Karnataka High Court
State Of Karnataka vs Ramanagouda S/O Hanamantray ... on 11 February, 2025
Author: S.Vishwajith Shetty
Bench: S.Vishwajith Shetty
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC-K:970
CRL.A No. 200084 of 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
KALABURAGI BENCH
DATED THIS THE 11TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.VISHWAJITH SHETTY
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.200084 OF 2021
(378(Cr.PC)/419(BNSS))
BETWEEN:
STATE OF KARNATAKA
THROUGH LOKAYUKTA POLICE STATION,
REP. BY SPECIAL PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
VIJAYAPURA-586101.
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI SUBHASH MALLAPUR, ADVOCATE)
AND:
Digitally signed 1. RAMANAGOUDA
by
SHIVAKUMAR S/O HANAMANTRAY NARASALAGI
HIREMATH AGE. MAJOR, OCC. GRADE-II SECRETARY
Location: HIGH OF GRAM PANCHAYAT, HUNSHAL P.B.
COURT OF I/C PDO GRAM PANCHAYAT YALAWAR,
KARNATAKA R/O. WADAWADAGI,
TQ. B.BAGEWADI-586101.
2. LAKKAVVA W/O YALLAPPA ROTTI
AGE. MAJOR, OCC. PRESIDENT OF YALAWAR
GRAM PANCHAYAT, TQ. B. BAGEWADI,
R/O. YALAWAR-586101.
3. YALLAPPA SAYABANNA ROTTI
AGE. MAJOR, OCC. AGRICULTURE,
R/O. YALAWAR,
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC-K:970
CRL.A No. 200084 of 2021
TQ. B. BAGEWADI-586101.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI MAHANTESH PATIL, ADVOCATE FOR R1;
SRI SHIVANAND V. PATTANSHETTI, ADVOCATE FOR R2 & R3)
THIS CRL.A. IS FILED U/S. 378 (1) AND (3) OF THE
CR.P.C PRAYING TO GRANT LEAVE TO THE APPEAL AGAINST
THE JUDGEMENT AND ORDER OF CQUITTAL DATED 02.11.2020
IN SPL. CASE NO.04/2015, PASSED BY THE PRINCIPAL
SESSIONS JUDGE AND SPL. JUDGE (LOKAYUKTA),
VIJAYAPURA, FOR THE OFFENCE U/SEC. 7, 8, 13(1)(d) R/W
SEC. 13(2) OF THE PREVENTIO OF CORRUTION ACT 1988; SET
ASIDE THE JUDGEMENT AND ORDER OF ACQUITTAL DATED
02.11.2020, IN SPL. CASE NO.04/2015, PASSED BY THE
PRINCIPAL SESSIONS JUDGE AND SPL. JUDGE (LOKAYUKTA),
VIJAYAPURA.
THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING, THIS
DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.VISHWAJITH SHETTY
ORAL JUDGMENT
(PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.VISHWAJITH SHETTY)
This appeal under Section 378(1) and (3) of Cr.P.C.
is filed assailing the judgment and order of acquittal dated
02.11.2020 passed by the Court of Principal Sessions
Judge/Special Judge, Vijayapur (for short 'Trial Court') in
Special Case (Lok) No.4/2015.
2. Heard learned counsel for the parties.
NC: 2025:KHC-K:970
3. The respondents herein were charge sheeted by
the Lokayukta Police, Vijayapur for the offences punishable
under Sections 7, 8, 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of
the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (hereinafter
referred to as 'P.C.Act') and in the said proceedings, the
respondents/accused, who had appeared before the Trial
Court claimed to be tried.
4. The prosecution in order to substantiate its
charges against the respondents/accused, had examined
in all ten charge sheet witnesses as PW.1 to PW.10 and
got marked 41 documents as Exs.P1 to P41. Nine material
objections were marked as MOs.1 to 9. After the evidence
of the prosecution was closed, the statement of the
respondents/accused under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. was
recorded. However, no defence evidence was led on
behalf of the accused, but one document was got marked
as Ex.D1 in support of their defence.
5. The Trial Court after hearing the arguments
addressed on both sides, by the impugned judgment and
NC: 2025:KHC-K:970
order dated 02.11.2020, acquitted the
respondents/accused of the charge sheeted offences.
Being aggrieved by the same, the Lokayukta Police have
preferred this appeal.
6. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant -
Lokayukta having reiterated the grounds urged in the
appeal memorandum submits that the Trial Court has
erred in acquitting the respondents/accused when there is
sufficient material to show that there was a demand and
acceptance of bribe by the accused persons and the same
is proved by the prosecution through the evidence of
PW.2, who is a shadow witness. The Trial Court has failed
to appreciate the evidence of PW.2, which has resulted in
passing an erroneous order of acquittal. Accordingly, he
prays to allow the appeal.
