Research › Search › Judgment

Karnataka High Court · body

2010 DIGILAW 1199 (KAR)

State of Karnataka v. D. G. Manjunath

2010-11-19

N.ANANDA

body2010
JUDGMENT N. ANANDA, J.—The respondent/accused (hereinafter referred to as ‘accused’) was tried and acquitted for offences punishable under Sections 7, 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (for short ‘the Act’). Therefore, Lokayuktha police has filed this appeal. 2. Heard Sri S.G. Rajendra Reddy, learned Counsel for appellant and Sri Mahadevaiah, learned Counsel for accused. 3. In brief, the case of prosecution is as follows: During the year 2000, accused was working as Taluk Development Officer in Karnataka SC/ST Development Corporation at Kolar (a State owned Corporation). The prosecution witnesses, namely, P.W. 2 Muniyappa, P.W. 7 Venkateshappa and P.W. 8 Narayanappa belong to Scheduled Tribe and they are natives of Jangamagurjenahalli village, Kolar Taluk. P.Ws. 2, 4 to 7 and some other persons were the beneficiaries of Ganga Kalyana Scheme which provided the following benefits to the beneficiaries (persons belonging to SC and ST) subject to fulfilment of certain conditions. The group of beneficiaries holding more than 8.00 acres of land had the benefit of getting the borewell sunk in the land at the cost of Corporation. If the yield was found to be more than 1,000 gallons per hour, the Corporation would provide submersible pumpset, necessary G.I. pipes and cable wire. At the cost of Corporation, installation would be energised by the Karnataka Electricity Board. It is the case of the prosecution that P.Ws. 2, 7 and 8 had sunk borewells in their lands in the year 1997 and they were recognized as beneficiaries. The accused/Taluk Development Officer was in charge of providing submersible pumpsets and necessary accessories for installation of submersible pump sets to the borewells sunk by the beneficiaries recognised by the District Manager of Karnataka SC/ST Development Corporation Limited, Kolar. 4. It is the case of the prosecution that on 23.3.2000 P.Ws. 2, 7 and 8 and other beneficiaries had met accused in the office of Karnataka SC/ST Development Corporation Limited, Kolar and requested him to issue certificates to enable P.Ws. 2, 7 and 8 to get submersible pumpset and necessary accessories to install the same in the borewell sunk by them. In this connection, accused had demanded a sum of Rs. 5,000/- from P.Ws. 2, 7 and 8 and other beneficiaries as a motive or reward for issuing necessary certificates. When P.Ws. 2, 7 and 8 pleaded their inability, accused told them to bribe him a sum of Rs. In this connection, accused had demanded a sum of Rs. 5,000/- from P.Ws. 2, 7 and 8 and other beneficiaries as a motive or reward for issuing necessary certificates. When P.Ws. 2, 7 and 8 pleaded their inability, accused told them to bribe him a sum of Rs. 5,000/- in his house at Bangarpet at about 8.30 or 9.00 a.m. on 24.3.2000. As P.Ws. 2, 7 and 8 and other beneficiaries were not willing to bribe accused, P.W. 2 lodged first information on 23.3.2000 at 4.30 p.m., in the office of Lokayuktha police at Kolar. The Investigating Officer namely, P.W. 9 Lokesh registered Crime No. 3/2000 for offences punishable under Sections 7, 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of the Act against accused and despatched first information report to the jurisdictional Special Judge. Thereafter, P.W. 8 secured witnesses, namely, P.W. 3-Suresh, P.W. 4-Thimmaiah. P.W. 2-Muniyappa and produced before the Investigating Officer, 8 currency notes of Rs. 500/- denomination and 10 currency notes of Rs. 100/- denomination. P.W. 9 smeared phenolphthalein powder on the currency notes and entrusted the same to P.W. 2 in the presence of P.Ws. 3 and 4 and also demonstrated and explained phenolphthalein test to P.Ws. 2 to 4. As it was 5.00 p.m. by then, they decided to trap accused on the following day. Therefore, P.Ws. 2 to 4 were instructed to appear in the office of Lokayuktha police at 8.00 a.m. on 24.3.2000. After making necessary preparations, P.W. 9 prepared mahazer as per Ex. P3 and the same was witnessed by aforestated witnesses. On 24.3.2000 at 8.00 a.m., P.Ws. 2 to 4 appeared in the office of Lokayuktha police and thereafter the raiding party led by Investigating Officer which included P.Ws. 2 to 4 and other officials reached Bangarpet. The