‘Lax’ lokayukta loses five-year-old bribery case

In a trap set by lokayukta police five years ago, three policemen were accused of accepting Rs 3 lakh as a bribe. The cops were acquitted on Tuesday as lokayukta failed to prove their case because a vital piece of evidence – the tape involving the alleged conversations between the accused and complainant – had not been certified by a forensic science laboratory.

The anti-corruption body had taken up the case against three cops, meticulously investigated the case and filed a chargesheet, but it overlooked one basic necessity that eventually led to them losing the case.

What is even more appalling is that the lokayukta even failed to produce the originals of these tapes – the only piece of evidence that could have justified the demand and acceptance, without which a trap can’t be proved.

Money for favours

The case pertained to three cops – police inspector Mohan Kumar, then with Wilson Garden, and constables Doddasiddaiah and Dasharatharama. A trap had been laid on September 21, 2011 based on a complaint by one Prabhakar SR. According to Prabhakar’s complaint, his friend Sridhar was facing a case pertaining to a land issue in Wilson Garden limits and the three accused had allegedly demanded a bribe of Rs 4 lakh to help him out.

A trap was then laid and constable Doddasiddaiah had been caught while taking Rs 3 lakh from Sridhar as part of the bribe to help him in the case. The trap had also led to the arrest of inspector Mohan Kuman and constable Dasharatharama. Evidence had been recorded between November 2016 and March 2017.

Five years after the trap, on July 17, the lokayukta special court which heard the prosecution by SP Hubballi and defence by CG Sundar acquitted the three policemen.

Lacuna in lokayukta’s case

The court observed that lax approach by lokayukta missed out on basics to prove the corruption case and failed to establish the prosecution’s case beyond doubt. “Non-examination of material evidence was fatal to the prosecution’s case,” the court said in its final order.

Sridhar, who was a key person in the case, never appeared in court and lokayukta could not secure him either. The court also ruled that the need for the inspector to do any favour for Sridhar never arose as he had already obtained bail from a court. This ruled out the pending ‘official favour’ part which is necessary in any trap case besides demand and acceptance.

“In this case, the original voice recorder and digital camera were not produced before the court and contents of the voice recorded were reduced to writing and were not accompanied with a certificate from a forensic lab, so it is inadmissible evidence,” the court said before acquitting the three.

Further, the court observed that Mohan Kumar’s absence during the trap only weakened the prosecution case against him. Questioning why statements of the staff and public at the KFC in Forum Mall, where the trap took place, were not recorded, the court observed that the non-citing of these witnesses in the mahazar was fatal to the prosecution’s case.

In case of the constable who took the money, it was ruled that mere acceptance was not sufficient to prove a case.

While the cops welcomed the judgment, lokayukta police wing maintained that they will decide if they should challenge the decision after getting legal opinion.

 

By Chetan R, Bangalore Mirror Bureau | Updated: Aug 10, 2017, 04.00 AM IST

Lokayukta cops red-faced as court acquits officer caught ‘red-handed’

Bangalore Mirror d. 3/11/16
The Lokayukta police was once again left red-faced in the court room after a police officer who they caught ‘red-handed’, was acquitted. The investigators and the prosecution failed to establish or prove any of the charges levelled against him.


According to the charge-sheet submitted before the Lokayukta special court, V Raja Bovi, an assistant sub-inspector of police attached to Srirampura police station prior to his retirement, was allegedly caught ‘red-handed’ while accepting a bribe of Rs 25,000.


Bovi allegedly demanded the bribe for dropping the complainant’s brother’s name from the list of the accused in a 2010 case of murder.


The arrest had created a flutter back then as Bovi tried to escape and was apprehended after a brief chase on the city streets.


However, during the trial, it turned out that the complainant’s brother was never included as a suspect in the case. The Lokayukta special court acquitted Raja Bovi on Friday as the prosecution’s subsequent claims of accepting bribe for manipulating the probe fell flat before the court of law.


