Research › Search › Judgment

Karnataka High Court · body

2015 DIGILAW 355 (KAR)

A. K. Lakshmanappa v. State

2015-03-31

R.B.BUDIHAL

body2015
JUDGMENT Budihal R.B., J. 1. This appeal is preferred by appellants-accused Nos. 1 and 2 being aggrieved by the judgment and order of sentence passed by the Principal District and Sessions Judge and Special Judge (Lokayukta), Davangere dated 8.2.2013 passed in Spl. Case No. 12/2007. 2. The case of the prosecution in brief are that one Smt. Susheelamma examined as P.W. 1 has lodged the complaint as per Ex. P1 dated 11.7.2007 alleging that she is the resident of Honnali town. The Tahsildar, Honnali Taluk has granted one site bearing No. 18 measuring 20' x 30' out of Sy. No. 14 of Honnali village under the Ashraya Scheme. Thereafter, she has constructed a house with ACC sheet in the said site and the said house is registered in her name in the Honnali Sub-Registrar office as per the direction of Honnali Town Panchayath officer on 1.5.2007. On 10.7.2007 in the morning around 11.30 a.m. she went to Honnali Town Panchayath office and met the organizer one A.K. Lakshmanappa and requested him to issue Hakku patra in respect of the site granted to her by the Tahsildar. At that time, said A.K. Lakshmanappa demanded bribe amount of Rs. 1,000/-. When she told she is not able to pay that much amount said A.K. Lakshmanappa asked her to pay Rs. 800/-, for which, she informed him that she was not having money and she will bring and pay the same after two days and came back. As she was not willing to give the bribe amount of Rs. 800/-, she went to Lokayukta office and lodged the complaint informing that she has brought Rs. 800/- bribe amount demanded by A.K. Lakshmanappa and requested to take legal action against him. It is also the case of the prosecution that thereafter witnesses were called to the Lokayukta office and entrustment mahazar proceedings were conducted in the Lokayukta office as per Ex. P2 and then they left the Lokayukta office and went to the office of accused No. 1 to conduct a trap. It is also the case of the prosecution that in the office of the accused trap mahazar proceedings were conducted and thereafter, after completing the investigation, investigating officer has filed the charge sheet against accused Nos. 1 and 2. P2 and then they left the Lokayukta office and went to the office of accused No. 1 to conduct a trap. It is also the case of the prosecution that in the office of the accused trap mahazar proceedings were conducted and thereafter, after completing the investigation, investigating officer has filed the charge sheet against accused Nos. 1 and 2. The trial Court, after conducting trial and considering both oral and documentary evidence placed before it, has ultimately convicted accused No. 1 for the offences punishable under Sections 7, 13(2) r/w Section 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act and accused No. 2 was convicted for the offence under Section 8 of the Prevention of Corruption Act. Being aggrieved by the judgment and order of conviction and also challenging the legality and correctness of the judgment and order of the trial Court, the appellants have preferred the above appeal on the grounds mentioned at Sl. Nos. (a) to (h) of the appeal memorandum. 3. Heard the arguments of learned counsel appearing for the appellants. 4. Learned counsel for the appellants referring to the complaint and other prosecution materials submitted that accused No. 1 was not authorized to issue Hakkupatra to the complainant. Hence, no work of the complainant was pending with accused No. 1 to show any official favour by receiving bribe amount. The complaint is filed at the instance of one Gurupadaiah. Looking to the cross-examination of prosecution witnesses it clearly shows that prosecution has not at all made out a case either against accused No. 1 or against accused No. 2. The trial Court has not properly appreciated the oral and documentary evidence on record and has wrongly come to the conclusion that the accused persons have committed the alleged offences. It is submitted that the judgment and order of conviction passed by the trial Court is not in accordance with the materials placed on record. Hence, it is illegal and not sustainable in law. 5. In support of his arguments, learned counsel for the appellants has relied upon the following decisions filed along with Memo dated 29.1.2015: "i. AIR 2009 SUPREME COURT 1887 (State of Punjab v. Sohan Singh) ii. 2008 CRI.L.J. 345 (K Subba Reddy v. State of A.P.) iii. 2007 CRI.L.J. 754 (V Venkata Subbarao v. State represented by Inspector of Police, A.P.) iv. 2008 CRI.L.J. 345 (K Subba Reddy v. State of A.P.) iii. 2007 CRI.L.J. 754 (V Venkata Subbarao v. State represented by Inspector of Police, A.P.) iv. AIR 2007 SUPREME COURT 3213 (Ganapathi Sanya Naik v. State of Karnataka) v. 2008 CRI.L.J. 1825 (Anand