jeep was stopped at a distance from house of accused situate in Housing Colony at Bangarpet. P.W. 9 asked P.W. 2 to meet accused and he asked P.W. 3 to accompany P.W. 2 to observe what would transpire between accused and P.W. 2. Thereafter, P.Ws. 2 and 3 went near the house of accused. P.W. 3 stood outside the house. P.W. 2 entered the house and met the accused. At that time, accused is alleged to have demanded illegal gratification of Rs. 5,000/- as a motive or reward to issue necessary certificate for providing submersible pumpset and other accessories to P.W. 2. Thereafter, P.Ws. 2 and 3 went near the house of accused. P.W. 3 stood outside the house. P.W. 2 entered the house and met the accused. At that time, accused is alleged to have demanded illegal gratification of Rs. 5,000/- as a motive or reward to issue necessary certificate for providing submersible pumpset and other accessories to P.W. 2. P.W. 2 paid illegal gratification of Rs. 5,000/- to the accused who on receipt of the same gave two slips to P.W. 2. Thereafter, P.W. 2 came and gave a pre-determined signal to the Police Inspector. Thereafter, the Police Inspector and other members of raiding parties entered the house of accused. Accused was sitting on a long sofa. P.W. 2 informed P.W. 9 that accused had received tainted currency notes. The tainted currency notes were found beneath the sofa and the Police Inspector seized the tainted currency notes and after conducting phenolphthalein test by dipping the hands of accused in sodium carbonate. The Police Inspector seized the slips said to have been written by accused. The accused was formally arrested on the same day. The Investigating Officer collected necessary documents and sent the incriminating articles to F.S.L. After obtaining sanction from P.W. 5 Anilkumar (Regional Managing Director of SC/ST Corporation Limited) filed charge sheet against accused for aforestated offences. 5. During trial, P.Ws. l to 8 were examined and documents as per Ex. P1 to P13 and material objects M.Os. 1 to 6 were marked. Accused, after his examination of 313 Cr.P.C. filed a written statement alongwith four documents. 6. The learned trial Judge on appreciation of evidence and on hearing the learned Counsel for parties acquitted the accused. The Lokayuktha police has preferred this appeal. Therefore, following points would arise for determination: (1) whether the prosecution had obtained valid and legal sanction to prosecute the accused? (2) Whether the prosecution has proved that accused being the Taluk Development Officer of SC/ST Corporation (public servant) demanded from P.Ws. 2, 7 and 8 illegal gratification of Rs. 5,000/- in the said office at about 4.30 p.m. on 23.3.2000 as motive or reward to issue certificate to enable them to get submersible pumpset and other accessories thereby committed an offence punishable under Section 7 of the Act? 2, 7 and 8 illegal gratification of Rs. 5,000/- in the said office at about 4.30 p.m. on 23.3.2000 as motive or reward to issue certificate to enable them to get submersible pumpset and other accessories thereby committed an offence punishable under Section 7 of the Act? (3) Whether the prosecution has proved that on 24.3.2000 at about 9.00 a.m., in his house at Bangarpet, accused demanded and accepted from P.W. 2 illegal gratification of Rs. 5,000/- as a motive or reward to issue certificate to enable P.Ws. 2, 7 and 8 to get submersible pumpset and other accessories under Ganga Kalyana Scheme thereby accused committed an offence punishable under Section 7(2) of the Act and the accused by misusing his official position as a public servant obtained pecuniary advantage of Rs. 5,000/- and thereby committed an offence under Section 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of the Act? (4) Whether the learned trial Judge has properly appreciated the evidence on record? (5) Whether the impugned judgment calls for interference? (6) To what order? 