

1. This appeal is directed against the judgment and order passed by the High Court of Karnataka in Criminal Appeal No. 473 of 2002, dated 28.02.2008, whereby and where under the High Court has set aside the judgment and order of acquittal passed by the Trial Court in SPL.C.C. No. 47 of 2000. The brief facts of the case are that the Appellant was the Village Accountant of Tavarekere, Bangalore South Taluk. The complainant (PW-1) had applied for, and received, a mutation copy in respect of certain joint family property. However, since his mother's name had not been added in the same, he requested the Appellant to effect the necessary changes. The Appellant demanded a sum of ` 500/- as bribe in exchange for making the said change and asked PW-1 to bring the said amount to his office on 06.04.1999. PW-1 lodged a complaint before the Lokayukta Office and trap proceedings were conducted, including smearing currency notes produced by PW-1 with phenolphthalein powder.

2. Accordingly, on 06.04.1999, PW-1 met the Appellant and, on him demanding the amount, handed over the said currency notes to the Appellant. On PW-1's signal, the trap team arrived at the scene and seized the said amount from the Appellant. The sodium carbonate test was done on the Appellant hands which tested positive. The Appellant's bag was also seized and a trap Mahazar was made.

3. The investigation was completed and a charge sheet against the Appellant for offences Under Section 7 and Section 13(1)(d) read with 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (for short, "the Act") was filed before the Trial Court. The Appellant appeared before the Trial Court. The charges were read over and explained to the Appellant who pleaded not guilty. Consequently, the case was committed to trial.

4. The prosecution examined seven witnesses and produced eight documents and 11 material objects, while no witnesses were produced by the defense. The Appellant's statement was recorded Under Section 313(1)(b) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short, "the Code"). The defense also produced two documents.

5. The Trial Court considered the evidence on record as also the arguments of the parties and noticed that the prosecution case suffered from several infirmities and that the testimonies of PW-1 and the Investigating Officer (PW-7) were not credible. The Trial Court further noticed that the shadow witness in this case (PW-2) was a "stock witness" and had previously given similar testimonies in other cases as well. The Trial Court reasoned that it was likely that the Appellant's hands had come in contact with the currency notes when PW-1 had handed over the application documents to him. In light of these considerations, the Trial Court, by judgment and order dated 29.11.2001, acquitted the Appellant.

6. Aggrieved by the said acquittal, the Respondent-State approached the High Court in Criminal Appeal No. 473/2002 on the ground, inter alia, that the Trial Court had not correctly appreciated the evidence on record and that the defects noted by the Trial Court did not, in and of themselves, discredit the case of the prosecution.

7. By the impugned judgment and order dated 28.02.2008, the High Court re-appreciated the entire evidence on record and noticed that though there were certain discrepancies in the testimonies of P.Ws. 1, 2, 6 (official witness) and 7 (Investigating Officer), the same were of a minor nature and would not disprove the entire case of the prosecution. Therefore, the High Court set aside the order passed by the Trial Court and convicted the Appellant for offences Under Section 7 and Section 13(1)(d) read with 13(2) of the Act and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for one year and a fine of ` 5000/- for the offence Under Section 13(1)(d) read with 13(2) of the Act. No sentence was awarded for the offence Under Section 7 of the Act.

8. Aggrieved by the judgment and order passed by the High Court, the Appellant is before us in this appeal.

9. We have heard learned Counsel for the parties to the lis.

10. Learned Counsel for the Appellant would submit that PW-2's testimony does not support the prosecution's case and, therefore, cannot be relied on. He further submits that the prosecution has failed to prove the factum of demand and that mere recovery of the said amount will not, in and of itself, establish the Appellant's guilt.

11. After carefully perusing the evidence on record, including the judgments and orders passed by the Courts below the Appellant's case fails to convince us. The testimony of PW-1 corroborates that of PW-7. Further, the discrepancies pointed out by the Trial Court are minor in nature and do not by themselves disprove the prosecution case. The Trial Court judgment is based on mere conjectures and surmises and was correctly set aside by the High Court.

12. On the question of sentence, the learned Counsel further submits that in light of the Appellant's advanced age, the sentence imposed ought to be reduced to the period of sentence undergone, i.e., three months. However, taking into consideration the seriousness of the offence and the fact that the minimum sentence for the said offences is one year, we are of the considered opinion that the sentence imposed cannot be further reduced.

13. In light of the aforesaid, we are of the considered opinion that the judgment and order passed by the High Court does not suffer from any infirmity whatsoever and does not require our interference. The appeal, being devoid of any merit, is liable to be dismissed and is dismissed accordingly. The bail bonds of the Appellant shall stand cancelled and the Appellant is directed to be taken into custody forthwith to serve out the remaining period of sentence.

Ordered accordingly.