Parkash and Anr. v. State of Haryana) vi. 2000 (5) Kar. L.J. 17 (J.S. Sathyanarayana (Deceased) by LRs and another v. State by Inspector of Police, Karnataka Lokayukta, Madikeri)" 6. Per-contra, learned Spl. P.P. for the respondent-Lokayukta submitted that nothing has been elicited in the cross-examination of P.W. 2 by the accused to disbelieve the case of the prosecution. Explanations of accused Nos. 1 and 2 as per Exs. P 9 and 10 itself show their involvement in the commission of the offences. He has submitted that the sanction order has been issued by the competent authority after perusing the materials sent along with the requisition and also after application of mind to the materials on record. Learned Spl. PP further submitted that regarding the validity of the sanction order as contemplated under Section 19(4) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, the accused persons ought to have raised their objection before the trial Court. The examination of Gurupadaiah is not at all necessary as he only assisted the complainant in filing the complaint. As the complainant is an illiterate lady, there is nothing wrong in Gurupadaiah assisting her and only on that ground the entire case of the prosecution cannot be disbelieved. 7. I have perused the oral evidence of PWs-1 to 9, documents Exs. P-1 to P-34 and Exs. D-1 to D-5 and also perused Material objects M.O.s. 1 to 8. 8. PW-1/Smt. Susheelamma is the complainant of this case, who deposed in her evidence that, on 10.07.2007 when she had been to the office of accused No. 1, for issue of hakkupatra accused No. 1 demanded bribe of Rs. 1000/- and when she told that she was not capable to pay that much amount, he told her to give at least Rs. 800/-. Perusing her oral evidence in examination in chief, she has deposed that on the very next day i.e., 11.07.2007, she went to office of Lokayukta and gave the complaint, then witnesses Swamylingappa and Lalitha were secured by Lokayukta Police. She has also deposed in detail about Lokayukta Police conducting entrustment mahazar as per Ex. P-2. 800/-. Perusing her oral evidence in examination in chief, she has deposed that on the very next day i.e., 11.07.2007, she went to office of Lokayukta and gave the complaint, then witnesses Swamylingappa and Lalitha were secured by Lokayukta Police. She has also deposed in detail about Lokayukta Police conducting entrustment mahazar as per Ex. P-2. She has also put her thumb impression as per Ex. P-2(a). She has further deposed that after completing the entrustment mahazar, she was instructed to go to the office of accused and to ask for issue of hakkupatra, and in case, the accused No. 1 asks for bribe, she has to give the bribe amount and thereafter she has to come out and to give the prearranged signal by wiping her face. Then they all went in the jeep to Honnali and thereafter herself and Swamylingappa, the shadow witness, were asked to go to the office of accused. She went to the office of accused No. 1 and asked to issue the hakkupatra. Then, accused No. 1 demanded the bribe amount and when she wanted to give the amount to accused No. 1, accused No. 1 asked her to give it to the hands of accused No. 2 and accused No. 2 received the amount and kept it into his pant pocket. Then she wiped her face. Thereafter, Lokayukta Police came to the office of accused. She told that accused No. 1 did not receive the amount, but she gave it into the hands of accused No. 2, as told by accused No. 1 to give it to accused No. 2. Then police caught hold the hands of accused No. 2 and made him to sit and then they done all the things. At this stage, and as per the request of Spl. P.P., this witness was treated as hostile. Thereafter, she deposed in detail about the trap and also deposed that accused No. 2 received the amount with both hands and then he put into his pant pocket. Then the hand wash of accused No. 2 was taken in the two separate bowls, the solution turned into pink colour. She has also deposed that thereafter, the notes were taken out from the pant pocket of accused No. 2 and when verified the numbers, they tallied with the numbers, which was prepared. Then the hand wash of accused No. 2 was taken in the two separate bowls, the solution turned into pink colour. She has also deposed that thereafter, the notes were taken out from the pant pocket of accused No. 2 and when verified the numbers, they tallied with the numbers, which was prepared. Then, the inner portion of pant pocket of accused No. 2 was taken into solution and it has also turned into pink colour, the same was secured and sealed. Pant was also seized and it is M.O. 8. She has further deposed that when Lokayukta Police asked accused Nos. 1 and 2 to give their explanation, they gave the same as per Exs. P-9 and P-10. Then, the trap mahazar was prepared as per Ex. P-22 and her thumb impression is Ex. P-22a. Looking to her examination in chief, PW-1 has not specifically deposed that the shadow witness, Swamylingappa, has also accompanied her when she went into the office of accused No. 1 and when she gave the bribe amount, this witness was also present and thereafter, both of them came out of the office and she gave prearranged signal in his presence to the Lokayukta Police. 