<p>The Lokayukta police cases in Bengaluru city are witnessing a drop in conviction rate this year. Since June this year, 18 cases of traps, mostly red-handed ones, have ended in acquittals. In the last four months, only two cases have ended in conviction.<br /><br /> The Lokayukta police sources said that in most of the cases complainants have turned hostile, adding that a report is being prepared to find out reasons for the sudden drop.<br /><br />The conviction rate in cases under Prevention of Corruption Act in the State was below 20 percent between 2007 and 2009. In the year 2010, Lokayukta courts had recorded 31.5 percent conviction rate which rose to 49 percent in 2011. In 2012, the conviction rate was 49 percent. <br /><br />The next year, despite there being a series of private complaints, the special court in Bengaluru alone had the highest conviction rate of 56 percent. <br /><br />A source said that a majority of the cases ended up in acquittal as complainants turned hostile. In some cases, the court has remarked that the investigating officer has failed to establish ‘demand and acceptance’ of bribe. <br /><br />“In some cases, the court observed that the witness and shadow witness - a government witness who would have accompanied the complainant during the trap - have turned hostile and failed to give clear witness. The Lokayukta police can file an appeal against the special court order, but it has to be cleared by the State government,” a senior official said.</p>.<p>The series of acquittals in trap cases has raised eyebrows, since it has two important features, demand under Section 7 and acceptance under Section 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act. <br /><br />“A trap case is one where the police gets directly involved in witnessing the actual act of a public servant receiving a bribe and this means that a reasonably efficient police force should be able to secure a conviction without much difficulty. But if the Lokayukta police is so inefficient that it is struggling to even secure convictions in such cases, the time may have come to weed out the highly inefficient elements and to replace them with more efficient officers,” Supreme Court advocate K V Dhananjay told Deccan Herald. <br /><br />Some of the cases which have ended up in acquittal include that of a DySP, who is now promoted as SP, two assistant executive engineers of BWSSB, a sub-registrar, a programme officer with the women and child welfare department and a police inspector. Acquittal in a trap case reflects that there has been a failure to prove both demand and acceptance. <br /><br />“The role of the complainants and shadow witnesses is minimal in trap cases. Even if they do turn hostile, the court can proceed to convict the accused, if the police officers had set up a strong trap.If there is such good material to convict the accused, the court can also punish witnesses who turn hostile. Even if the Lokayukta police have picked up frivolous cases and have taken such cases to courts, they will still have to blame themselves for being so ignorant of the law on bribery,” a senior advocate said.<br /></p>
<p>The Lokayukta police cases in Bengaluru city are witnessing a drop in conviction rate this year. Since June this year, 18 cases of traps, mostly red-handed ones, have ended in acquittals. In the last four months, only two cases have ended in conviction.<br /><br /> The Lokayukta police sources said that in most of the cases complainants have turned hostile, adding that a report is being prepared to find out reasons for the sudden drop.<br /><br />The conviction rate in cases under Prevention of Corruption Act in the State was below 20 percent between 2007 and 2009. In the year 2010, Lokayukta courts had recorded 31.5 percent conviction rate which rose to 49 percent in 2011. In 2012, the conviction rate was 49 percent. <br /><br />The next year, despite there being a series of private complaints, the special court in Bengaluru alone had the highest conviction rate of 56 percent. <br /><br />A source said that a majority of the cases ended up in acquittal as complainants turned hostile. In some cases, the court has remarked that the investigating officer has failed to establish ‘demand and acceptance’ of bribe. <br /><br />“In some cases, the court observed that the witness and shadow witness - a government witness who would have accompanied the complainant during the trap - have turned hostile and failed to give clear witness. The Lokayukta police can file an appeal against the special court order, but it has to be cleared by the State government,” a senior official said.</p>.<p>The series of acquittals in trap cases has raised eyebrows, since it has two important features, demand under Section 7 and acceptance under Section 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act. <br /><br />“A trap case is one where the police gets directly involved in witnessing the actual act of a public servant receiving a bribe and this means that a reasonably efficient police force should be able to secure a conviction without much difficulty. But if the Lokayukta police is so inefficient that it is struggling to even secure convictions in such cases, the time may have come to weed out the highly inefficient elements and to replace them with more efficient officers,” Supreme Court advocate K V Dhananjay told Deccan Herald. <br /><br />Some of the cases which have ended up in acquittal include that of a DySP, who is now promoted as SP, two assistant executive engineers of BWSSB, a sub-registrar, a programme officer with the women and child welfare department and a police inspector. Acquittal in a trap case reflects that there has been a failure to prove both demand and acceptance. <br /><br />“The role of the complainants and shadow witnesses is minimal in trap cases. Even if they do turn hostile, the court can proceed to convict the accused, if the police officers had set up a strong trap.If there is such good material to convict the accused, the court can also punish witnesses who turn hostile. Even if the Lokayukta police have picked up frivolous cases and have taken such cases to courts, they will still have to blame themselves for being so ignorant of the law on bribery,” a senior advocate said.<br /></p>
