Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Karnataka · body

2025 DAILYLAW 20916 (KAR)

MR. R NAGENDRA v. STATE BY POLICE INSPECTOR

CRL.A/347/2013 · 2025-06-26

M G Uma

Criminal Appealbody2025

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:22438 CRL.A No. 347 of 2013 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 26TH DAY OF JUNE, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE M G UMA CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 347 OF 2013 (C) BETWEEN: MR. R NAGENDRA S/O LATE G. RANGASWAMY AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS (PRESENTLY AEE), R/AT NO.130, 8TH MAIN 2ND CROSS, 1ST STAGE BENNY LAYOUT, VIJAYANAGAR BANGALORE - 560 040 NO.1, SUB DIVISION, BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY, INDIRANAGAR BANGALORE - 560 038 …APPELLANT (BY SRI. C.H. JADHAV, SR. ADVOCATE FOR SRI. CHETHAN JADHAV, ADVOCATE) AND: STATE BY POLICE INSPECTOR, POLICE WING, CITY DIVISION, KARNATAKA LOKAYUKTA, BANGALORE - 560 001 …RESPONDENT (BY SRI. PRASAD B.S., ADVOCATE) THIS CRL.A. IS FILED U/S.374(2) CR.P.C PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND ORDER OF CONVICTION AND SENTENCE DATED 28.02.2013 PASSED BY THE SPL. JUDGER, PREVENTION OF CORRUPTION ACT, BANGALORE URBAN DISTRICT, BANGALORE CITY IN SPL.C.C.NO.5/2006 - CONVICTING THE APPELLANT/ACCUSED FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/S 7, 13(1)(D) R/W SEC.13(2) OF PREVENTION OF CORRUPTION ACT. THE APPELLANT/ACCUSED IS SENTENCED TO UNDERGO R.I. FOR 8 MONTHS AND PAY FINE OF RS.1,500/-, IN DEFAULT TO PAY FINE, HE SHALL UNDERGO S.I. FOR 15 DAYS FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/S 7 OF PREVENTION OF CORRUPTION ACT. THE Digitally signed by NANDINI B G Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:22438 CRL.A No. 347 of 2013 APPELLANT/ACCUSED IS SENTENCED TO UNDERGO R.I. FOR 1 YEAR 2 MONTHS AND PAY FINE OF RS.2,500/-, IN DEFAULT TO PAY FINE, HE SHALL UNDERGO S.I. FOR 30 DAYS FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/S 13(1)(D) R/W SEC.13(2) OF PREVENTION OF CORRUPTION ACT. THE SUBSTANTIVE SENTENCES OF IMPRISONMENT SHALL RUN CONCURRENTLY. THE APPELLANT/ACCUSED PRAYS THAT HE BE ACQUITTED. THIS CRL.A., COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE M G UMA ORAL JUDGMENT The appellant being the sole accused in Special CC No.5/2006 is impugning the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 28.02.2013, on the file of the learned Special Judge, Prevention of Corruption Act, Bangalore Urban District, Bangalore City, convicting him for the offence punishable under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) R/w Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (for short 'the PC Act'), and sentencing him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of 8 months for the offence punishable under Section 7 of the PC Act and to pay fine of Rs.1,500/-, to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of 1 year 2 months for the offence punishable under Section 13(1)(d) R/w Section 13(2) of the PC Act and to pay a fine of Rs.2,500/-, with default sentence. - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:22438 CRL.A No. 347 of 2013 2. Brief facts of the case made out by the prosecution is that, the accused was working as Assistant Executive Engineer in Bangalore Development Authority (BDA), Indiranagar, Bangalore, and thus he was a public servant. The son of the informant-PW-2 had applied for road cutting permission for the purpose of drainage, taking electric and water connection. An application was submitted in that regard to the office of the accused on 24.01.2002. On 30.01.2002, fees of Rs.2,116/- was paid and challan was produced before the accused on the same day. But the accused had demanded illegal gratification of Rs.4,000/- to permit road cutting. Since the complainant-PW2 was not interested in paying the illegal gratification, has filed the first information against the accused, as per Ex.P.4. Pre-trap Panchanama was conducted, Rs.4,000/- was entrusted to the informant with a direction to meet the accused along with the shadow witness. Accordingly, the complainant along with the shadow witness met the accused on 14.03.2002. The accused demanded and accepted the illegal gratification of Rs.4,000/-. Trap panchanama was drawn, hand wash was done, samples were collected, tainted amount was - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:22438 CRL.A No. 347 of 2013 recovered. After completing the investigation, sanction was obtained and final report was filed. 3. The Special Court took cognizance of the offence and summoned the accused. The accused has appeared before the Special Court. He pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. The prosecution examined PWs.1 to 5 and got marked Exs.P1 to 16. Identified Mos.1 to 11 in support of its contention. The accused has denied all the incriminating materials available on record in his statement recorded under Section 313 of Cr.PC, but has not lead any evidence in support of his defence. However, Ex.D1 was got marked during cross- examination of PW2. The Trial Court after taking into consideration all these materials on record, came to the conclusion that the prosecution is successful in proving the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt. Accordingly, the impugned judgment came to be passed convicting and sentencing the accused as stated above. Being aggrieved by the same, the accused is before this Court. 4. Heard Sri C.H.Jadhav, learned Senior Advocate for Sri.Chethan Jadhav, learned counsel for the appellant and - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:22438 CRL.A No. 347 of 2013 Sri. Prasad B.S., learned counsel for respondent. Perused the materials including the Trial Court records. 