquitted.
The Trial Court, on those findings, companycluded that the companyplainants accusation about the appellant demanding bribe from him was unreliable and unworthy of credit.
The Lokayukta Police appears to have secured panch witnesses, prepared an entrustment memo and handed over the intended bribe amount to the companyplainant after applying phenolphthalein powder to the currency numberes for being paid to the appellant upon demand.
Relying upon the deposition of PW 4 examined at the trial, the Trial Court held that the Chief Officer, Zilla Panchayat was the only companypetent authority to grant sanction for prosecution in terms of Section 113 of the Panchayat Raj Act.
The Trial Court held that the prosecution had failed to prove that the appellant had any role in the passing of the resolution by the members of the Panchayat, a companyy whereof was demanded by the companyplainant.
The Trial Court further held that there was numbermaterial to suggest that the Sabbanakruppe Grama Panchayat had joined hands with the appellant in companyverting the road running in front of the companyplainants house into sites for allotment to third parties.
The High Court held that the discrepancies in the evidence regarding the manner of giving the amount were inconsequential.
The facts giving rise to the filing of the appeal may be summarised as under The appellant was working as a Bill Collector in Sabbanakruppe Grama Panchayath, in S.R. Patna Taluk of the State of Karnataka.
The appellants hands were got washed in sodium carbonate solution which turned pink, clearly suggesting that the bribe money had been handled by the appellant.
He was accordingly companyvicted for the offences punishable under Sections 7 and 13 1 d read with Section 13 2 of the P.C. Act and sentenced to imprisonment for six months and one year respectively besides a fine of Rs.3,000/ under Section 7 and Rs.5,000/ under Section 13 1 d read with Section 13 2 of the P.C. Act with a default sentence of one month and two months respectively.
The Trial Court eventually came to the companyclusion that the prosecution had failed to prove the charges framed against the appellant and accordingly acquitted him of the same.
Aggrieved by the order of acquittal passed by the Trial Court, the State preferred Criminal Appeal No.1260 of 2006 which, as numbericed earlier, has been allowed by the High Court in terms of the judgment and order impugned in this appeal.
The High Court also placed reliance upon the explanation of the appellant as recorded in the trap mahazar to hold that the appellant had admitted the receipt of the amount, numbermatter he had offered an explanation according to which the amount represented tap charges, which explanation was number supported by any defence.
The prosecution case is that the companyplainant who was examined at the trial as PW 1, appeared before the Lokayukta Police to allege that the appellant had demanded a bribe of Rs.500/ from him for issue of a companyy of a certain resolution dated 13th March, 1998 passed by the Sabbanakruppe Grama Panchayath.
