Karnataka High Court
State Of Karnataka vs N Srinivasa on 23 August, 2023
Bench: S Rachaiah
-1-
CRL.A No. 53 of 2014
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 23RD DAY OF AUGUST, 2023
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S RACHAIAH
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 53 OF 2014 (A)
BETWEEN:
STATE OF KARNATAKA
BY LOKAYUKTA POLICE, BANGALORE RURAL
DISTRICT, BANAGLORE - 562 110.
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI. B S PRASAD, SPECIAL PUBLIC PROSECUTOR)
AND:
N SRINIVASA
S/O NARASIMHAIAH
AGED 40 YEARS
CLERK, (TYPIST)
TAHSILDAR'S OFFICE
DEVANAHALLI TALUK
BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT - 562 110.
...RESPONDENT
(BY SRI. KARTHIK YADHAV U FOR
SRI. S K VENKATA REDDY, ADVOCATE)
THIS CRL.A IS FILED U/S.378(1) & (3) OF CR.P.C
PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER OF ACQUITTAL DATED
20.11.2012 IN SPL.CASE.NO.86/2010 ON THE FILE OF
PRINCIPAL SESSIONS JUDGE, BANAGLORE RURAL DISTRICT,
BANGALORE AND ETC.,
THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL HAVING BEEN HEARD AND
RESERVED ON 16.08.2023, COMING ON FOR
PRONOUNCEMENT OF JUDGMENT, THIS DAY, THE COURT
DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:-
-2-
CRL.A No. 53 of 2014
JUDGMENT
1. This Criminal Appeal is filed by the appellant /
Lokayukta Police, being aggrieved by the judgment and order
dated 20.11.2012 in Spl.C.No.86/2010 on the file of the Court
of Principal Sessions Judge, Bangalore Rural District, Bangalore,
wherein the Trial Court acquitted the respondent / accused for
the offence punishable under Sections 7, 13(1)(d) and 13(2) of
Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (for short 'PC Act').
2. Brief facts of the case are as under:
It is the case of the prosecution that, the respondent /
accused was working as Clerk / Typist in the office of Tahsildar
at Devanahalli Taluk. As per the records, he was in charge of
issuing revenue records. The land was granted to the
complainant in Sy.No.69 of Devaganahalli village measuring 1
acre 13 guntas. He wanted his land to be surveyed. Hence, he
applied for some documents relating to the said property. As
per the averments of the complaint, there were 40 similar
applications were pending for consideration before the
respondent. It is stated that, on 12.11.2008, the complainant
along with his relative H.Nagaraj stated to have approached the
respondent to get his official work done and the respondent
CRL.A No. 53 of 2014
stated to have demanded Rs.20,000/-. However, after
negotiations, it was settled for Rs.4,000/-. The complainant
being not satisfied with the said demand, approached the
Lokayukta Police and lodged a complaint as per Ex.P1. The
complainant was introduced to other two witnesses namely
PWs.2 and 3 and pre-trap panchanama was conducted. As per
the instructions of the Lokayukta Police, the complainant along
with shadow witness stated to have gone to the office of the
respondent. When they approached the respondent, the
respondent asked as to whether the complainant had brought
the amount. The complainant agreed and stated to have put
the amount into the rear pocket of the respondent.
Immediately, he went out of the office and signaled the
Lokayukta Police. The Lokayukta Police entered into the
chamber of the respondent and asked him to produce the
tainted notes, conducted search and drawn seizure
panchanama and registered the case for the offences stated
supra, thereafter conducted investigation and submitted the
charge sheet.
3. To prove the case of the prosecution, the
prosecution has examined 5 witnesses namely PWs.1 to 5 and
got marked Exhibits P1 to P17 and also got identified M.Os.1 to
CRL.A No. 53 of 2014
10. The Trial Court after appreciating the oral and documentary
evidence on record, acquitted the respondent for the above
said charges. Hence, the appellant is before this Court.
4. Heard Shri B.S.Prasad, learned Special Public
Prosecutor for the appellant and Shri Karthik Yadhav U.,
learned counsel appearing on behalf of Shri S.K.Venkata Reddy,
learned counsel for the respondent.
