Karnataka High Court
The State Of Karnataka vs Sri.S. Prabhakar S/O S. Gangappa on 17 February, 2025
Author: Hemant Chandangoudar
Bench: Hemant Chandangoudar
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC-D:3179
CRL.A No. 100301 of 2019
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH
DATED THIS THE 17TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.100301 OF 2019 (A)
BETWEEN:
THE STATE OF KARNATAKA,
BY INSPECTOR OF POLICE,
KARNATAKA LOKAYUKTA,
POLICE DIVISION, HAVERI.
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI. G.I.GACHCHINAMATH, ADVOCATE)
AND:
SRI. S. PRABHAKAR, S/O. S. GANGAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS,
OCC: ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER,
PANCHAYAT RAJ ENGINEERING
SUB-DIVISION, RANEBENNUR,
R/O. TALAKAL, TQ: HUVINAHADAGALI,
BALLARI, DIST: BALLARI.
...RESPONDENT
(BY SRI. S.S.CHALAWADI, ADVOCATE)
Digitally signed by B
K
THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL IS FILED U/S 378 OF CR.P.C.,
MAHENDRAKUMAR
BK
MAHENDRAKUMAR
Location: HIGH
COURT OF
SEEKING TO, CALL FOR RECORDS IN RESPECT OF SPECIAL SVC
KARNATAKA
DHARWAD BENCH
Date: 2025.02.20
NO.01/2014 ON THE FILE OF THE II ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND
16:40:02 +0530
SESSIONS JUDGE, HAVERI (SITTING AT RANEBENNUR) AND SET
ASIDE THE IMPUGNED JUDGMENT AND ORDER DATED 25/06/2018
MADE IN SPL. SVC NO.01/2014 PASSED BY THE II ADDITIONAL
DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, HAVERI (SITTING AT
RANEBENNUR) AND FURTHER CONVICT THE ACCUSED FOR THE
OFFENCE PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTION 7, 13(1)(d) R/W SECTION
13(2) OF PREVENTION OF CORRUPTION ACT, 1988.
THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY,
JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC-D:3179
CRL.A No. 100301 of 2019
ORAL JUDGMENT
1. The Karnataka Lokayukta has challenged the
judgment and order dated 25.06.2018, passed in Spl. SVC
No.1/2014 by the II Additional District and Sessions Judge, Haveri,
sitting at Ranebennur, wherein the accused was acquitted of
offenses punishable under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) read with
Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.
2. The prosecution alleged that the accused, while
serving as an Assistant Executive Engineer at the Panchayat Raj
Engineering Sub-Division, Ranebennur, instructed the complainant
to dig 60 bore wells under the drought relief scheme. The accused
allegedly demanded a bribe of ₹2,000 per bore well, amounting to
₹1,20,000 in total. Out of this, ₹74,000 was allegedly paid in
advance, and the accused prepared and forwarded the bill for 30
bore wells. For the remaining 30, he demanded ₹46,000. Unwilling
to pay, the complainant approached the Lokayukta Police, who laid
a trap on 24.04.2013. The accused was allegedly caught accepting
₹46,000 in his chamber, and a hand wash test turned pink,
indicating the presence of chemical traces.
3. The prosecution examined 15 witnesses (P.W.1 to
P.W.15), submitted 95 documents (Exs.P.1 to P.95), and presented
12 material objects (M.Os.1 to 12). The accused submitted Ex.D.1
and Ex.D.2 in his defense. After considering the evidence, the Trial
Court held that the prosecution failed to establish the accused's
guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, leading to his acquittal.
NC: 2025:KHC-D:3179
4. The complainant (P.W.1) filed Ex.P.1, stating that the
accused demanded ₹2,000 per bore well, received ₹74,000 in
advance, and later demanded ₹46,000. However, during trial, he
turned hostile, denying any demand or acceptance of a bribe.
Despite extensive cross-examination, nothing incriminating was
elicited against the accused.
5. The shadow witness (P.W.2) testified that he
accompanied the complainant to the accused's chamber but was
prevented from entering. He stated that the accused shut the door,
and five minutes later, the complainant signaled the raiding team.
However, he did not confirm that the accused demanded or
accepted the bribe, leading to him being declared hostile. His
cross-examination also did not yield any substantive evidence
against the accused.
6. P.W.3, a panch witness to Ex.P.37 (entrustment
mahazar), did not provide any evidence supporting the
prosecution's case.
7. P.W.13, an Investigating Officer, testified regarding the
receipt and handling of case records but did not provide direct
evidence of the alleged bribery.
8. P.W.14, another Investigating Officer, stated that the
accused demanded ₹1,20,000 for 60 bore wells, received ₹74,000
in advance, and withheld the bill for the remaining 30 bore wells
due to non-payment of ₹46,000.
NC: 2025:KHC-D:3179
9. P.W.15, also an Investigating Officer, testified that the
complainant informed him about the bribe demand before lodging
the complaint.
10. The testimonies of the Investigating Officers only
establish procedural aspects, such as the lodging of the FIR and
possession of tainted money. They do not directly prove that the
accused demanded or accepted the bribe. With the complainant
(P.W.1) and shadow witness (P.W.2) turning hostile, the
prosecution failed to substantiate the allegations. No corroborative
evidence produced to substantiate the charge against the accused.
The Trial Court, considering these aspects, acquitted the accused,
which cannot be said to be arbitrary or perverse.
11. The respondent's learned counsel produced an order
passed by the Karnataka State Administrative Tribunal, Belagavi, in
Application No.337/2019, dated 01.04.2023. This order indicates
that the accused was subjected to departmental inquiry on similar
charges, resulting in compulsory retirement. However, the Tribunal
set aside the punishment, and this decision has attained finality.
12. In light of the above findings, no illegality is found in
the judgment passed by the Trial Court. Accordingly, the appeal is
dismissed.
Sd/-
(HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR)
JUDGE
KMS
Ct:vh
