Karnataka High Court
The State Of Karnataka vs Sri Basheerahamad S/O. Maktumsab Mulla on 18 February, 2026
Author: V.Srishananda
Bench: V.Srishananda
-1-
Crl. A.No.100136 of 2015
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, AT DHARWAD
DATED THIS THE 18TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2026
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V.SRISHANANDA
CRIMINAL APPEAL No.100136 OF 2015
BETWEEN
THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
SPECIAL PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
KARNATAKA LOKAYUKTA POLICE,
HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
BENCH AT DHARWAD, DHARWAD.
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI. SRINIVAS B. NAIK, ADVOCATE)
AND
SRI BASHEERAHAMAD S/O. MAKTUMSAB MULLA
AGE NOT KNOWN,
COMMERCIAL TAX INSPECTOR,
OFFICE OF ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF COMMERCIAL TAX,
HUBBALLI OF HUBBALLI,
R/O. KUSUGAL ROAD, PLOT NO. 5
MADHURA COLONY, HUBBALLI, DIST: DHARWAD.
...RESPONDENT
(BY SMT. VAISHALI K. KALADAGI, AMICUS CURIE)
CHANDRASHEKAR
LAXMAN THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL IS FILED U/S 378(1) AND (3) OF
KATTIMANI
CR.P.C., SEEKING TO GRANT LEAVE TO APPEAL AGAINST THE
JUDGMENT AND ORDER OF ACQUITTAL PASSED BY THE III ADDL.
DISTRICT & SESSIONS & SPECIAL JUDGE, AT DHARWAD DATED
29/12/2014 IN SPL. KLA C.C.NO.7/2013 AND TO SET ASIDE THE
Digitally signed by
CHANDRASHEKAR JUDGMENT AND ORDER OF ACQUITTAL PASSED BY THE III ADDL.
LAXMAN
KATTIMANI DISTRICT & SESSIONS & SPECIAL JUDGE, AT DHARWAD DATED
Date: 2026.02.21
11:44:50 +0530 29/12/2014 IN SPL. KLA C.C.NO.7/2013 AND TO CONVICT AND
SENTENCE THE RESPONDENT / ACCUSED PERSON FOR THE OFFENCES
P/U/SEC.7, 13(1) (D) R/W SECTION 13(2) OF P.C. ACT, 1988.
THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED
FOR JUDGMENT ON 31.01.2026 AND COMING ON FOR
PRONOUNCEMENT THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN
AS UNDER:
-2-
Crl. A.No.100136 of 2015
CAV JUDGMENT
(PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V.SRISHANANDA) The Lokayukta, Dharwad, is the appellant challenging the order passed in Special KLA C.C.No.7/2013 dated 29.12.2014 passed by the III Addl. District and Sessions and Special Judge, Dharwad, wherein respondent/accused has been acquitted for the offence punishable under Sections 7, 13(1)(d) r/w Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.
2. The facts in the nutshell which are utmost necessary for disposal of the present appeal are as under:
2.1 A complaint came to be lodged by one Sri Kiran Koneri with Lokayukta Police, Dharwad, contending that complainant is running an industry in the name and style 'Kiran Industries' standing in the name of his mother-Smt. Surekha, whereunder vehicle spare parts are being manufactured. The Industry was situated at plot No.12, Lakamanahalli Industrial Area, Dharwad. There are seven workers working in the industry.
2.2 It is his further case that on 06.11.2012, when the complainant was in the industry, Sri Balaswamy who is the -3- Crl. A.No.100136 of 2015 Commercial Tax Assistant Commissioner and his assistant-Sri Basheerahamad, S/o Maktumsab Mulla (respondent/accused) visited the industry and demanded the books of accounts for the year 2011-2012 and 2012-2013 for inspection. Complainant furnished the necessary instructions by taking the print out from the computer and assured to furnish the account books and balance sheets as the same were with the Chartered Accountant and sought for about 2 to 3 days' time.