7. My findings on the above points and reasons thereof are as follows: The learned trial Judge, on consideration of evidence of P.W. 5-sanctioning authority has held that P.W. 5 should have gone through the relevant Circular before according sanction to accused. At this juncture, it is necessary to state that competence of P.W. 5 to accord evidence to prosecute the case was not called into question. However, learned trial Judge has held that the contents of the sanction order and the evidence of P.W. 5 would demonstrate that P.W. 5 had not applied his mind before according sanction to prosecute accused. The learned Sessions Judge has found fault with P.W. 5 for not going through the Circular dated 15.2.1999 issued by the SC/ST State Corporation Limited under Ganga Kalyana Scheme which provides the benefits available to the people belonging to SC/ST; the manner of identifying the beneficiaries; procedure for drilling borewells and the minimum extent to be held by beneficiaries or group of beneficiaries; procedure for drilling borewell; conducting of yield test; energization of submersible pumpsets; providing of submersible pumpsets and other accessories for installation in the said borewells. As per the guidelines stated in Circular-Ex. As per the guidelines stated in Circular-Ex. P6, accused who was the Taluk Development Officer did not have power either to identify beneficiaries or issue certificates to provide submersible pump sets and accessories to the beneficiaries under the Scheme. He was entrusted with the duty of supervision. Accused was expected to supervise whether the benefits provided under the scheme are properly utilised by the beneficiaries. Therefore, the learned Sessions Judge has held that the sanction accorded by P.W. 5 is not valid. 8. The law is fairly well settled that the sanctioning authority, on perusal of the investigation records and having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case has to record a prima facie satisfaction about the existence of prima facie case to prosecute the accused. The sanctioning authority need not exhaustively deal with all the matters. The purpose of considering the relevant documents and recording prima facie satisfaction is to protect the innocent public servants from vexatious prosecutions. For the aforestated purposes, the sanctioning authority need not record a satisfaction that the material collected from investigation would completely support the case of the prosecution or the case is likely to end in conviction. Therefore, the approach of the learned Sessions Judge is erroneous. On perusal of the sanction order marked as Ex. P5, I find that sanctioning authority (P.W. 5) after going through the records of investigation and the report of the additional Director General of Karnataka Lokayuktha Police and also considering the facts and circumstances of the case which led to the trap of accused has recorded prima facie satisfaction that there is material to prosecute accused for the aforestated offences. Therefore, I do not find any infirmity in the sanction accorded by P.W. 5. In view of the above discussion, I answer point No. 1 in affirmative. 9. It is the case of prosecution that on 23.3.2000, around 4.30 p.m., P.Ws. 2, 7 and 8 and other beneficiaries had met accused in the office of SC/ST State Corporation Limited at Kolar and requested the accused to give certificates to enable them to get submersible pumpset and necessary accessories for installing the same in the borewell sunk by them. Accused is alleged to have demanded illegal gratification of Rs. 5,000/- as motive or reward showing official favour to P.Ws. 2, 7 and 8. Accused is alleged to have demanded illegal gratification of Rs. 5,000/- as motive or reward showing official favour to P.Ws. 2, 7 and 8. As per the pase of the prosecution, this was the initial demand by accused. From the evidence of P.W. 2 Muniyappa, we find that he was not a beneficiary under the Scheme and he was espousing cause of P.Ws. 7 and 8. P.W. 2 has deposed that on 23.3.2000, P.Ws. 2, 7 and 8 met accused and requested him to issue them a certificate to get submersible pumpset. Accused demanded illegal gratification of Rs. 5,000/-. P.Ws. 2, 7 and 8 offered a sum of Rs. 2,000/- but the accused refused. Accused demanded illegal gratification of Rs. 5,000/- to show the aforestated official favour and insisted that amount should be paid in his house at Bangarpet. P.Ws. 2, 7 and 8 were in a position to bribe the accused. Therefore, they approached the office of Lokayuktha Police. 