7. Per contra, learned counsels appearing on
behalf of the respondents/accused have argued in support
of the impugned judgment and order of acquittal. They
submit that the de-facto complainant - PW.1 and other
NC: 2025:KHC-K:970
material charge sheet witnesses, except the shadow
witness - PW.2 have not supported the case of the
prosecution. The trap panchanama- Ex.P23 has not been
proved in the present case and therefore, merely on the
statement of PW.2 - shadow witness, respondents/accused
cannot be convicted for the alleged offences. Accordingly,
they pray to dismiss the appeal.
8. It is the case of the prosecution that the de-
facto complainant - PW.1 had approached accused Nos.1
and 2 seeking sanction of a pending bill for a sum of
Rs.1,84,953/- in respect of the work done by him and for
sanctioning the bill amount, accused No.1 had demanded
bribe amount of Rs.8,000/- and accused No.2 had
demanded a bribe amount of Rs.8,500/-. Since the de-
facto complainant was not willing to pay the bribe amount,
he had approached the Lokayukta Police and thereafter on
the instructions of the police, he had recorded his
conversation with accused Nos.1 to 3 in a voice recorder.
Thereafter, FIR was registered against the
NC: 2025:KHC-K:970
respondents/accused for the aforesaid offences and
subsequently, trap was held on 25.02.2014 at about 2.45
p.m. in the house of accused Nos.2 and 3 and they were
apprehended red-handed while collecting the bribe amount
of Rs.8,500/- from the de-facto complainant.
9. In order to prove its charges against the
respondents/accused, the prosecution has examined the
de-facto complainant as PW.1. PW.1 has completely
turned hostile to the case of the prosecution. He has
disputed his complaint itself at Ex.P1. He also has not
spoken of any demand and acceptance of bribe by the
respondents/accused as alleged by the prosecution.
10. PW.2 is the shadow witness, who had
accompanied PW.1 on the date of trap. This witness has
supported the case of the prosecution. PW.3 is the friend
of PW.1, who also had accompanied PW.1 and PW.2 on the
date of trap, but this witness has turned hostile to the
case of the prosecution. PW.4 is the contractor, in whose
favour, road repair work was awarded by the panchayat
NC: 2025:KHC-K:970
and on his behalf, PW.1 had done the work. This witness
has also turned hostile to the case of the prosecution.
PW.5 is the secretary of the Gram Panchayat of which
accused No.1 was the Panchayat Development Officer and
accused No.2 was the President. This witness has refused
to identify the voice of accused Nos.1 to 3, which was
recorded by PW.1 in a voice recorder. Even this witness
has been treated as a hostile witness. PW.6 is the Junior
Engineer, who was supervising the work awarded to PW.4
- Contractor. Even this witness has not supported the
case of the prosecution. PW.7 is the Junior Engineer, who
has prepared the sketch of the spot as per Ex.P30 and
PW.8 and PW.9 are the competent authorities, who have
issued the sanction orders to prosecute the
respondents/accused. PW.10 is the Investigating Officer,
who has completed the investigation and filed charge
sheet.
11. It is trite that mere recovery of bribe amount is
not sufficient to convict the accused for the charge
NC: 2025:KHC-K:970
sheeted offences. Demand and acceptance of the bribe
amount is required to be proved by the prosecution and
only thereafter a presumption under Section 20 of the
P.C.Act can be raised against the accused. The law in this
regard is laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the
case of B. Jayaraj vs. State of Andhra Pradesh1 and
subsequently the Constitutional Bench of the Hon'ble
Supreme Court in the case of Neeraj Dutta v. State
(NCT of Delhi)2 after referring to all its earlier judgments
on the question of demand and acceptance of bribe
amount and also the presumption that is available against
the accused under Section 20 of the P.C.Act, in paragraph
No.88 has observed as follows:
"88.1. (a) Proof of demand and acceptance of
illegal gratification by a public servant as a fact
in issue by the prosecution is a sine qua non in
order to establish the guilt of the accused public
servant under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d)(i) and (ii)
of the Act.
(2014) 13 SCC 55
(2023) 4 SCC 731
NC: 2025:KHC-K:970
88.2. (b) In order to bring home the guilt of
the accused, the prosecution has to first prove
the demand of illegal gratification and the
subsequent acceptance as a matter of fact. This
fact in issue can be proved either by direct
evidence which can be in the nature of oral
evidence or documentary evidence.
88.3. (c) Further, the fact in issue, namely,
the proof of demand and acceptance of illegal
gratification can also be proved by circumstantial
evidence in the absence of direct oral and
documentary evidence.
88.4. (d) In order to prove the fact in issue,
namely, the demand and acceptance of illegal
gratification by the public servant, the following
aspects have to be borne in mind:
(i) if there is an offer to pay by the bribe-
giver without there being any demand from the
public servant and the latter simply accepts the
offer and receives the illegal gratification, it is
a case of acceptance as per Section 7 of the Act.
In such a case, there need not be a prior
demand by the public servant.
- 10 -
NC: 2025:KHC-K:970
(ii) On the other hand, if the public servant
makes a demand and the bribe-giver accepts the
demand and tenders the demanded gratification
which in turn is received by the public servant, it
is a case of obtainment. In the case of
obtainment, the prior demand for illegal
gratification emanates from the public servant.