5. It is the submission of learned Special Public
Prosecutor for the appellant that, the judgment and order of
acquittal passed by the Trial Court is contrary to the facts and
evidence on record, hence, the same is liable to be set aside.
6. It is further submitted that, even though
prosecution proved the case, that the amount was recovered at
the instance of the respondent, the work was pending and
there was a demand and acceptance of illegal gratification by
the respondent, the Trial Court failed to raise the presumption
that, the respondent received the illegal gratification to do
official work of the respondent. Hence, the learned Special
Public Prosecutor seeks indulgence of this Court for
appreciation of evidence and also apply the law properly. It is
also submitted that, the acquittal order passed by the Trial
CRL.A No. 53 of 2014
Court appears to be illegal and untenable and liable to be set
aside.
7. The evidence of PWs.1 and 2 is consistent in
respect to demand and acceptance of illegal gratification and
the evidence of PW.3 corroborates the evidence of PWs.1 and
2. When such being the fact, the Trial Court should have
convicted the respondent, by appreciating the evidence
perceptively. Acquitting the respondent by not considering the
evidence properly, is erroneous and illegal and the same
requires to be set aside. Having submitted thus, learned
Special Public Prosecutor for the appellant prays to allow the
appeal.
8. Regarding circumstances and also presumption,
learned Special Public Prosecutor relied on the following
judgments:-
1. Neeraj Dutta v. State1
2. Guruviah v. State Represented by Inspector of Police2
3.Dhaneshwar Narain Saxena v. The Delhi Administration3
(2023) 4 SCC 731
(2019) 8 SCC 396
AIR 1962 SCC 195
CRL.A No. 53 of 2014
4. Phula Singh v. State of Himachal Pradesh4
5. M. Narsinga Rao v. State of A.P.5
6. Krishna Ram v. State of Rajasthan6
7. State of A.P v. C. Uma Maheswara Rao and another7
8. C.M. Sharma v. State of A.P.TH. I.P8
9. C.I. Emden v. State of U.P9
10. Dhanvantrai Balwantrai Desai v. State of
Maharashtra10
11. V.D.Jhingan v. State of U.P11
9. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent
vehemently justified the judgment of acquittal passed by the
Trial Court and submits that, unless and until the demand and
acceptance is proved by the prosecution, the presumption
cannot be raised. In the case on hand, there are
AIR 2014 SC 1256
AIR 2001 SC 318
2009 CRI. L.J.2436
AIR 2004 SC 2042
AIR 2011 SC 608
AIR 1960 SC 548
AIR 1964 SC 575
AIR 1966 SC 1762
CRL.A No. 53 of 2014
inconsistencies with respect to demand and acceptance of
illegal gratification and also inconsistencies with respect to
seizure of tainted notes. The evidence of PWs.1 and 2 proves
that, soon after the Investigating Officer conducted the raid,
the respondent was asked to produce the tainted notes
however, the evidence of PW.5, discloses that, immediately
after conducting raid, the hands of the accused/respondent got
washed and thereafter asked the respondent to produce tainted
notes. These inconsistencies are considered as material
contradictions in respect of seizure of tainted notes. When
there are material contradictions in respect of seizure of tainted
notes, such material contradictions have been rightly
considered by the Trial Court and acquitted the respondent.
Hence, interference with the said acquittal may not be
warranted.
10. To substantiate his contentions, learned counsel for
the respondent relied on the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme
Court in Neeraj Dutta v. State (Govt. of N.C.T. of Delhi)12 and
Soundarajan v. State Rep. By The Inspector of Police Vigilance
(2023) 4 SCC 731
CRL.A No. 53 of 2014
Anti-Corruption, Dindigul13. Having submitted thus, learned
counsel for the respondent prays to dismiss the appeal.
