Karnataka

Lokayukta

Lokayukta Special Court

Karnataka Lokayukta

Channabyregowda

Bengaluru

Anil Kumar

Anil

MF Saldanha

Corruption is widespread inbutpolice spent Rs 15 lakh, 72 hearings and 8 years to prove a bribery charge of Rs 150; and yet failed miserablyA case of alleged bribery of Rs150, which the accused claimed was not really a bribe but money to buy chalk for the school, dragged on for eight years and saw 72 hearings. After all the effort, theon Thursday acquitted the headmaster accused of asking for the bribe.It may not have a very good track record, but that doesn’t stop the now-defunctpolice from wasting its time pursuing petty cases; that too in a slipshod manner.A recent case involving a school headmaster and a Class IX dropout bears testimony to why the Lokayukta has a poor conviction rate – in 2015, it had a strike rate of 26.2 per cent. It’s really a case of chalk and cheese – while 1,895 cases were pending at the end of 2015, the Lokayukta police was busy pursuing a case of alleged bribery of Rs 150.The case dragged on for eight years and saw 72 hearings. It cost the state exchequer Rs 15 lakh to prove the bribery of Rs 150 but in vain; last week, the Lokayukta Special Court acquitted the headmaster accused of asking for the bribe.still works as the headmaster of Government High School,South. The complainant,, is a former student of the school.In 2005,dropped out of school while in class IX. When he went back to the school in July 2008 for a transfer certificate (TC), Channa­byregowda allegedly asked for a bribe of Rs 150.Anil complained to the Lokayukta police about the demand, and a trap was laid out to catch the headmaster red-handed, and executed. A charge-sheet was filed in February 2010.During the trial, the headmaster claimed that he had asked Anil to buy chalk pieces for students and did not demand a bribe, as alleged by him.The prosecution had claimed that the headmaster asked for the cash from the complainant on the day of the trap; but when the investigating officer appeared on the scene, the TC was issued immediately. The defense, however, said that there was no demand and the headmaster had given the TC to the complainant soon after he entered his office.But the prosecution’s claim — that the demand came first and then the issuance of the TC — fell flat, as the shadow witness did not support the same and told the court that he had seen the TC in the complainant’s hand when he came out to signal the officials.The defense then took the stand that mere recovery of money was not sufficient to make a trap; there must be demand and acceptance, both of which were absent.The case further went weak as Anil could not be cross-examined to support ‘the demand first, issuance of TC next’ claim. He didn’t appear before the court for over four years. The shadow witness also maintained that he didn’t hear the conversation and that he was standing outside the office, and the complainant came out and gave a signal after he got the TC.The case fell flat even though Rs150 was recovered and the phenolphthalein test was positive. The test involves smearing the notes to be used in the trap with phenolphthalein powder, a smooth white powder. The hand which touches the note is washed with a colorless solution of sodium carbonate or lime water, which becomes immediately pink confirming the touching of currency notes (thus establishing that the bribe had been accepted).“The court held that the prosecution miserably failed to prove that there was demand and acceptance. There is no corroboration of the complainant evidence with that of the shadow witness and mere recovery of money and positive phenolphthalein test in the absence of proof of demand and acceptance is not sufficient,” a source told Bangalore Mirror.For a case of Rs150, the state had spent at least Rs15 lakh. With an average of one hearing every two months, the case had seen 72 hearings. This, according to a senior court official, was exactly what Justicewas referring to when he opined that cases of such small amounts should not be sent for criminal trial but for a departmental enquiry.“We welcome hon’ble court’s decision. In a case of this nature, it is better for investigating agency to send it to a departmental enquiry rather than prosecuting the accused in a criminal case so that they can conserve public time, money and energy for real corruption cases of higher magnitude. That was the intention of the legislation in enacting the prevention of corruption Act, based on the Law Commission Report,” said CG Sundar, counsel for the headmaster.