9. In the cross examination by advocate for accused No. 1, P.W. 1 has deposed that one Gurupadaiah got written the complaint and it was read over to her and she had put her thumb impression. When she went to give the complaint, said Gurupadaiah accompanied her and even on the day of she giving evidence in the Court, Gurupadaiah had come to the Court with her. Gurupadaiah himself took her to Lokayukta office. She has deposed that she does not know that before giving the complaint, on which date and month she went to Honnali Town Panchayat. When she went to Lokayukta office, about 8-10 people were there. After going to Lokayukta office, Gurupadaiah wrote the contents of complaint as narrated by the Police. She gave currency notes of denomination of Rs. 100 to Gurupadaiah and he in turn gave it to the Police. When they went to the office of accused No. 1, staffs were working there and sufficient number of people were also there. She admitted as true that, on her behalf, Gurupadaiah and Patil were attending to Town Panchayat. She gave currency notes of denomination of Rs. 100 to Gurupadaiah and he in turn gave it to the Police. When they went to the office of accused No. 1, staffs were working there and sufficient number of people were also there. She admitted as true that, on her behalf, Gurupadaiah and Patil were attending to Town Panchayat. She denied the suggestion that accused No. 1 never demanded bribe amount from her and she has lodged the false complaint. 10. In her cross-examination by the advocate for accused No. 2, PW-1 has deposed that she is working in the house of Patil, and Patil himself went to the office to give the application. Gurupadaiah and Patil are her well-wishers. She had denied the suggestion that there is no sort of relationship between accused Nos. 1 and 2. She has denied the suggestion that she is giving evidence at the instance of Gurupadaiah. 11. PW-2/G. Swamylingappa has deposed in his evidence in examination in chief that on 11.07.2007 at about 11.00 to 11.30 a.m. he went to Lokayukta office at Davangere. Another witness, Lalithamma was present and Smt. Susheelamma was introduced to her. He was informed that Smt. Susheelamma has given the complaint and contents of the complaint were read over to them. Complainant produced Rs. 800/- i.e., 8 currency notes of denomination of Rs. 100/-. He has also deposed in detail about the entrustment proceedings as per Ex. P-2 and his signature is P-2(b). At the time of entrustment mahazar proceedings, photographs were taken, which are as per Exs. P-3 to P-8. Then, Lalithamma, the witness, kept the currency notes smeared with phenolphthalein powder into the purse of complainant. Thereafter, they all went towards Honnali and the jeep was stopped at BSNL office nearer to Honnali Town Panchayat. Then, Lokayukta Inspector told him and the complainant, that they have to act according to the instructions given. Then, himself and Smt. Susheelamma went to Administrative Office of Town Panchayat, accused No. 1 was present in his seat. Complainant went to accused No. 1 and asked about hakkupatra, then accused No. 1 asked bribe amount, Smt. Susheelamma took out the amount from purse and when she was about to give it to accused No. 1, at that time, accused No. 1 told not to him and shown one person in front of him. Complainant went to accused No. 1 and asked about hakkupatra, then accused No. 1 asked bribe amount, Smt. Susheelamma took out the amount from purse and when she was about to give it to accused No. 1, at that time, accused No. 1 told not to him and shown one person in front of him. Smt Susheelamma gave the amount into his hands and she came to know that said person is Ravi/accused No. 2. Accused No. 2 received the amount from his left hand and counted it with both hands and kept it into his pant pocket. Then, complainant asked accused No. 1 to give the hakkupatra, and accused No. 1 told her to wait for some time. Then, he himself and Smt. Susheelamma came out of the gate. Smt. Susheelamma gave the prearranged signal. Thereafter, Lokayukta Inspector, witness Lalithamma and the staff came into the office of accused No. 1 and complainant told that she has given the amount to the person told by accused No. 1. Smt. Susheelamma shown accused No. 1 to the Police so also accused No. 2/Ravi. Then, Police caught hold the hands of accused No. 2. Then, the solution of sodium carbonate was prepared in plastic bowls and the sample of solution was secured, which was article No. 3. Both the hands of accused