10. From the evidence of P.W. 2 and documentary evidence, it is clear that P.W. 2 was not a beneficiary. P.W. 7, who according to the case of prosecution was one of the beneficiaries, has given altogether a different version. P.W. 7 has deposed that accused demanded a sum of Rs. 5,000/- as illegal gratification per unit. P.Ws. 2, 7 and 8 did not have money. Thereafter, they mobilised money and paid a sum of Rs. 5,000/- to P.W. 2. P.W. 7 learnt that on the following day, P.W. 2 had lodged a complaint with Lokayuktha Police on the next day. P.W. 7 got all the benefits under the Scheme. During cross examination, he has admitted that on 23.3.2000, the accused demanded illegal gratification, P.Ws. 2, 7 and 8 did not have money. They mobilised the funds and gave a sum of Rs. 5,000/- to P.W. 2 on the following day. 11. The evidence of P.W. 8 Narayanappa is vague. P.W. 8 has deposed that he cannot give the date on which they had met accused. P.W. 8 has deposed that they mobilized a sum of Rs. 5,000/- and gave it to P.W. 2 on 23.3.2000. P.W. 8 has deposed that on the following day, accused was trapped by Lokayuktha Police. 12. Thus, we have three versions relating to initial demand of illegal gratification by accused. P.W. 2 has deposed that accused demanded illegal gratification of Rs. 5,000/- and gave it to P.W. 2 on 23.3.2000. P.W. 8 has deposed that on the following day, accused was trapped by Lokayuktha Police. 12. Thus, we have three versions relating to initial demand of illegal gratification by accused. P.W. 2 has deposed that accused demanded illegal gratification of Rs. 5,000/- and P.W. 2 offered a sum of Rs. 2,000/- but the accused refused to accept the same. P.W. 7 has deposed that on the day when illegal gratification was demanded, they did not have money. They mobilized the money and gave it to P.W. 2 on the following day. P.W. 8 has deposed that he cannot give the date when illegal gratification was given. He has deposed that on 23.3.2000, they mobilized and paid a sum of Rs. 5,000/- to P.W. 2. He learnt that on the following day, accused was trapped by the police. Therefore, there is no consistent, cogent evidence to prove demand of illegal gratification by the accused on 23.3.2000. At this juncture, it is necessary to refer to the documentary evidence made available by the prosecution. Admittedly, P.W. 2 was not a beneficiary under the Scheme. As per the first information, following persons, namely, Narayanappa, Venkateshappa, Muniyappa and Narayana Swamy and one Nagaraj were the beneficiaries and they had sunk borewells in compact block of land comprising Sy. No. 92, 57, 97 and 96 of Jangamagurjenahally. P.W. 2 has admitted that his elder brother Ramaswamy was one of the beneficiaries and borewell was sanctioned by the Government. He had denied the benefits to his brother, which he had obtained the benefit under the Scheme. Later it was found that he had not installed the pumpset. 13. The accused had produced the copy of application dated 21.8.1998 submitted by P.W. 2 to District Officer, SC/ST Development Corporation, Kolar, wherein P.W. 2 has stated that benefits under Ganga Kalyan Scheme were provided to Ramaswamy, Chikkavenkatana Bhovi, Muniyappa, Narayana Swamy and Nagarajappa. However, one of the beneficiaries, namely, Ramaswamy, was claiming that the borewell was sanctioned in his favour. The said Ramaswamy was not allowing other beneficiaries to use water from borewell. He had not even installed the submersible pumpset provided by the Corporation. On the other hand, he had given the submersible pumpset and other accessories to some other persons. When P.W. 2 and others questioned said Ramaswamy, he held out threats to their lives. The said Ramaswamy was not allowing other beneficiaries to use water from borewell. He had not even installed the submersible pumpset provided by the Corporation. On the other hand, he had given the submersible pumpset and other accessories to some other persons. When P.W. 2 and others questioned said Ramaswamy, he held out threats to their lives. This complaint was lodged on 21.8.1998, when the accused was not working as Taluk Development Officer in SC/ST Corporation at Kolar. 