K.B Mulla vs State of Karnataka

Facts of the case:

That a sub- inspector of police was involved in corruption wherein the public servant accepted for Rs. 500/- as an illegal gratification. Therefore, committed an offence under section 5(1) (d) of Prevention of Corruption act, 1947, read with section 161 of the IPC.

It was provided in the facts of the case that the accused was working as sub- inspector of police in Hospet Rural Police station. On a certain day the accused met P.W 11 near a railway gate and gave him a ticket for Rs. 50/- in connection with the celebration of all India Children’s day. P.W 11 did not have the money on that day and thus told him that he will give money in two or three days. Some days later during a wrestling match the accused told him to come to the police station. P.W paid him with one currency note of Rs. 100/- denomination. The accused asked P.W, 11 to see him the next day. The P.W, 11 went to the police station. At that time, four persons Pompapathi, Mahaboob Saab, Imam Saab, and Nagabhusana were present in the police station. The accused told PW, 11 that he and the other four persons mentioned are also involved in a cheating case. P.W 11 told him that he had nothing to do with the cheating case. Then the accused told that P.W, 11 that the four persons named above and PW, 11 that if they agree to pay Rs. 2000/- each for their release, and he wanted P.W. 11 to later stand as surety and arrange the money from them and later give it to him, otherwise he will also be involved in that cheating case. P.W 11 and 12 collected money from all four persons and gave it to him an amount of Rs. 3960/-. The accused did not accept the money and told him to bring full amount that is Rs. 8000/- or bring promissory notes from all and give it to him. Accused harassed and detained him in the police station.

The accused sought help from people who were members of parliament and members of legislative assembly when he told them that the accused is seeking illegal gratification and money from him in a cheating case. They gave five currency notes duly signed by PW 2, 4, 7 and 8 and instructed that if the accused asked him he should give these notes to him.

As the accused called upon PW11 and asked for the money he gave him those five currency notes to him. Within the short period of time PW’s 2, 4, 7 and 8 went to the police station and asked the accused to produce all the contents out of the pocket, where those five currency notes were also present. They registered the accused under section 5(1) (d) of Prevention of Corruption act, 1947, read with section 161 of the IPC.

Issues:

Can a person be found guilty on the basis of prior incidents as mentioned in this case?

Arguments:

The accused contended that the illegal gratification of Rs. 8000/-in respect of four persons alleged to have irrelevant and inadmissible and relying on these evidences is irrelevant. And that evidence produced by the Ilkal affair is an improvement in the case which was not found in charge framed against the accused, and the accused was not found in the charge framed.

The counsel for the accused contended that acceptance of a bribe of Rs. 8000/- is irrelevant and no conviction should be based on such evidence. However, he maintained that the prosecution has shown satisfactory evidence of cheating and the Ilkal affair and it is sufficient to show that the accused has committed an offence.

Judgment:

Court concluded that the accused had accepted illegal gratification in connection with the release of four persons namely, Pompapathy, Mahboob Sab, Imamsab and Nagabhushan. The evidence relating to previous incidents did not form the foundation of subsequent incidents and nor it showed the acceptance of bribes. Therefore the evidence of PW11 and 12 to prove that the accused has accepted the bribe prior to the registration of the case is irrelevant and cannot be looked into. Now relating to the Ilkal affair, where the accused threatened PW11 to put him under fear. The conclusions are not warranted and the accused cannot be punished. There is no evidence and PW11 appears to be unreliable and untrustworthy witness according to the court. Thus the accused got acquitted. 

Written by Gouravi sharma, Rayat Bahara University, Intern at Legal Vidhiya.

Disclaimer: The materials provided herein are intended solely for informational purposes. Accessing or using the site or the materials does not establish an attorney-client relationship. The information presented on this site is not to be construed as legal or professional advice, and it should not be relied upon for such purposes or used as a substitute for advice from a licensed attorney in your state. Additionally, the viewpoint presented by the author is of a personal nature.

Admin