No. 2 were washed in two bowls separately and it turned into pink colour. Then, it was secured in the bottle and sealed, they are M.O.s 3 and 4. Then Lokayukta Police asked accused No. 2 to produce the amount and he produced it taking out from his pant pocket. When the numbers were verified, they were tallied. By providing alternative pant to accused No. 2, the pant pocket of accused No. 2 was also washed in the sodium carbonate solution and it also turned into pink colour. The pant was seized as per M.O. 8. Accused Nos. 1 and 2 gave explanation as per Exs. P-9 and 10. When Lokayukta Police asked the accused to produce the documents pertaining to complainant, they were produced as per Exs. P-11 to P-17. Then trap mahazar was prepared as per Ex. P-22 and his signature is P-22(b). 12. In his cross examination by advocate for accused No. 1, PW-2 has deposed that in the Lokayukta office except Smt. Susheelamma and inspector, no other persons were present. P-11 to P-17. Then trap mahazar was prepared as per Ex. P-22 and his signature is P-22(b). 12. In his cross examination by advocate for accused No. 1, PW-2 has deposed that in the Lokayukta office except Smt. Susheelamma and inspector, no other persons were present. Lokayukta Police have not issued written requisition to act as panch witness. He acted as panch witness in three such similar cases. When they went to the office of accused No. 1, about 15 persons were present in the office. Public were standing nearby the staff. He has denied the suggestion that he has not heard the conversation between the complainant and accused No. 1. He has denied the suggestion that accused No. 1 never demanded complainant to give the bribe amount and at the instance of Lokayukta Police, he is giving false evidence. He denied the further suggestion that no such conversation took place between Smt. Susheelamma and complainant at about 1.35 p.m. He denied the suggestion that when photographs were taken in the Town Panchayat office, complainant was not present, but he deposed that in the photographs Exs. P-18 to P-21 complainant is not seen. 13. In the cross examination on behalf of accused No. 2, P.W. 2 has deposed that accused No. 2 is not the Government servant, but he is a daily wager. Accused No. 2, worn a brown colour pant but he cannot say the colour of shirt. He denied the suggestion that at the instance of Lokayukta Police, he is giving evidence against accused No. 2. He has denied the further suggestion that on that day accused No. 2 was standing in a queue to receive the application and when Smt. Susheelamma gave the amount into his hands, accused No. 2 asked her why she is giving the amount and in the mean while, Police came and caught hold him. He has also denied suggestion that there is relationship between accused Nos. 1 and 2. 14. PW-3/T.S. Lalitha has deposed in her evidence in the examination in chief that on 11.07.2007, she went to lokayukta office at 11.00 am. PW-2/Swamylingappa and complainant Smt. Susheelamma were also present and they were introduced to her and she was informed about Smt. Susheelamma lodging the complaint. When Lokayukta Inspector asked the complainant, complainant produced Rs. 800/-. Herself and swamylingappa counted those 8 currency notes of denomination of Rs. PW-2/Swamylingappa and complainant Smt. Susheelamma were also present and they were introduced to her and she was informed about Smt. Susheelamma lodging the complaint. When Lokayukta Inspector asked the complainant, complainant produced Rs. 800/-. Herself and swamylingappa counted those 8 currency notes of denomination of Rs. 100/- and noted the numbers. She has also deposed in detail about entrustment mahazar proceedings in the lokayukta office as per Ex. P-2 and P-2c is her signature. She has further deposed that thereafter, they all went to Honnali and reached at 1.30 p.m. the jeep was stopped at BSNL office and Lokayukta Inspector asked the complainant and Swamylingappa to go to the office of accused. Then she, Lokayukta Inspector and the staff were standing there by the side. At 1.45 p.m. complainant came out and wiped her face and gave the signal. Thereafter, they went and when Inspector asked the complainant, she told that she gave the amount to the person told by accused No. 1. Complainant identified accused No. 1. Then sodium carbonate solution was prepared in three bowls and sample was taken out as per article No. 3. Then the right hand wash of accused No. 2 was taken in the solution and it turned to pink colour, which was secured in a bottle as article No. 4, so also the left hand wash was taken and it also turned into pink colour, which was secured as per article No. 5. Thereafter, accused No. 2 took out Rs. 800/- from the left side pant pocket and produced. When the numbers of notes were verified, they tallied. The pant pocket of accused No. 2 got washed in the sodium carbonate solution and it turned into pink colour, which was secured as per article No. 7. Alternate pant was provided to accused No. 2. When accused Nos. 1 and 2 were asked to give their explanation, they gave it as per Exs. P-9 and P-10. Trap mahazar was prepared as per Ex. P-22 and his signature is P-22c. Exs. P-18 to P-21 are the photographs taken in the office of accused No. 1. 