14. The accused had also produced a copy of legal notice dated 3.3.1999 issued on behalf of Ramaswamy s/o Yellanabhovi, brother of P.W. 2, wherein it is stated that he had sunk a borewell in the year 1999 and he was in possession of land bearing survey Nos. 96, 97, 118 and 58 of Jangamagurjenahalli village, Sugatur Hobli, Kolar Taluk and survey No. 55 of Yedahalli, Kasaba, Kolar Taluk. On the security of aforestated lands, persons, namely, Muniyappa (P.W. 2), Narayanaswamy, Nagarajappa s/o Yellanabhovi and Chikkavenkatana Bhovi s/o Munibhovi of Jangamagurjenahalli Village are trying to obtain loan and other benefits from Karnataka SC ST Development Corporation Limited on the basis of concocted documents by impersonation, pretending themselves as Ramaswamy. Therefore, applications of aforestated persons shall not be entertained. 15. At this juncture, it is necessary to recall the guidelines of Circular as per Ex. P6 and evidence of P.W. 5-Anilkumar B.H., that the benefits under Ganga Kalyana Scheme had to be distributed by the District Manager of Karnataka SC ST Development Corporation Limited and Taluk Development Officer had supervisory jurisdiction. There is no documentary evidence to prove that P.W. 2 was one of the beneficiaries and he was entitled to get benefits under Ganga Kalyana scheme, in particular submersible pumpset and other accessories. Therefore, a reasonable doubt would arise whether P.W. 2 had any official favour to seek from accused or whether grievance made by P.W. 2 against accused was motivated. The so-called beneficiaries, namely, P.W. 7 and P.W. 8 had not approached Police Inspector of Lokayukta (P.W. 9) at any point of time. There is no documentary evidence to prove that P.W. 7 and P.W. 8 were identified as beneficiaries under the scheme and they were entitled to receive submersible pumpsets and accessories. In the circumstances, it is not possible to hold that prosecution has proved that on 23.3.2000, accused had demanded from P.W. 2 illegal gratification of Rs. There is no documentary evidence to prove that P.W. 7 and P.W. 8 were identified as beneficiaries under the scheme and they were entitled to receive submersible pumpsets and accessories. In the circumstances, it is not possible to hold that prosecution has proved that on 23.3.2000, accused had demanded from P.W. 2 illegal gratification of Rs. 5,000/- as a motive or reward to provide submersible pumpset and its accessories either to P.W. 2 or P.W. 7 and P.W. 8. Therefore, I answer point No. 2 in negative. Regarding Point No. 3: 16. I find from the evidence of P.W. 2 to P.W. 4 and P.W. 9 (Investigating Officer) the preparations to trap accused were made at about 4.30 p.m. or 5 p.m., on 23.3.2000 and thereafter they were instructed to appear in the office of Lokayukta Police at Kolar at 8 a.m. on 24.3.2000. The procedure followed by P.W. 9 to entrust tainted currency notes and phenolphthalein test demonstrated by him were recorded under mahazar as per Ex. P3. 17. It is in the evidence of P.W. 2 to P.W. 4 and P.W. 9 that on 24.3.2000 at 8 a.m., P.W. 2 to P.W. 4 appeared before P.W. 9 in the Office of Lokayukta Police at Kolar and thereafter they proceeded to Bangarpet At this juncture, it is relevant to state that P.W. 9 is stated to have prepared a mahazar on 24.3.2000 in the Office of Lokayukta Police at Kolar before proceeding to trap the accused. On 24.3.2000, P.W. 9 had not verified whether tainted currency notes entrusted to P.W. 2 on 23.3.2000 were intact. From the conduct of P.W. 9, it is obvious he had not even bothered to maintain secrecy of trap. It looks rather ridiculous that P.W. 9 after entrusting tainted currency notes to P.W. 2 on 23.3.2000 had allowed P.W. 2 to move freely. The preparation to trap accused was made known to P.W. 2 to P.W. 4 one day in advance. P.W. 9 had made preparations to trap in the residence of accused at 8.30 a.m., on 24.3.2000. This shows casual approach of P.W. 9. 18. Now adverting to the evidence relating to crucial aspect of demand and acceptance of bribe by accused on 24.3.2000 at 8.30 a.m., in his residence at Bangarpet, we have divergent versions in the evidence of P.W. 2 to P.W. 4 and P.W. 9. This shows casual approach of P.W. 9. 