CAUGHT ‘RED-HANDED’


The Lokayukta police had registered a First Information Report (FIR) against Bovi based on the complaint filed by Ambuvelu that the former had demanded Rs 2 lakh to omit his brother’s name from the list of accused in a murder case (crime number 133/2010).


The complainant had further claimed that Bovi later scaled down his demand to Rs 50,000 and that he paid Rs 2,000 as a token payment as bribe.


Subsequently, the Lokayukta police had registered a case and had laid trap in July 2010, based on this. Bovi was arrested after a brief chase. He had tried to escape in an autorickshaw with the Rs 25,000 paid to him, but was caught ‘red handed’.


Recording of evidence in the case had begun in August 2014 after the police had filed a charge-sheet in the case. However, after hearing both the prosecution and defense, the court on Friday acquitted the accused.



CLAIMS AND COUNTER CLAIMS


The entire case was built around the allegation that the accused (Bovi) accepted bribe to delete the complainant’s brother’s name from a list of suspects in the murder case. However this was dismissed in the courtroom after it was found that the complainant’s brother was never an accused in the murder case. The defence lawyers also pointed out that Bovi was not directly involved with any murder case as an investigating officer.


The accused had claimed before the court that the money he accepted from the complainant was not a bribe but repayment of a loan which the complainant had taken from him in the past.


The defense capitalised on the prosecution’s failure to establish basic motive and demand of bribe in the case; and claimed that mere acceptance was not enough to prove corruption.


It was brought to the court’s notice that the investigating officer in the case did not bother to cross verify Bovi’s claim of loan repayment which finally led to the collapse of the case and acquittal of Raja Bovi.


“The prosecution has failed to prove the demand of bribe amount by the accused, which is an essential requirement to prove the offences under section 7 and 13 of the Prevention Of Corruption Act... Considering all these aspects, I hold that the prosecution has failed to bring home the guilt of the accused for the offences punishable under sec 7 and 13 of the PC Act by leading cogent, concrete and convincing evidence before this court,” the court observed citing the failure to establish the cash as illegal gratification.


Former Lokayukta officials opined that the acquittal was a result of shoddy probe carried out in an amateurish manner by the investigators.
“If the investigating officer had done his homework and counter-checked the veracity of the complaint, he would have realised that the so called murder was not registered and the subsequent allegations will not stand before the law. They should act in a responsible manner, and not waste public money and resource. They should ascertain and verify facts to present a water tight case to ensure conviction,” said a retired Lokayukta SP.


The case had two senior defence counsels representing Bovi – K Janardhan who passed away during the trial, and later advocate CG Sundar.
Meanwhile, the prosecution maintained that the police would seek legal opinion and decide whether to file an appeal in the case.

In Lokayukta, action against small fry okayed, big fish files don't get sanction orders

Bangalore Mirror d. 4/19/2016
It seems the state government has a double-standard policy when it comes to prosecuting corrupt officials; one based on rank and political clout. Sanction orders to prosecute small fry accused of accepting bribes of Rs20 and Rs100 are passed in a jiffy, but files seeking the nod to hook the bigger fish -- accused of abetting massive scams -- are lying untouched, gathering dust.

The state government is sitting on at least 145 Prosecution Sanction Orders (PSO) against senior bureaucrats and officials from as many as 23 departments. Though legal experts and a section of officials claim that action should be taken against all corrupt government servants, they pointed out that the government’s two-faced approach was a matter of serious concern.

A top government official revealed that the Lokayukta institution was awaiting PSOs in 145 cases, most involving high-ranking officers. The majority of these pending orders are from the Rural Development and Panchayati Raj (RDPR), Home, Urban Development, and Energy departments.