15. In the cross examination by advocate for accused No. 1, P.W. 3 has deposed that on that day, other staff was also working in the office of accused No. 1. Trap mahazar was prepared as per Ex. P-22 and his signature is P-22c. Exs. P-18 to P-21 are the photographs taken in the office of accused No. 1. 15. In the cross examination by advocate for accused No. 1, P.W. 3 has deposed that on that day, other staff was also working in the office of accused No. 1. In the office of accused C.A.O, Administrative Officer, and the other staff were also working and the office was called as Administrative Office. At that time, public was also present in the office of accused No. 1 they were about 25-30 people. He denied the suggestion that because of the noise of many people, the conversation between the persons was not audible. Exs. P-18 to 21 are the photos taken in the town panchayat but complainant is not seen in the photographs. He denied the suggestion that as complainant has not come to the said office, she is not seen in the said photographs. He denied the suggestion that at the instance of Lokayukta Police, he is giving false evidence. He denied the further suggestion that along with complaint, one Patil and Gurupadaiah were also present. 16. PW-4/Ravindra B. Mallapur, Chief Officer, Town Panchayath of Honnali, in his evidence in the examination in chief has deposed that he came to know that on 11.07.2007, Lokayukta Police trapped accused No. 1, who was working in his office, in connection with bribe amount alleged to have been demanded from Smt. Susheelamma. As asked by the Lokayukta Police, he gave documents Exs. P11 to P17 about the service particulars of accused No. 1 and office orders. Ex. P-26 is the service particulars of accused. Ex. P27 is the information about hakkupatra, and Exs. P-28 and P-29 are the office orders. 17. In the cross examination by advocate for accused No. 1, P.W. 4 has deposed that there is a circular from D.C. Office and as per the circular, the allottees of the sites, after getting the registration of the document in the name of office of town Panchayat, have to get the hakkupatra and in that connection, he had issued oral direction to his staff to issue hakkupatra, only after production of such registered document. The circular from D.C. office are at Exs. D.3 and D.4. The circular from D.C. office are at Exs. D.3 and D.4. The registered document in respect of complainant was received in the Town panchayath on 30.07.2007 was marked as per Ex. D-5. He further deposed that there is an administrative office in town panchayath and along with accused No. 1, other 7-8 staff are also working in the same hall. In connection with their problems, public will always be present in the administrative office. Generally, more number of people will be present in the administrative office. As the Chief Officer, he has not seen complainant Smt. Susheelamma in his office on 11.07.2007 in the noon time. He has also deposed that he has not given the registered document to the office of Lokayukta. As the registered document pertaining to complainant was not received in their office, as per the circular of D.C. and his oral direction, accused No. 1 withheld the issue of hakkupatra, till 11.07.2007. There is no role of accused No. 1 personally in the said act. In the cross-examination by the advocate for accused No. 2, P.W. 4 deposed that accused No. 2 was not doing any work in their office. 18. Pw-5/B.E. Sateesh, Sub-Registrar, has deposed in his evidence in the examination in chief that as the Lokayukta Police asked about the Mortgage Deed, he produced the same on 20.07.2007. It is as per Ex. P-30 and P-30(a) is his signature. Ex. P-31 is the covering letter and P-31(a) is his signature. 19. In the cross-examination by the advocate for accused No. 1, P.W. 5 has deposed that the Mortgage Deed pertaining to Smt. Susheelamma was registered on 03.07.2007. But the said Mortgage Deed was sent to Town Panchayat office on 30.07.2007. On 27.07.2007 the said Mortgage Deed was in his office. On 27.07.2007, he issued the certified copy of the same for the use of Lokayukta Police. After giving the certified copy to the Lokayukta Police, on 30.07.2007 he sent the same to the Town Panchayath office. 20. PW-6/G.P. Raju in his evidence has deposed that he is working as Assistant Executive Engineer in Honalli PWD Office. On 30.07.2007, he visited Town Panchayath Office and prepared sketch map of the spot shown by PW-2/Swamylingappa and the sketch is at Ex. P.23 and P- 23(a) is his signature. 