This is an offence under Sections 13(1)(d)(i) and
(ii) of the Act.
(iii) In both cases of (i) and (ii) above, the
offer by the bribe-giver and the demand by the
public servant respectively have to be proved by
the prosecution as a fact in issue. In other
words, mere acceptance or receipt of an illegal
gratification without anything more would not
make it an offence under Section 7 or Sections
13(1)(d)(i) and (ii), respectively of the Act.
Therefore, under Section 7 of the Act, in order to
bring home the offence, there must be an offer
which emanates from the bribe-giver which is
accepted by the public servant which would
make it an offence. Similarly, a prior demand by
the public servant when accepted by the bribe-
giver and in turn there is a payment made which
is received by the public servant, would be an
- 11 -
NC: 2025:KHC-K:970
offence of obtainment under Sections 13(1)(d)(i)
and (ii) of the Act.
88.5. (e) The presumption of fact with regard
to the demand and acceptance or obtainment of
an illegal gratification may be made by a court of
law by way of an inference only when the
foundational facts have been proved by relevant
oral and documentary evidence and not in the
absence thereof. On the basis of the material on
record, the court has the discretion to raise a
presumption of fact while considering whether
the fact of demand has been proved by the
prosecution or not. Of course, a presumption of
fact is subject to rebuttal by the accused and in
the absence of rebuttal presumption stands.
88.6. (f) In the event the complainant turns
"hostile", or has died or is unavailable to let in
his evidence during trial, demand of illegal
gratification can be proved by letting in the
evidence of any other witness who can again let
in evidence, either orally or by documentary
evidence or the prosecution can prove the case
by circumstantial evidence. The trial does not
abate nor does it result in an order of acquittal of
the accused public servant.
- 12 -
NC: 2025:KHC-K:970
88.7. (g) Insofar as Section 7 of the Act is
concerned, on the proof of the facts in issue,
Section 20 mandates the court to raise a
presumption that the illegal gratification was for
the purpose of a motive or reward as mentioned
in the said Section. The said presumption has to
be raised by the court as a legal presumption or
a presumption in law. Of course, the said
presumption is also subject to rebuttal. Section
20 does not apply to Sections 13(1)(d)(i) and (ii)
of the Act.
88.8. (h) We clarify that the presumption in
law under Section 20 of the Act is distinct from
presumption of fact referred to above in sub-
para 88.5(e), above, as the former is a
mandatory presumption while the latter is
discretionary in nature."
12. In the present case, the allegation against
accused Nos.1 and 2, who are public servants is that they
had made a demand for payment of bribe to sanction the
check amount for the work done by PW.1 and therefore,
the prosecution is primarily required to prove the demand
for payment of bribe and in the case on hand, prosecution
- 13 -
NC: 2025:KHC-K:970
has failed to prove the same. PW.1, who is the de-facto
complainant has turned hostile to the case of the
prosecution and the alleged conversation of PW.1 with the
respondents/accused Nos.1 to 3 is also not proved by the
prosecution and PW.5, who was examined by the
prosecution to prove the voice of the respondents/accused
in the conversation recorded, has also not supported the
case of the prosecution. Ex.P23 is the trap panchanama
under which the Investigating Officer had seized the bribe
amount, which was allegedly accepted by accused No.3 on
behalf of accused No.2, but the prosecution has also failed
to prove Ex.P23 in accordance with law. The panch
witness to Ex.P23 has not been examined in the present
case by the prosecution. Therefore, the trap panchanama
was not proved by the prosecution. Though PW.2 has
supported the case of the prosecution, based on his sole
testimony, which lacks any corroboration when the
prosecution has failed to prove the trap pancharama in
accordance with law, it is unsafe to convict the
respondents/accused for the charge sheeted offences.
- 14 -
NC: 2025:KHC-K:970
13. The Trial Court having appreciated this aspect
of the matter vide impugned judgment and order, has
acquitted the respondents/accused of the charge sheeted
offences. In addition to the same, after appreciating the
oral and documentary evidence available on record, the
Trial Court has also recorded a finding that no work
relating to the complainant was pending before the
respondents/accused as on the date of registration of FIR
against them. It is trite that a judgment and order of
acquittal cannot be interfered in appeal, unless the
Appellate Court finds that the impugned judgment and
order of acquittal is perverse in nature and the same has
been passed without properly appreciating the oral and
documentary evidence placed before it.
14. In the case on hand, I am of the opinion that
the learned Trial Court after appreciating the oral and
documentary evidence placed before it has rightly
acquitted the respondents/accused Nos.1 to 3 for the
charge sheeted offences and therefore, no interference is
- 15 -
NC: 2025:KHC-K:970
called for by this Court as against the impugned judgment
and order of acquittal. Accordingly, the following order is
passed:
ORDER
The criminal appeal is dismissed.
Sd/-
(S.VISHWAJITH SHETTY)
JUDGE
SRT
CT-PK
