<p>Bengaluru: The High Court of Karnataka has upheld the conviction and sentencing of a police head constable in a bribery case.</p>.<p>Justice HP Sandesh observed that the benefit of doubt cannot be extended to the accused on grounds of minor discrepancies.</p>.<p>On September 29, 2021, a special court found MK Manjanna, a head constable at the Bagalagunte police station in Bengaluru, guilty of demanding and accepting a bribe.</p>.<p>Manjanna was trapped on July 15, 2017, when he received Rs 10,000 to close a pending criminal case against a complainant. The Anti-Corruption Bureau (ACB) conducted the investigation and filed a charge sheet.</p>.<p>The special court sentenced Manjanna to three years' rigorous imprisonment and slapped a fine of Rs 50,000 under Section 8 of the Prevention of Corruption (PC) Act, and another four years in jail with a Rs 50,000 fine under Sections 13(1)(d) read with 13(2) of the PC Act.</p>.<p>Challenging this, Manjanna claimed no official work was pending with him in relation to the complainant. He argued that mere recovery of money did not amount to an offence, as he was only asked to remove the phenolphthalein-soaked notes kept in a cover. It was further submitted that the ingredients of Sections 7 and 13 of the PC Act were not made out as there was no demand and acceptance, and that the prosecution had failed to prove the case.</p>.<p>Justice Sandesh, however, noted that there was indeed demand and acceptance.</p>.<p>The court also observed that the forensic report on the voice sample of a recorded phone conversation went against the accused.</p>.<p>"Minor discrepancies regarding recovery of money will not go to the very root of the prosecution case, and benefit of doubt cannot be extended in favour of the accused only on minor discrepancies," the court said.</p>
<p>Bengaluru: The High Court of Karnataka has upheld the conviction and sentencing of a police head constable in a bribery case.</p>.<p>Justice HP Sandesh observed that the benefit of doubt cannot be extended to the accused on grounds of minor discrepancies.</p>.<p>On September 29, 2021, a special court found MK Manjanna, a head constable at the Bagalagunte police station in Bengaluru, guilty of demanding and accepting a bribe.</p>.<p>Manjanna was trapped on July 15, 2017, when he received Rs 10,000 to close a pending criminal case against a complainant. The Anti-Corruption Bureau (ACB) conducted the investigation and filed a charge sheet.</p>.<p>The special court sentenced Manjanna to three years' rigorous imprisonment and slapped a fine of Rs 50,000 under Section 8 of the Prevention of Corruption (PC) Act, and another four years in jail with a Rs 50,000 fine under Sections 13(1)(d) read with 13(2) of the PC Act.</p>.<p>Challenging this, Manjanna claimed no official work was pending with him in relation to the complainant. He argued that mere recovery of money did not amount to an offence, as he was only asked to remove the phenolphthalein-soaked notes kept in a cover. It was further submitted that the ingredients of Sections 7 and 13 of the PC Act were not made out as there was no demand and acceptance, and that the prosecution had failed to prove the case.</p>.<p>Justice Sandesh, however, noted that there was indeed demand and acceptance.</p>.<p>The court also observed that the forensic report on the voice sample of a recorded phone conversation went against the accused.</p>.<p>"Minor discrepancies regarding recovery of money will not go to the very root of the prosecution case, and benefit of doubt cannot be extended in favour of the accused only on minor discrepancies," the court said.</p>