20. PW-6/G.P. Raju in his evidence has deposed that he is working as Assistant Executive Engineer in Honalli PWD Office. On 30.07.2007, he visited Town Panchayath Office and prepared sketch map of the spot shown by PW-2/Swamylingappa and the sketch is at Ex. P.23 and P- 23(a) is his signature. In the cross examination by advocate for accused No. 1, P.W. 6 has deposed that before preparing the said map, he has not met the Administrative Officer and informed about his visit. The said map is not in respect of entire Town Panchayat office. 21. PW-7/B.P. Kaniram, Member KPSC, has deposed in his evidence in the examination in chief that Bengaluru ADGP, Lokayukta sent him all the documents pertaining to this case. He verified the documents and the statements and as there is a prima-facie case against the accused, hence, he issued the sanction order as per Ex. P-32 and P-32(a) is his signature. 22. In the cross-examination, P.W. 7 has deposed that the complaint, trap mahazar, entrustment mahazar, FSL report, sketch of the spot and the statement of witnesses were sent. He denied the suggestion that without verifying these documents, he has issued the sanction order. 23. PW-8/Anand T. is the Asst. Chemical Examiner, FSL, Chitradurga. He has deposed in his evidence in examination in chief that on 12.07.2007 Lokayukta Police, Davangere sent 8 sealed articles for examination and he subjected them to examination and issued the report as per Ex. P-33. P-33(a) is his signature. In the cross examination by the advocate for accused No. 1, P.W. 8 deposed that Lokayukta Police sent the letter but he has not produced the said letter before the Court. He has denied the suggestion that Lokayukta police have not produced these articles on 12.07.2007. 24. PW-9/H.S. Gangadharappa, Dy. S.P. Lokayukta, deposed in his evidence in examination in chief in detail about the complainant going to his office, lodging the complaint and he conducting entrustment mahazar as per Ex. P-2 and trap mahazar as per Ex. P-22. 25. In the cross examination by advocate for accused No. 1, P.W. 9 has deposed that complainant alone came to the station to give complaint and she brought written complaint. He has not observed as to whether Gurupadaiah came along with complainant and complainant herself gave eight notes of denomination of Rs. 100/- to him. PW-3 kept the amount in the purse. He has not observed as to whether Gurupadaiah came along with complainant and complainant herself gave eight notes of denomination of Rs. 100/- to him. PW-3 kept the amount in the purse. He has not seized that purse as it was not necessary for him to seize. During their visit, the Chief Officer was in the office. After the trap, Chief Officer came. At that time, in the Administrative Office, except accused No. 1 no other persons were present. When he went to accused No. 1, public was not present there. During the trap, Ex. P-18 to P-21 photos were taken. Complainant was present during trap. In Ex. P-18 to P-21, photos, complainant is not seen. He has not obtained the signature of Panchayat Chief officer to the trap mahazar. As the other staff were not present, he has not obtained their signature on the trap mahazar. In connection with issuance of hakkupatra, he has not obtained circular of D.C. He has not obtained signature of staff of Administrative Office. He has denied the suggestion that accused No. 1, Veerabhadraiah and others working in the administrative office and even then, he is not deposing about the same. He denied the suggestion that he got prepared the complaint through Gurupadaiah. He does not remember that earlier, in other cases, PW-2/Swamylingappa was the witness. In the case of one Purvachar, he himself was the Investigating Officer and he does not remember that in that case also, PW-2/Swamylingappa was the witness. He denied the suggestion that in such cases Swamylingappa was taken as permanent witness. He denied the suggestion that, during the trap, as complainant was not present, she was not seen in the photos. It has not come to his knowledge that, according to the circular of D.C., the allottees after getting the allotment registered in the Sub-Registrar's office and after producing the same before the Town Panchayath, then hakkupatra has to be issued. The witness volunteered and deposed that before registering this case, the document was registered in the office of Sub-Registrar in the name of pattana panchayat. On 30.07.2007 he obtained certified copy of the said registered document from Town panchayat. Till 30.07.2007, the registered document was in the office of Sub-Registrar. The registered document reached the Town panchayath office on 30.07.2007 and he admitted the suggestion as true. 26. On 30.07.2007 he obtained certified copy of the said registered document from Town panchayat. Till 30.07.2007, the registered