2.3 At that juncture, it is the respondent who said that Rs.5,000/- to Rs.10,000/- would be charged per visit to the industry and demanded the said money. When the complainant refused to pay the same, he was instructed to visit the office of the Assistant Commissioner of Commercial Tax along with the necessary records. About 2 to 3 days later complainant visited the office of the accused and met the accused. Again, accused demanded the illegal gratification without even verifying the documents that has been procured by the complainant.
2.4 On 20.12.2012, a notice dated 12.12.2012 came to be issued to the industry directing the complainant to visit the office of the accused with necessary records. As such, one of the employee of the complainant viz., Ramesh Goddemmi was sent -4- Crl. A.No.100136 of 2015 to the office of the accused on 22.12.2012. Later, complainant again visited the office and accused assured that he will verify the papers and then clearance certificate will be issued. Further documents were also demanded which were sent through Ramesh Goddemmi by the complainant.
2.5 However, the clearance certificate was not issued and issuance of the same was dodged on by the accused on one pretext or the other. Later on, complainant used to receive telephone call from the office telephone of the accused demanding Rs.5,000/- as illegal gratification.
2.6 Having not interested in parting away with the illegal gratification, complainant approached the Lokayukta Police, Dharwad and lodged the written complaint.
3. Based on the complaint averments, Lokayukta police secured two independent Government servants as panchas. Ten currency notes of Rs.500/- denomination were secured and recorded the serial numbers of the said currency notes on a separate paper. Phenolphthalein powder was smeared on those currency notes and demonstrated the chemical reaction of phenolphthalein powder with sodium carbonate solution.
Thereafter, experimental mahazar was drawn. -5- Crl. A.No.100136 of 2015
4. On 23.02.2013, complainant, shadow witness and other members of the raid team along with co-pancha left the Lokayukta office at about 02.45 p.m. and reached the office canteen at about 03.15 p.m. A button camera was also given to the complainant to record at the time of complainant handing over the tainted currency notes. After sometime, the complainant came out from the canteen of the office of the accused and gave a pre-designated signal by removing his specs. Immediately, the rest of the raid team members proceeded to the place where the accused, complainant and shadow witnesses were there.
5. On enquiry, complainant told that accused showed him the photocopy of the clearance certificate and demanded illegal gratification of Rs.5,000/- and that he has handed over the tainted currency notes which the accused took it from his right hand and kept it in his shirt pocket and went to the office.
6. Thereafter, raid team followed the complainant inside the office of the accused. At about 03.50 p.m., accused was identified by the complainant and accused has been apprehended by showing the identity card.
-6-Crl. A.No.100136 of 2015
7. Accused revealed his name as Basheerahamad Maktumsab Mulla and told that he has kept the money in the almirah and took out the same. Ten currency notes of Rs.500/- denomination were seized from the accused and serial numbers of the said currency notes were compared with the serial numbers noted in the experimental mahazar. The colour test stood positive and accused was arrested.
8. After thorough investigation by the Lokayukta Police, a charge sheet came to be filed.
9. Presence of the accused was secured and thereafter, charges were framed. Accused pleaded not guilty and therefore, Trial was held.
10. In order to prove the case of the prosecution, in all twelve witnesses were examined as P.Ws.1 to 12 and, 29 documentary evidence were placed on record which were exhibited and marked as Exs.P.1 to P.29 besides 14 material objects, marked as M.Os.1 to 14.
11. After completion of recording the evidence of the prosecution witnesses, statement of the accused as is contemplated under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal -7- Crl. A.No.100136 of 2015 Procedure was recorded, wherein, accused has denied all the incriminatory evidence adduced against him.
12. Thereafter, arguments were heard and accused was acquitted by the impugned judgment.
13. Being aggrieved by the same, present appeal has been filed by the State on the following grounds:
"The evidence of PW-1 to PW-12 has been totally misconstrued by the court below and rendering the judgment of acquittal inspite of there prosecution having proved the demand, acceptance and recovery being proved in the case. Hence the impugned Judgment is liable to be setaside.