“In cases pertaining to accepting a bribe, disproportionate assets cases, raids, and cases of dereliction of duty against officials and elected representatives, sanctions are pending, and prominent ones are special officer to chief minister, Gutti Jamunath, formerly Davanagere ZP CEO; Ballari MP Sriramulu; IAS officer S M Raju; chief engineer HC Jayachandra; chief engineer B Guruprasad; besides other department officials including directors, executive engineers, junior engineers, village panchayat secretaries, zilla panchayat chief officers, tahsildars and PDOs (Panchayat Development Officers). In all these cases the government has not given its sanction or a rejection of sanction is being contested,” a lokayukta officer told Bangalore Mirror.

As per a government circular issued on September 26, 2011, a sanction to facilitate the legal process in corruption cases has to be given within three months. Senior officials told BM that the callous attitude in these cases was despite repeated reminders and letters to the government seeking the green signal to initiate legal proceedings against the tainted officials. Without the sanction order, the Lokayukta police cannot proceed with the cases under the Prevention of Corruption Act.

This sanction order is a constitutional provision extended to accused officials to present their arguments and explanations to their superior officers before the clearance is given to officially charge them. If the sanctioning authority or competent authority is satisfied or finds such defence justifiable then he can reject the sanction.

“Repeated reminders have been sent from the Lokayukta registrar’s office to the concerned state government departments for granting sanction to proceed with corruption cases involving high-profile officers, but so far there has been no response,” said a senior Lokayukta official.
MALL FRY FACE QUICK ACTION

Meanwhile, legal experts have stated that this provision was now being misused to dodge prosecution and protect officials under the Lokayukta scanner. However, in certain cases involving small amounts like Rs20 and Rs 1,000 and ranks like lineman, village accountant, bill collector, or a constable, sanctions are quickly accorded.

“The very purpose of legislation enacting section 19 to prevent frivolous sanction has been defeated monotonously by the sanctioning authority by mechanically granting sanction where small amounts and lower grade clerks and staffers are involved, and by turning a blind eye to cases involving huge amounts and top officers. This can be seen from the manner in which the chargesheets are filed in trap cases, where 90 per cent of cases will not exceed a few lakh.

“Here, sanction is granted within days and records show that where huge amounts are involved, it is kept pending from as far back as 2005. This provision is widely misused to suit the needs of influential officers, and High Court directives to send cases involving small amounts to departmental inquiry by the sanctioning authorities over criminal prosecution is not adhered,” CG Sundar, a senior advocate said.

Law minister TB Jayachandra, when contacted, said the issue would be looked into to ensure pendency is redressed. Subhash Chandra Khuntia, the new chief secretary of the state, said, “The general principle is that quick decisions have to be taken. However, I’m yet to look into details of it. Pendency aspect will be looked into.”

Department and officials against whom sanctions have been sought
Finance

DC (excise) Somashekarappa; finance advisor, PWD, Govindraju; M H Nagesh, CFO Chickballapur ZP; Mahantappa Erappa Sulibavi CFO, KBJNL Almatti

Cooperative department

Joint registrar Satish; registrar Thimmaiah,
Home

ACP Siddaramaiah; Mandya rural CPI Krishna Murthy; NK Rangaswamy CID PI; PSIs Nilesh Ganapathy, SH Shankar, Somla Nayak; KS Sundaraj DySp ISD

Urban Development department

Hubli-Dharwad commissioner M Thippesh; AEE Chitradurga municipality, AR Chidanand; Mysuru corporation AC Ravi Kumar; Hubballi-Dharwad corporator Bashir Ahmed; Hubballi-Dharwad corporation junior engineer, SN Puttananvar.

Revenue and others
Ballari DDLR (Deputy Director of Land Records) L Narayanaswamy; Karnataka University professor Dr Noor Jahan; Davanagere TP staffer SL Prabhudeva (PWD); BT Mohan executive engineer, minor irrigation, Ballari; SM Raju; KM Narayaswamy IFS; class one officers Rajappa, Shashidar; Bagli tahsildar tourism assistant director Kamlapura; planning department GR Omkarappa; CO Davangere ZP, road safety director TP Narayanswamy. The designations of officers against whom sanction have been sought or is being contested are from the time the cases were taken up.