18. Now adverting to the evidence relating to crucial aspect of demand and acceptance of bribe by accused on 24.3.2000 at 8.30 a.m., in his residence at Bangarpet, we have divergent versions in the evidence of P.W. 2 to P.W. 4 and P.W. 9. The vital discrepancies found in the evidence of P.W. 2 are as follows: P.W. 2 has not deposed that shadow witness, namely, P.W. 3-Suresh had accompanied him when he had gone to meet the accused in his house. P.W. 2 has not deposed that he had kept tainted currency notes in his possession after it was entrusted to him on 23.3.2000. P.W. 2 has not deposed after he met accused in his house, accused demanded illegal gratification of Rs. 5,000/- from P.W. 2. On the other hand, P.W. 2 has deposed; after entering the house of accused, P.W. 2 paid Rs. 5,000/- to accused and accused had kept the bribe amount in drawer of table; accused wrote two chits and gave it to P.W. 2. Thereafter accused came out of his house to show the house of agent distributing submersible pumpsets. During cross-examination, P.W. 2 has deposed; after Police Inspector (P.W. 9) entered the house of accused, accused dropped tainted currency notes on the floor and cover the notes with a paper on it and sat on it. 19. P.W. 3-Suresh, who is alleged to have accompanied P.W. 2 to the house of accused has given altogether a different version. P.W. 3 has deposed; after P.W. 2 entered the house of accused, P.W. 3 was standing near door of accused; P.W. 2 questioned accused whether his work was done; accused questioned P.W. 2 if he had brought what he had told him; P.W. 2 told that he has brought; thereafter it appears that P.W. 2 had paid bribe amount to accused; accused was holding bribe amount in his hand; P.W. 2 came out of the house of accused and gave pre-determined signal to P.W. 9; thereafter, raiding party led by P.W. 9 rushed to house of accused and found tainted currency notes lying on the floor between two divans; P.W. 3 collected tainted currency notes lying between two divans and handed over the same to P.W. 9. Thus from the evidence of P.W. 3, I find his evidence regarding crucial aspect of demand and acceptance of bribe amount by accused contradicts evidence of P.W. 2. P.W. 2 has not deposed that there was conversation between him and accused. P.W. 2 has deposed that accused had received bribe amount and kept the same in drawer of table. P.W. 3 has deposed it appears that P.W. 2 had paid bribe amount to accused and accused was holding bribe amount in his hand. From the evidence of P.W. 2, it is not clear whether accused had demanded bribe amount from P.W. 2. P.W. 2 has deposed that he entered the house of accused and handed over bribe amount to accused, who kept the same in drawer of table. However, P.W. 3 has deposed that it appears P.W. 2 had paid bribe amount to accused and accused was holding bribe amount in his hand. There is material discrepancy in the evidence of P.W. 2 and P.W. 3 regarding demand and acceptance of bribe amount. P.W. 3 was one of the witnesses in the raiding party. P.W. 3 has not deposed about what had transpired in the Office of Lokayukta Police at Kolar on 23.3.2000. P.W. 3 has not deposed that tainted currency notes were smeared with phenolphthalein powder and later they were entrusted to P.W. 2. P.W. 2 has not deposed as to what had transpired during the evening of 23.3.2000. P.W. 2 has not deposed as to why they had not visited the house of accused on 23.3.2000. 20. P.W. 4-Thimmaiah has deposed; after reaching the office of Lokayukta Police at Kolar at 8 a.m., on 24.3.2000, raiding party led by P.W. 9 proceeded to Bangarpet and came near the house of accused; P.W. 9 and other members of raiding party were standing at a distance of 40 feet from the house of accused; P.W. 2 and P.W. 3 went to the house of accused; after ten minutes they received pre-determined signal; P.W. 9 and other members of raiding party rushed to the house of accused; accused was sitting on a divan and tainted currency notes were lying on floor between two divans; P.W. 3 removed tainted currency notes from the floor; P.W. 9 washed the hands of accused and resultant wash turned into pink colour; resultant wash was collected in separate bottles and the same were sealed. Thus, we find evidence of P.W. 4 is lacking in material particulars. 