The court below committed serious error in not appreciating evidence of PW-1 and PW-2 which discloses the demand made by accused for issuing clearance certificate. The demand made on 23/2/2013 is witnessed by PW-2 who stood the test of cross examination and nothing worth is elicited to disbelieve the same. The court below committed serious error in law in misreading the evidence of PW-1 and PW-2 and has erroneously come to a conclusion that they have given admission to the effect that accused received sum of Rs.5,000/- in order to do official favour of issuing clearance certificate.-8-
Crl. A.No.100136 of 2015 The currency notes mentioned in entrustment panchanama at Exhibit P-2 and recovery made at the instance of accused are one and the same. In addition the chemical examiner's report at Exhibit P-20 also fortifies the case of prosecution about the demand and recovery of illegal gratification to do the official favour. In view of the same there is clear case of offence being made out punishable under Section 7, 13(1)(d) r/w Section 13(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act. The court below erred in not appreciating presumption under Section 20 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1998 when there exists no rebuttal evidence to disprove the said presumption. "
14. Sri Srinivas B.Naik, learned counsel for the appellant, reiterating the grounds urged in the appeal memorandum, would vehemently contend that the learned Special Judge has not properly appreciated the material evidence on record. The evidence of PWs.1 to 12 has not been appreciated in proper perspective and wrongly acquitted the accused.
15. He would further contend that the material evidence placed on record through oral testimony of PWs-1 and 2 clearly discloses the demand of illegal gratification by the accused for issue of clearance certificate to the complainant. -9- Crl. A.No.100136 of 2015
16. He further argued that PW-2 has specifically deposed that on 23.02.2013 he has witnessed the demand made by the accused and then the tainted currency was handed over to the accused which was kept in his shirt pocket and recovered from the almirah which would make it clear that the prosecution has been successful in establishing all the ingredients to attract the offence under Sections 7, 13(1)(d) r/w Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act. Therefore, the Order of acquittal is incorrect.
17. Since there was no representation on behalf of the respondent, Ms.Vaishali K.Kaladagi, learned counsel was appointed as amicus curiae to represent the respondent/ accused in the present appeal.
18. Learned amicus curiae would contend that the complainant has not supported the case of the prosecution and he has turned hostile. Therefore, complainant has been treated as partly hostile witness and cross-examined by the prosecution in detail. But no material is elicited in such cross-examination. Therefore, demand and acceptance is not proved.
- 10 -
Crl. A.No.100136 of 2015
19. She would further contend that cross-examination of shadow witness would make it clear that he did not actually observe what transpired at the time of the alleged handing over of the tainted currency.
20. Therefore, important material evidence viz., demand and acceptance to establish the offence under Sections 7, 13(1)(d) r/w Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act is not established. Therefore, sought for dismissal of the Appeal.
21. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties, the following points would arise for consideration:
(i) Whether the prosecution has successfully established all the ingredients to attract the offence punishable under Sections 7, 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988?
(ii) Whether the impugned judgment is suffering from legal infirmity or perversity and thus calls for interference?
(iii) If the answer to point No.(i) is affirmative, what is the sentence?
(iv) What Order?
- 11 -
Crl. A.No.100136 of 2015
22. REGARDING POINT Nos.(i) AND (ii): In the case on hand, complainant running an industry in the name and style 'Kiran Industries' which is standing in the name of his mother is established. So also, accused along with the Assistant Commissioner of Commercial Tax visiting the industry of the complainant on 06.11.2012 is not in dispute. Subsequent visits of the accused are also not in dispute.
23. Clearance certificate was sought for, which has been deposed to by PW-1 in his examination-in-chief. He has also deposed about the accused demanding Rs.5,000/- as illegal gratification. However, PW-1 did not support the case of the prosecution in toto. He has specifically answered in the examination-in-chief itself that on the day of trap, he did not visit the office of the accused as he had pain in the leg. Accused had told him to wait in the canteen. However, when he reached the canteen and called the accused, accused did not come and after sometime he came on the second call. By then, accused had brought the clearance certificate. Thus, work of the complainant was not pending with the accused.
- 12 -
Crl. A.No.100136 of 2015
24. However, he did not support the case of the prosecution further, in toto. He identified the experimental mahazar and his signature on the mahazar. In his cross-examination by prosecution, he admits the contents of trap mahazar.
