'Must Be Dealt With Iron Hand': Karnataka HC Upholds Conviction Of ESI Office Storekeeper Booked For Seeking Bribe To Provide Injection

The Karnataka High Court has upheld the conviction handed down to a storekeeper working in the office of ESI for demanding and accepting a bribe of Rs 1,000 for supplying the required injection prescribed by a Doctor of NIMHANS hospital to the complainant.

A single-judge bench of Justice Ramachandra D Huddar partly allowed the appeal filed by B M Venkatappa and upheld the conviction but reduced the sentence imposed by the trial court on him.

The court, while convicting the accused, noted the prosecution's submission that it is the usual practice in the ESI office to demand bribes from employees who seek encashment of medical bills, supply of medicines, etc., thereby exploiting the members of the ESI who approach it to get the benefit of the Government.

The bench observed “In view of the facts and circumstances brought on record by the prosecution, the submission of the HCGP with regard to the affairs of ESI appears to be probable. Such an attitude of the employees in demanding bribes from the employees to do official favour has to be dealt with iron hands.”

The appellant had argued that the prosecution had failed to prove the receipt of a bribe amount by the accused in his office. Moreover, it was stated that the material witnesses did not support the demand and acceptance of the bribe amount. It was claimed that the very trap is a farce and is opposed to the provisions of Article 20 of the Constitution of India. Finally, it was said that forcibly the complainant had put the tainted money in his hands.

The prosecution contended that it had proved its case against the accused and the inconsistencies in the evidence of witnesses pointed out by the accused cannot be blown out of proportion to dismiss the case.

Furthermore, it was stated that the appellant had no proper explanation with regard to the receipt of tainted money in view of the presumption that was available under Section 20 of the Act.

Findings:

The bench on perusing the evidence of the prosecution witnesses said “Evidence of PWs. 1 to 5, if cumulatively read, goes without saying that all these witnesses are consistent about the position of the accused, his demand and acceptance of bribe money and seizure of the same by the IO.”

Discarding the evidence of defence witnesses examined by the accused the court said “They speak with regard to the trap conducted on the accused and the recovery of tainted money from the possession of the accused. Therefore, evidence of these DW.2 and 3 would not help the defence of the accused that there was no demand and acceptance of bribe money in the manner contended by him.”

Thus it held that when convincing evidence had been led by the prosecution about the commission of crime by the accused, it can very well be stated that, even by re-appreciation of the evidence led by the prosecution, one cannot come to a different conclusion than the conclusion arrived by the trial Court.

Court said considering that the case is from the year 2007 and the trial was concluded in the year 2014, the accused now must have attained superannuation.

Thus it concluded that, “It is just and proper to show some leniency in the imposition of sentence. The appellant is sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of three months for the offence under Section 7 and also six months rigorous imprisonment for the offence under Section 13(2) of the Act, it would meet the ends of justice.”

Appearance: Advocate Parameshwar N Hegde for Appellant.

Special Counsel for Lokayukta B.S. Prasad.

Citation No: 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 396

Case Title: B.M Venkatappa AND State of Karnataka

Case No: CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 861 OF 2014

Click Here To Read/Download Order