21. P.W. 9-B. Lokesh (Investigating Officer) has deposed; on 23.3.2000, P.W. 2 appeared before him and lodged first information as per Ex. P2, on the basis of which he registered first information. P.W. 2 produced a sum of Rs. 5,000/- (8 currency notes of Rs. 500/- denomination and 10 currency notes of Rs. 100/- denomination); P.W. 9 smeared phenolphthalein powder on currency notes and demonstrated phenolphthalein test; P.W. 9 gave instructions to P.W. 3 to accompany P.W. 2 and thereafter he instructed P.W. 2 to P.W. 4 to come to office of Lokayukta Police at Kolar at 8 a.m. on 24.3.2000. P.W. 9 has not deposed as to why they did not proceed to the house of accused on 23.3.2000. P.W. 9 has not assigned any reasons for aborting proceedings on 23.3.2000. It looks unusual that P.W. 9 allowed P.W. 2 to keep tainted currency notes with him on 23.3.2000, so also he had informed details of trap and name of accused to P.W. 3 and P.W. 4 (witnesses) during evening of 23.3.2000, without maintaining secrecy. P.W. 9 has deposed; on 24.3.2000 at 8 a.m., P.W. 2 to P.W. 4 came to the office of Lokayukta Police at Kolar; P.W. 9 confirmed possession of tainted currency notes with P.W. 2 thereafter they left the office of Lokayukta Police at Kolar and stopped the vehicle at a distance from the house of accused at Bangarpet; thereafter, P.W. 2 and P.W. 3 were instructed to meet accused; at 9.15 a.m., after half an hour P.W. 2 came and gave pre-determined signal to P.W. 9; thereafter P.W. 9 and other members of raiding party entered the house of accused; accused was sitting on a divan; P.W. 9 introduced himself to accused and prepared sodium carbonate solution in two bowls; washed the hands of accused in that solution; resultant wash turned into pink colour and they were collected in different bottles and they were sealed; tainted currency notes lying on the floor between two divans were removed by P.W. 3 and the same were seized by P.W. 9; accused was questioned if he has any thing to say. The accused is stated to have given his written submission as per Ex. P9. The accused is stated to have given his written submission as per Ex. P9. P.W. 9 collected two chits from possession of P.W. 2, wherein it is stated that accused had written that equipments may be given to P.W. 2. During cross-examination, P.W. 9 has admitted that P.W. 2 was not one of the beneficiaries under the scheme; P.W. 9 has conducted mahazar proceedings at 12.30 p.m., in the afternoon. P.W. 9 has not examined electrical contractor to whom Ex. P 10 and Ex. P11 were addressed. 22. At this juncture, it is relevant to state that originals of chits marked as Ex. P10 and Ex. P11 were not produced before Court. On the other hand, photostat copies of two chits were marked as Ex. P10 and Ex. P11. As per the contents of these documents, accused is alleged to have written to the contractor by name Venkataswamy (Electrical Contractor) that 5 H.P. motors may be installed to borewells sunk by P.W. 7 and P.W. 8. P.W. 9 has not examined the electrical contractor by name Venkataswamy. P.W. 9 has not produced original chits of Ex. P10 and Ex. P11 to prove that they were written by accused. From the guidelines of Circular marked as Ex. P6, I find submersible pumpset and other accessories will have to be provided to the borewells sunk by the beneficiaries by the District Manager of Karnataka SC ST Development Corporation Limited. The Taluk Development Officer or District Manager of the said Corporation is expected to verify specification of motor, pumpsets and G.I. pipes and cable. The installation of submersible pumpsets, motors and its accessories should take place in the presence of District Manager or under the supervision of Taluk Development Officer. The guidelines of Circular as per Ex. P6 did not provide for distribution of submersible pumpsets, motors and its accessories by sending chits to electrical contractor/agent. Above all, the prosecution has not examined the electrical contractor/agent to prove that he had received submersible pumpsets, motors and its accessories to distribute the same to beneficiaries under Ganga Kalyana Scheme. The accused has produced correspondence between Karnataka Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes Development Corporation Ltd., Head Office at Bangalore and a copy of work order issued by the said Corporation. As per the work order, eight beneficiaries under the scheme were identified in Kolar District. The accused has produced correspondence between Karnataka Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes Development Corporation Ltd., Head Office at Bangalore and a copy of work order issued by the said Corporation. As per the work order, eight beneficiaries under the scheme were identified in Kolar District. The prosecution has not proved that P.W. 2 was one of the beneficiaries identified by the said Corporation. The accused in his written submission has stated that the Head Office of Karnataka SC ST Development Corporation Limited had entered into contract with M/s. LUBI Submersible Limited, situate at S.J.P. Road, Bangalore, for supply of submersible pumpsets, motors and its accessories on turn key basis. The District Manager had to confirm the list of eligible beneficiaries under the scheme to receive the aforestated equipments. There is no evidence on record to show that M/s. LUBI Submersible Limited had appointed its agents or distributors at Kolar District. 