25. In his cross-examination on behalf of accused, he admits that his industry would be covered by Value Added Tax and he would get the notice from the Value Added Tax Department. He admits that on 06.11.2012, Balaswamy had visited the industry for the first time. He deposes that he does not know whether Balaswamy or the accused had the right to inspect the office. He admits that for obtaining the clearance certificate, a specific form needs to be furnished and he did not furnish the same.
26. He admits that he did not complain to the higher officials of the Department with regard to the demand made by the accused. He further admits that, when Lokayukta police made a search of the accused, tainted currency was not found in the shirt or the pant pocket of the accused. He also admits that he has not given any requisition for issue of clearance certificate to the office of the accused.
- 13 -
Crl. A.No.100136 of 2015
27. PW-2 is the shadow witness. He has supported the case of the prosecution by deposing in line with experimental mahazar and trap mahazar.
28. He has however answered in the examination-in-chief regarding the voice recorded in voice recorder being not properly audible. In his cross-examination, he has stated that he did not give instructions to draft the contents of experimental mahazar or the trap mahazar.
29. The rest of the material evidence are formal in nature.
30. As could be seen from the above, the demand and acceptance is not properly established by the material evidence placed on record, inasmuch as, complainant having turned partially hostile to the case of the prosecution. The shadow witness specifically admits that the recording in the voice recorder is not properly audible.
31. There is total variation in the oral testimony of PW-1 vis-à- vis the complaint averments which has been discussed by the learned Special Judge at paragraph Nos.16 to 19 in detail in the impugned judgment, as under:
- 14 -Crl. A.No.100136 of 2015
"16. The material document complaint is marked through the complainant in the form of Ex.P.1. As per evidence of P.W.1 and complaint allegations, as long back as on 6.11.2012 itself the accused and Asst., Commissioner of Commercial Tax have visited the Industrial Unit of complainant and have inspected the accounts for the period from 2011-2012 to 2012-2013. After inspection immediately on the very day they have certified that, no lapses were found and all the accounts kept by the complainant were correct. Accordingly they have issued a statement also to complainant. Under complaint itself the complainant alleged that, after issuance of such statement the accused approached him and demanded a bribe stating that, they used to take Rs.5000/- to Rs.10,000/- per visit. Therefore, the accused demanded the bribe from the complainant for his above referred visit. This is one part of the story narrated by the complainant. This story of the complainant appears to be somewhat unnatural because, it is not the case of the prosecution that, for issuance of statement on 6.11.2012 the accused and his superior officer Asst., Commissioner have demanded the bribe from the complainant. If really on the very day i.e. on 6.11.2012 the accused had demanded the bribe from the complainant, he could not have kept silent till the date of filing of the complaint. Even this complainant did not complain about the fact of demand of bribe by the accused either to the Asst., Commissioner or to his higher officers. No explanation of what so ever nature is coming from the side of the prosecution regarding such deliberate silence of complainant for a long period till February-2013. This is one aspect.
- 15 -Crl. A.No.100136 of 2015
17. As per the complaint allegations itself the complainant has given up the first allegation of demanding of bribe by the accused in respect of his visit to industry and by changing this version he contends that the accused has demanded the bribe in connection of issuance of clearance certificate. According to the complainant on 20.12.2012 he had received a notice from Commercial Tax Office wherein the office has directed him to produce the accounts for verification of payment of VAT. The complainant has produced the documents along with his clerk Sri. Goddemmi. The accused did not verify the records and demanded the bribe once again. This is the 2nd story made out by the complainant in his complaint in respect of demand of bribe by accused.