11. Having heard the rival contentions of learned
counsel for respective parties and also perused the findings
recorded for acquittal by the Trial Court, the points which arise
for my consideration are:
(i) Whether the judgment of acquittal passed by the
Trial Court for the offences punishable under
Sections 7, 13(1)(d) and 13(2) of Prevention of
Corruption Act is justified?
(ii) Whether the appellant has made out grounds
to interfere with the findings recorded for acquittal
by the Trial Court?
12. This Court being a first Appellate Court, having
considered the scope of the appellate jurisdiction, it is
necessary to re-appreciate the evidence and also the
documents.
13. PW.1 is the complainant. He has deposed that, he
had applied for revenue records in the Office of the Tahsildar at
AIR Online 2023 SC 300
CRL.A No. 53 of 2014
Devanahalli. The respondent being the concerned officer had
to give the revenue documents to PW.1. To do official favour
or provide the revenue records, it is stated that, the respondent
demanded Rs.20,000/- from PW.1 to provide revenue records
to all the 40 applications. The matter was negotiated between
the respondent and the PW.1, it was agreed to give Rs.4,000/-
for providing the revenue records.
14. PW.1 being unhappy with the demand of illegal
gratification by the respondent, he has lodged a complaint
before the Lokayukta Police. PW.1 was introduced to PWs.2
and 3, who acted as shadow witness and panch witness
respectively. As per the instructions of PW.5, PWs.1 and 2
stated to have gone to the office of the respondent and the
respondent asked PW.1 as to whether he brought the amount.
PW.1 replied yes and as per the instruction of the respondent,
he put the illegal gratification amount to the rear pocket of the
respondent. After paying the illegal gratification, PW.1 came
out of the office and signaled the Lokayukta Police. Lokayukta
Police entered into the office of the respondent and asked the
respondent to produce the tainted notes. Accordingly, the
- 10 -
CRL.A No. 53 of 2014
respondent produced the tainted notes to the Lokayukta Police
by taking off from the rear pocket.
15. As per the evidence of PWs.1 and 2, the respondent
himself took off the tainted notes from his rear pocket and
produced before the Investigating Officer, however, PW.3 has
deposed that, on instructions of the Investigating Officer,
himself and PW.2 took off the tainted notes from the rear
pocket of the respondent. Further, the evidence of PW.5
discloses that, as soon as he entered into the chamber of the
respondent, he showed his identity card and asked the
respondent to co-operate with the investigation and washed the
hands of the respondent, after clarifying the same, asked the
respondent to produce the tainted notes. As per the evidence
of PW.5, PW.3 had taken off the tainted notes from the rear
pocket of the respondent. These inconsistencies create a doubt
in respect of seizure of tainted notes from the respondent.
16. As regards the demand and acceptance of illegal
gratification is concerned, PW.2 being a shadow witness stated
to have accompanied PW.1, has admitted in the cross-
examination that, there was a crowd in that hall, the
- 11 -
CRL.A No. 53 of 2014
respondent was in the office and PW.1 went inside the office,
but he did not enter into the office. When he has admitted
that, he had not entered into the chamber of the respondent, it
cannot be said that, he is the witness for demand of illegal
gratification. Further, he has admitted that, there was no
electricity in the said building when he had been to the office.
When the demand of illegal gratification is not proved, the
recovery of the said illegal gratification is doubtful, it is
construed that, the prosecution failed to prove the demand and
acceptance of illegal gratification.
17. Even though the learned Special Public Prosecutor
relied on many judgments with regard to the presumption and
also facts and circumstances of the case, in the present case,
since the prosecution failed to establish the demand and
acceptance of illegal gratification by the respondent, the
judgments stated supra are not applicable to the case on hand,
as the facts of the present case are different from the facts of
the cases cited by the learned Special Public Prosecutor.
18. In the light of the observations made above, I
proceed to pass the following:
- 12 -
CRL.A No. 53 of 2014
ORDER
(i) The appeal stands dismissed.
(ii) The judgment and order of acquittal dated
20.11.2012 in Spl.C. No.86/2010 passed by learned
Principal Sessions Judge, Bangalore Rural District,
Bangalore is confirmed.
Sd/-
JUDGE
Bss
