Such Attitude Must Be Dealt With Iron Hands: Karnataka HC Confirms Conviction Of ESI Office Storekeeper Allegedly Demanding Bribe For Injection
The Karnataka High Court upheld the conviction of ESI (Employees State Insurance) Office Storekeeper, who was accused of demanding bribe for supply of injection from the ESI Department.
The Court was deciding an appeal filed by the accused challenging the judgment of the Trial Court by which he was found guilty of committing the offences under Sections 7 and 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (PC Act).
A Single Bench of Justice Ramachandra D. Huddar 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 bribe from the employees to do official favour has to be dealt with iron hands.”
Advocate Parameshwar N. Hegde appeared on behalf of the appellant/accused while Advocate B.S. Prasad appeared on behalf of the respondent/State.
Facts of the Case -
As per the prosecution case, the appellant/accused was a storekeeper in the office of ESI and was to do official favour in the matter of supplying the required injection prescribed by the Doctor of NIMHANS hospital to be injected to the complainant. It was alleged that there was a demand made by the accused to pay the bribe of Rs.1000/- in the matter of supply of injection from the ESI Department.
The alleged tainted amount of Rs.1,000/- was received from the complainant in the ESI office itself. The accused was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment of six months along with a fine of Rs. 500/- by the XXIII Addl. City Civil and Sessions Judge and Special Judge. Being aggrieved by his conviction, he was before the High Court.
The High Court in view of the facts and circumstances of the case noted, “This case is from the year 2007 and the trial was concluded in the year 2014. Already substantial time has elapsed, and the accused-appellant must have suffered physically, mentally and even financially. With all this mental shock, he must be living. As per the cause-title of the trial Court judgment, his age is shown as 52 years as on the date of impugned judgment. Now he must have attained superannuation.”
The Court considering the time consumed for the litigation right from 2007 onwards, said that it is just and proper to show some leniency in the imposition of sentence.
“… if the accused 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”, it added.
Accordingly, the High Court partly allowed the appeal, upheld the conviction, and modified the sentence.
Cause Title- B.M. Venkatappa v. State of Karnataka (Neutral Citation: 2024:KHC:35317)
