Karnataka High Court
The State Of Karnataka vs Veerupaxappa Basappa Barki on 19 February, 2025
Author: Hemant Chandangoudar
Bench: Hemant Chandangoudar
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC-D:3405
CRL.A No. 100148 of 2017
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH
DATED THIS THE 19TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 100148 OF 2017 (A)
BETWEEN:
THE STATE OF KARNATAKA,
LOKAYUKTHA POLICE, POLICE INSPECTOR,
KARNATAKA LOKAYUKTA,
POLICE WING, HAVERI, REPRESENTED BY
SPECIAL PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
KARNATAKA KLOKAYUKTA.
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI. SANTOSH B.MALAGOUDAR, SPP)
AND:
VEERUPAXAPPA BASAPPA BARKI
AGE: 58 YEARS, OCC: SDA/BILL COLLECTOR,
TOWN MUNICIPALITY, HAVERI.
...RESPONDENT
(BY SRI. M.B.GUNDAWADE, ADVOCATE)
Digitally signed by B
K
MAHENDRAKUMAR THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 378 (1)
Location: HIGH
BK
MAHENDRAKUMAR COURT OF
KARNATAKA
AND (3) OF CR.P.C., PRAYING TO GRANT LEAVE TO APPEAL AND
DHARWAD BENCH
Date: 2025.02.21
17:14:46 +0530
SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND ORDER OF ACQUITTAL PASSED
BY THE PRL.DISTRICT AND SESSIONS AND SPECIAL JUDGE, AT
HAVERI DATED 22.09.2016 IN SPECIAL (LOK) C.NO. 5 OF 2012 AND
CONVICT AND SENTENCE THE RESPONDENT/ACCUSED PERSON
FOR THE OFFENCE PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTION 7, 13(1), (d)
READ WITH 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:3405
CRL.A No. 100148 of 2017
ORAL JUDGMENT
1. The appellant - Lokayukta Police - is in appeal
challenging the judgment passed by the learned Sessions Judge,
wherein the accused was acquitted of offences punishable under
Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention
of Corruption Act, 1988.
2. The prosecution alleges that on 23 January 2004, the
complainant applied for a house under the Ashraya Housing
Scheme in the name of his wife and paid a sum of Rs.5,000. Plot
No.42 was allotted in his wife's name. Approximately two to three
years before filing the complaint, the complainant had approached
the accused at the Haveri Town Municipality regarding the
allotment of an Ashraya House. The accused demanded a sum of
Rs.10,000 as gratification--a reward for showing official favor in
allotting a house under the scheme. Unwilling to pay the
gratification, the complainant approached the Lokayukta on 9 June
2011, and an FIR was registered on the same day. Later, the
complainant again approached the accused in the office of the
Town Municipality, and the accused demanded a bribe of
Rs.10,000. After negotiation, the amount was reduced to Rs.2,000.
The complainant recorded the conversation between himself and
the accused and handed the recording over to the Lokayukta
Police. On the same day, the accused accepted the bribe of
Rs.2,000 from the complainant. Thereafter, a trap was conducted,
during which the accused was caught red-handed while accepting
the bribe.
NC: 2025:KHC-D:3405
3. To prove its case, the prosecution examined PWs 1 to
12 and produced documents marked Exs.P1 to P65, as well as
material objects marked MOs 1 to 11.
4. After framing the charges and reviewing the evidence
on record, the Trial Court held that the prosecution had not
established the accused's guilt beyond all reasonable doubt, and
accordingly passed the impugned judgment of acquittal.
5. The learned counsel for the appellant - Lokayukta -
argued that although the complainant and his wife had turned
hostile, the circumstantial evidence clearly established that the
accused had demanded and accepted a gratification amount of
Rs.2,000. Therefore, the Trial Court's judgment, based on the
circumstantial evidence, is sustainable in law.
6. The learned counsel for the respondent - the accused
- argued that neither the complainant nor his wife supported the
prosecution's case, and that the testimony of the shadow witness
did not establish that the respondent demanded the gratification
amount. He further contended that mere acceptance of a
gratification amount does not constitute an offence under Section 7
of the Prevention of Corruption Act.
7. After considering the arguments of the learned counsel
for the parties, the only issue for determination is whether the
prosecution has established the accused's guilt beyond all
reasonable doubt and whether the judgment of acquittal passed by
the learned Sessions Judge is legally sustainable.
NC: 2025:KHC-D:3405
8. PW1, the complainant, has turned hostile, and his
cross-examination did not elicit any evidence to support the
prosecution's case. Similarly, PW5, the complainant's wife and
beneficiary of the Ashraya Housing Scheme, also turned hostile,
and her cross-examination did not produce any incriminating
evidence.
9. PW2, the shadow witness, supported the prosecution's
case to the extent that he saw the complainant and the accused
standing at a distance of three meters. However, his testimony did
not establish that the accused demanded a gratification amount of
Rs.2,000 at the time of the trap. He testified that due to the noise at
the time of the trap, he did not hear the accused demand the
gratification amount from the complainant.
10. The Investigating Officer, who was examined as
PW10, supported the case of prosecution, however, his statement
has no evidentiary value in relation to the proof of demand and
acceptance of gratification.
11. Material witnesses PW1 and PW5 turned hostile, and the
prosecution was therefore obliged to prove the guilt of the accused
solely through circumstantial evidence. However, the shadow
witness failed to establish that the accused demanded gratification.
The prosecution has also not produced any evidence in the form of
electronic records or any other evidence to substantiate the
allegation of demand and acceptance of the gratification by the
accused.
NC: 2025:KHC-D:3405
12. Therefore, the Trial Court after appreciating the
evidence in proper perspective has rightly held that the prosecution
has not established the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable
doubt. I do not find any illegal in the impugned judgment of
acquittal passed by the learned Sessions Judge. Accordingly, the
appeal is dismissed.
Sd/-
(HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR)
JUDGE
BKM
Ct:vh