document was in the office of Sub-Registrar. The registered document reached the Town panchayath office on 30.07.2007 and he admitted the suggestion as true. 26. In the cross examination by the learned counsel for accused No. 2, P.W. 9 has deposed that he does not remember which colour pant accused No. 2 was wearing on that day. There is no separate seizure mahazar for seizure of the pant, but it is mentioned in trap mahazar itself. He denied the suggestion that accused No. 2 has not submitted any statement and when he was standing in the queue in connection with the application, he filed the false case against him. 27. Looking to the entire materials, both oral and documentary, they clearly show that for preparing the complaint there is no acceptable evidence on the side of the prosecution. As per the evidence of PW-9/Dy. S.P., Lokayukta, complainant/Smt. Susheelamma alone came to Lokayukta office with written complaint, whereas, the evidence of Smt. Susheelamma is quite contrary to the evidence of PW-9. Smt. Susheelamma has deposed that Gurupadaiah accompanied her to the Lokayukta office. Gurupadaiah himself wrote the contents of the complaint as narrated by Lokayukta Police. So the evidence of PW-1 and 9 is totally inconsistent and contradictory to each other. PW-1/Smt. Susheelamma has put her thumb impression on the complaint. The evidence of PW-1 herself shows that complaint averments were written by Gurupadaiah. It is the consistent defence of accused that at the instance of Gurupadaiah and one Mr. Patil, false case has been booked against them. Even the complainant admitted in her cross-examination that Gurupadaiah and Patil were working on her behalf and attending to the office in connection with allotment of site to her. It is no doubt true that she being an illiterate lady assisted by said Gurupadaiah and patil itself is not a wrong thing, but the evidence of Lokayukta Police as well as PW-1 raises reasonable doubt as to whether the complaint was really at the instance of Smt. Susheelamma or at the interest shown by Gurupadaiah. When the complaint averments are not as per the narration made by the complainant, it prima-facie shows the willingness of Gurupadaiah in registering a case and prosecuting the same against the accused. 28. When the complaint averments are not as per the narration made by the complainant, it prima-facie shows the willingness of Gurupadaiah in registering a case and prosecuting the same against the accused. 28. Though PWs-1 to 3, have deposed in their evidence that on the date of trap in the office of accused No. 1, the other staff were working and public were also present, but, PW-9/Dy. SP has deposed in his evidence that except accused No. 1, the other staff were not present in his office. The evidence of Chief Officer of said Town panchayat also shows that other staff and the public will always be present in the office of accused No. 1. When PW-9 was asked during the course of cross-examination that he has not taken the signature of any other persons from the office of accused No. 1, he has deposed that, as no other persons were present he has not obtained the signatures to the trap mahazar. Though P.W. 9 has deposed that after the trap proceedings, Chief Officer came there, but his signature was also not obtained. 29. However, in order to get independent witnesses in the case and to have the more corroboration to the case of prosecution, PW-9 ought to have recorded the statement of one or two witnesses present in the office of the accused or atleast the statement of Chief Officer of Town Panchayath, which is also not done in this case. 30. Regarding the witness PW-2/Swamylingappa, he has deposed in his evidence that in three other similar cases also he acted as panch witness, but when PW-9/Dy. S.P. was asked about this witness, he escaped giving the answer stating that he does not remember. It was specifically brought to his notice that in the case of one Purvachar, PW-9 was the Investigating Officer, even then he has deposed that he does not remember. 31. It is the defence of the accused that complainant was not at all present in the alleged trap proceedings and everything is done at the instance of Gurupadaiah. The prosecution has produced the photographs of the trap proceedings as per Ex. P-18 to P-21. The purpose of producing the photos is to show that, there is more authenticated piece of material to prove the trap proceedings. But, even according to the prosecution witnesses, it is admitted that in Exs. The prosecution has produced the photographs of the trap proceedings as per Ex. P-18 to P-21. The purpose of producing the photos is to show that, there is more authenticated piece of material to prove the trap proceedings. But, even according to the prosecution witnesses, it is admitted that in Exs. P-18 to P-21, complainant/Smt. Susheelamma is not seen. 32. As per the evidence of PW-4/Ravindra B. Mallapur, Chief Officer, Town Panchayath, he has not seen the complainant, Smt. Susheelamma, at the time of trap. So this evidence on record raises reasonable doubt as to whether really complainant, Smt. Susheelamma, was present in the trap proceedings or not. It is true that other prosecution witnesses and the Investigation Officer/PW-9 have deposed about the presence of the complainant throughout the proceedings. But the evidence of PW-4, Ravindra Mallapur, and photos Ex. P-18 to P-21, which are also the materials produced by the prosecution, if these materials are appreciated, they are contrary to each other. 