5. In view of the rival contentions urged by learned counsel for both the parties, the point that would arise for my consideration is: “Whether the appellant-accused has made out a case to interfere with the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed by the Trial Court? My answer to the above point is in the 'negative' and pass the following: REASONS 6. It is the contention of the prosecution that the accused-appellant being the public servant working as Assistant Executive Engineer in BDA, Indiranagar, Bangalore, demanded and accepted the illegal gratification of Rs.4,000/- to show the official favour i.e., to issue road cutting permission applied by PW2, in the name of his son. Thereby, he has committed the offence punishable under Section 7 and 13(1)(d) R/w Section 13(2) of the PC Act. To prove this contention, the prosecution examined PWs.1 to 5. - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:22438 CRL.A No. 347 of 2013 7. PW1 is the Under Secretary (Services-B), Public Works Department, who accorded sanction as per Ex.P1 to prosecute the accused. The sanction under Ex.P1 is not disputed by the learned counsel for the appellant. 8. The informant is examined as PW2, he states that he had filed the first information as per Ex.P4, according to which, PW2 was constructing a house in the name of his son, who was physically disabled i.e., he is not in a position either to speak or hear, and that is the reason why, PW2 was approaching the accused seeking permission to cut the road, for the purpose of forming the drainage and to get the electric and water connection to the newly built house. 9. During cross-examination of PW2, it is suggested by the learned counsel for the accused that, he has given statement before the police as per Ex.D1. As per Ex.D1, PW2 has stated that, AEE has signed the permission letter on 26.02.2002. But in the meantime, the witness states that it was not informed to him. The attention of the PW2 was drawn to Ex.P10, the permission letter, bearing signature of the accused dated 26.02.2002, and the copy of which, was later - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:22438 CRL.A No. 347 of 2013 produced by the complainant. When PW2 specifically states that even though as per Ex.P10, the accused had signed the permission letter on 26.02.2002, the same was not communicated to him. There is no further cross-examination to PW2. Under such circumstances, the contention of the learned Senior Advocate for the appellant that no work was pending with the accused as he had already signed the permission on 26.02.2002, cannot be accepted. 10. PW3 is the shadow witness and both PWs.2 and 3 consistently deposed regarding the demand and acceptance of illegal gratification of Rs.4,000/- by the accused from the informant. The version of these witnesses never shaken during cross-examination to disbelieve their version. 11. It is pertinent to note that Ex.P8 is the explanation offered by the accused at the earliest point of time, i.e., immediately after his trap. The accused categorically admitted the receipt of the amount of Rs.4,000/- and seizure of the same by the Lokayuktha Police. The only explanation given by the accused is that, the amount of Rs.4,000/- was voluntarily paid by the complainant and he received and kept it in his - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:22438 CRL.A No. 347 of 2013 pocket. This explanation will not absolve the accused from the penal liability as the prosecution is successful in proving that the application that was given in the name of the son of PW2 was pending before him. Even though the permission as per Ex.P10 was signed by accused on 26.02.2002, the same was never communicated to PW2 even on 14.03.2002. The accused had received Rs.4,000/- and kept it in his pocket, which was later seized from his possession. PWs.2 and 3 consistently deposed regarding demand and acceptance by the accused and the cumulative effect of all these facts and circumstances, lead to a conclusion that the prosecution is successful in proving the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt for the above said offence. 12. PW4 is the other panch witness and PW5- Investigating Officer have also fully supported the case of the prosecution. But strangely, the accused at the time of trial, had not taken any specific defence except stating that as per Ex.P10, the permission was already signed by the AEE by 26.02.2002. When PW2 categorically states that the said order was never communicated to him, there is no further cross- - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:22438 CRL.A No. 347 of 2013 examination. It is pertinent to note that, it is not the contention of the accused that Ex.P10 was in fact communicated to the complainant prior to 14.03.2002. Therefore, the prosecution is successful in proving that the accused being the public servant and the official work of the son of the complainant being pending with him, demanded and accepted the illegal gratification of Rs.4,000/-, and committed misconduct punishable under Section 7 and 13(1)(d) R/w Section 13(2) of the PC Act. 13. The accused has denied the incriminating materials in his statement under Section 313 of Cr.PC, but has not chosen to lead any evidence in support of his defence. The defence taken as per Ex.P8 will not absolve the accused from the penal liability. Under such circumstances, I hold that the accused is guilty of the offence alleged and liable for conviction. 14. I have gone through the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed by the Trial Court. On proper appreciation of the materials on record, the Trial Court convicted the accused as stated above and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of 8 months for the - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:22438 CRL.A No. 347 of 2013 offence punishable under Section 7 of the PC Act and to pay fine of Rs.1,500/-, to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of 1 year 2 months for the offence punishable under Section 13(1)(d) R/w Section 13(2) of the PC Act and to pay a fine of Rs.2,500/-, with default sentence and therefore, I do not find any reason to interfere with the said order. In that result, I do not find any grounds to allow the appeal, either to set aside the judgment of conviction or to interfere with the quantum of sentence. 15. Accordingly, I answer the above point in the Negative and proceed to pass the following: ORDER The appeal is dismissed. Registry to send back the Trial Court records along with copy of this judgment. Sd/- (M G UMA) JUDGE BH List No.: 1 Sl No.: 10