18. It is contended by the complainant that, on 20.2.2013 he approached the Lokayukta Police and intimated this fact of demand of bribe by the accused to said Lokayukta Police. On that day the I.O. gave a voice recorder with an instruction to the complainant to record the voice of accused demanding the bribe. Accordingly on 22.12.2013 itself the complainant and his clerk Sri.Goddemmi have approached the accused near at a canteen situated in Commercial Tax Office compound. The complainant has secured the accused on phone and once again the accused demanded the bribe of Rs.5000/-. The complainant has recorded the voice of the accused in voice recorder and came back to the Lokayukta Police station and produced it before the Lokayukta Police. It is pertinent to note that, even on 22.2.2013 no complaint is registered against the accused though the voice recorder was handed over to the I.O. at about 7 p.m. On the contrary the complainant has
- 16 -Crl. A.No.100136 of 2015
approached the Lokayukta Police on the next day and filed a computerized complaint Ex.P.1 at about 11 A.M. As per the version of I.O. P.W.12 on 23.2.2013 the complainant has filed the complaint and he registered the same at Lokayukta Police Crime No. 1/13. Therefore, there is a delay in registering the complaint by the I.O. Besides this, as per the evidence of P.W.12 I.O. on 23.2.2013 the complainant has filed the complaint with three zerox documents only. While as the complainant has stated in his evidence that on 23.2.2013 he filed the complaint along with documents and one CD prepared by himself wherein the voice of accused was recorded through voice recorder. He himself has prepared CD in respect of phone conversation held with the accused and submitted it to I.O. on 23.2.2013 at the time of filing of complaint. This say of complainant regarding submission of CD to the I.O. is not supported by the say of I.O. P.W.12 I.O. has stated in his evidence that, the complainant has produced only voice recorder and later on he got it converted into a script and CD with the help of his staff. Therefore, there arises a doubt as to whether the CD has been prepared by the complainant himself or by the I.O.
19. As per the evidence of P.W.1 on previous day of trap, he along with his clerk Sri. Goddemmi have visited the office of accused and met him near at canteen. All of them had had a tea in the canteen. In the presence of Sri. Goddemmi the accused has demanded the bribe from the complainant by showing the copy of the clearance certificate. In order to prove this fact, the prosecution got examined Sri. Goddemmi in the form of P.W.9. But, this P.W.9 has turned hostile to the prosecution and he has
- 17 -Crl. A.No.100136 of 2015
stated that, he never witnessed the demand of bribe by the accused from the complainant near at canteen on the previous day of trap."
32. In other words, when no application was given for the purpose of issue of clearance certificate and, when accused and Balaswamy were not competent for issue of clearance certificate, the complaint averments and oral testimony of the complainant that accused demanded illegal identification for issue of clearance certificate cannot be countenanced in law.
33. Moreover, it has been admitted by PW-1 that the first visit took place in the month of November 2012 and the demand was in the month of February 2013.
34. Why would the complainant keep quiet without complaining to the higher authorities regarding the illegal gratification demanded by the accused is a question that remains unanswered on behalf of prosecution.
35. Complainant has also categorically admitted that his industry is covered by Value Added Tax. How accused and his assistant namely Balaswamy were involved in issuance of the clearance certificate is not properly established by the prosecution.
- 18 -
Crl. A.No.100136 of 2015
36. Taking note of these aspects of the matter, merely on the ground that there was a demand made by the accused and accused taking out the tainted currency from the almirah kept in the office and colour test turning positive would not be sufficient enough to hold that prosecution has successfully proved all the ingredients to attract the aforesaid offences.
37. It is settled principles of law and requires no emphasis that whenever a duly constituted Court records an Order of acquittal, it reinforces the innocence of the accused as the accused is presumed to be innocent.
38. Likewise, it is yet another celebrated principles of criminal jurisprudence that if two views are permissible on the same set of facts, the view which favours the accused must be preferred.
39. It is equally settled principles of law that prosecution has to travel a long distance between 'may be proved' and 'actual proof'.
40. Applying the above principles to the facts of the case, on re-appreciation of the material on record, this Court does not find any compelling reasons to upset the finding of acquittal recorded by the learned Special Judge.
- 19 -
Crl. A.No.100136 of 2015
41. Accordingly, point Nos.(i) and (ii) are answered in the negative.
42. REGARDING POINT No.(iii): Since the finding of this Court on point No.(i) is in the negative, this point would not arise for consideration.
43. REGARDING POINT No.(iv): In view of the finding of this Court on point Nos.(i) to (iii) as above, the following:
ORDER
(i) Appeal dismissed.
(ii) Bail bond stands discharged.
Services rendered by learned amicus curiae is appreciated and placed on record.
Sd/-
(V.SRISHANANDA) JUDGE kcm CT-CMU