33. With regards to issuance of hakkupatra to complainant Smt. Susheelamma by accused No. 1, the case of the prosecution is that when she went to accused No. 1 on 10.07.2007 and asked to issue hakkupatra, he demanded the bribe amount of Rs. 1,000/- initially, which was reduced to Rs. 800/-. But the materials placed on record shows that there was a circular issued from the office of Deputy Commissioner, which was produced as per Ex. D-3 and D-4, which indicate that to issue the hakkupatra to the allottees, they have to produce registered document in the office of Sub-Registrar in the name of town panchayath and after producing the same before Town Panchayat, hakkupatra is to be issued. The evidence of PW-4/Ravidndra Mallapur, Chief Officer, also shows that in view of said circular from the Office of Deputy Commissioner, he had issued oral directions to his staff that not to issue hakkupatra till the registered document is produced before the Town Panchayath and even he has deposed in his evidence that, in view of the said circular and his oral direction, accused have not issued hakkupatra to the complainant till 11.07.2007. P.W. 4 has further deposed that there is no fault or the role of accused No. 1 in not issuing the hakkupatra. P.W. 4 has further deposed that there is no fault or the role of accused No. 1 in not issuing the hakkupatra. The materials placed on record and even according to the evidence of Investigating Officer, the registered Mortgage Deed pertaining to the site of complainant Smt. Susheelamma was submitted to the office of Town Panchayat, Honalli only on 30.07.2007. This shows that on the date of trap, the registered deed was not submitted to the office of Town Panchayat. In view of this, it is difficult to accept that accused No. 1 withheld issuance of hakkupatra for the purpose of bribe amount. 34. Perusing the prosecution materials, both oral and documentary evidence, with regards to accused No. 2 receiving the bribe amount, there are three versions. As per the evidence of PW-1, Smt Susheelamma, when she gave the amount, he received it from both the hands and kept it into the pant pocket. As per evidence of PW-2/Swamylingappa, accused No. 2 received the bribe amount from his left hand and counted from both the hands and then kept it in the pant pocket. Perusing the trap mahazar Ex. P-22, it is stated that accused No. 2/Ravi received the bribe amount from left hand, then touched it with both the hands and then kept it in the left side pant pocket. 35. Looking to these materials, the case of the prosecution that he received it from left hand and touched it with another hand then kept it in the pant pocket appears to be most unnatural and improbable. 36. Looking to these materials on record, which are discussed above, the prosecution has not placed cogent and acceptable materials before the Court to show that there was demand and acceptance of bribe amount by accused Nos. 1 and 2. Even the evidence of Investigating Officer PW-9 is also not worth believable, about which I have already discussed above. The trial Court has not taken these aspects into consideration and has wrongly proceeded to hold that there was demand and acceptance of bribe amount from the accused. Hence, the judgment and order of conviction passed by the Trial Court is not in accordance with law. 37. The trial Court has not taken these aspects into consideration and has wrongly proceeded to hold that there was demand and acceptance of bribe amount from the accused. Hence, the judgment and order of conviction passed by the Trial Court is not in accordance with law. 37. Perusing the factual material placed on record and also the legal proposition as per the decisions relied upon by learned counsel for the appellant, I am of the opinion that, as the reasonable doubt arises as to the case of the prosecution, the benefit of doubt has to be given to the accused. 38. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed the judgment and order of sentence passed by the Principal District and Sessions Judge and Special Judge, Davangere, dated 8.2.2013 passed in Spl.Case No. 12/2007 is hereby set-aside. Accused Nos. 1 and 2 are acquitted of the charges leveled against them and they are set at liberty.