23. At this juncture, it is relevant to state that P.W. 2, P.W. 7 and P.W. 8 have deposed; on the following day, they received all the equipments, such as, submersible pumpsets, motors and its accessories. P.W. 2, P.W. 7 and P.W. 8 have not deposed from where they had received those equipments. The prosecution has no case that Karnataka SC/ST Development Corporation Limited had appointed any agent for distribution of submersible pumpsets, motors and its accessories to beneficiaries under the said scheme. The photostat copies of chits marked as Ex. P10 and Ex. P11 would reveal that they were addressed to one Shiva Reddy (LUBI) F.O. and Venkataswamy (Electrical Contractor), Beeramanahalli Village, Kolar Taluk. The prosecution has not made clear as to who are the distributors, who had received submersible pumpsets, motors and its accessories from M/s. LUBI Submersible Limited, S.J.P. Road, Bangalore. Above all, originals of chits marked as Ex. P10 and Ex. P11 were not produced by prosecution. There is no evidence on record to hold that Ex. P10 and Ex. P11 are in the handwriting of accused. From the contents of Ex. P9, I find that H. Narayanappa s/o Hanumappa, Venkateshappa s/o Ramanabhovi, Muniyappa, Narayanaswamy and Nagarajappa had submitted their applications. H. Narayanappa had requested accused to provide two more pipes and to issue certificate for installation of pumpset to his borewell and accused had received a sum of Rs. 5,000/- towards supply of four additional pipes to the borewell from P.W. 2. H. Narayanappa had requested accused to provide two more pipes and to issue certificate for installation of pumpset to his borewell and accused had received a sum of Rs. 5,000/- towards supply of four additional pipes to the borewell from P.W. 2. Afterwards, P.W. 2 has filed a complaint against accused. 24. It is also interesting to notice neither P.W. 2 nor P.W. 7 and P.W. 8 has deposed that Karnataka Electricity Board had sanctioned power for installation of submersible pumpset to borewells of P.W. 2, P.W. 7 and P.W. 8. From the evidence of P.W. 2 and his previous conduct, I find P.W. 2 was a busy body. P.W. 2 had grievance against Karnataka SC ST Development Corporation Limited for not taking any action against his brother, pursuant to his representation dated 21.8.1998. P.W. 2, who had claimed to be beneficiary under Ganga Kalyana Scheme on 21.8.1998, had once again claimed to be beneficiary under the said scheme on 23.3.2000. P.W. 2 could not be a beneficiary under the said scheme for second time. Therefore, P.W. 2 had taken up cause of P.W. 7 and P.W. 8 to wreck vengeance against accused. 25. Thus to sum up, accused was not the officer responsible for distribution of submersible pumpsets and other accessories under Ganga Kalyana Scheme. The accused was not competent to identify or recognise beneficiaries under the said scheme. The evidence on record does not indicate either P.W. 2 or P.W. 7 and P.W. 8 were beneficiaries under the said scheme. The prosecution has failed to prove that on 23.3.2000 accused had demanded illegal gratification of Rs. 5,000/- from P.W. 2, P.W. 7 and P.W. 8 as a motive or reward to provide submersible pumpsets, motors and its accessories to them as the guidelines of Circular as per Ex. P6 do not authorise accused to issue certificate to P.W. 2, P.W. 7 and P.W. 8 as beneficiaries under the said scheme. 26. The prosecution has failed to prove that on 24.3.2000 at 9 a.m., in the house of accused, he demanded and received illegal gratification of Rs. 5,000/- from P.W. 2 as a motive or reward to issue certificate to P.W. 2. The learned trial Judge on proper appreciation of evidence has acquitted accused of aforestated offences. Therefore, I do not find any grounds to interfere with the impugned judgment. 27. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed.