Karnataka High Court

Sri.H.R. Lokesh S/O Ramanna vs State Of Karnataka on 28 January, 2025

Author: Hemant Chandangoudar

Bench: Hemant Chandangoudar

                                                                       -1-
                                                                                  NC: 2025:KHC-D:1658
                                                                            CRL.A No. 100056 of 2016
                                                                        C/W CRL.A No. 100067 of 2016



                                            IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH
                                                 DATED THIS THE 28TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2025
                                                                   BEFORE
                                            THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR
                                                   CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 100056 OF 2016 (C)
                                                                   C/W
                                                    CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 100067 OF 2016
                                        IN CRL.A. NO.100056 OF 2016:
                                        BETWEEN:

                                        SRI. H.R.LOKESH S/O. RAMANNA
                                        AGE: 50 YEARS, OCC: SERVICE,
                                        COMMERCIAL TAX INSPECTOR,
                                        SALES TAX CHECK POST, MAJALI,
                                        DIST: UTTARA KANNADA,
                                        R/O. MARADI BASAVAESHWARA PRASANNA,
                                        MRUTYUNJAY NAGAR, RANEBENNUR.
                                                                                        ...APPELLANT
                                        (BY SRI. JAGADISH PATIL, ADVOCATE)

                                        AND:

                                        STATE OF KARNATAKA
                                        BY STATE SPECIAL PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
                                        HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
                                        DHARWAD BENCH, AT DHARWAD, THROUGH
                Digitally signed by B
                K
                MAHENDRAKUMAR           KARNATAKA LOKAYUKTA POLICE, HAVERI.
                Location: HIGH
BK
MAHENDRAKUMAR   COURT OF
                KARNATAKA
                                                                                    ...RESPONDENT
                DHARWAD BENCH
                Date: 2025.02.01
                13:32:14 +0530
                                        (BY SRI. G.I.GACHCHINAMATH, STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR)

                                               THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED U/S 374(2) OF CR.P.C.
                                        SEEKING TO, CALL FOR THE RECORDS FROM II ADDL. DISTRICT
                                        AND SESSIONS JUDGE HAVERI (SITTING AT RANEBENNUR)
                                        PERTAINING TO SPECIAL SVC NO.7/2009 AND TO PASS A
                                        JUDGMENT OF ACQUITTAL FOR THE ALLEGED CHARGES
                                        LEVELED AGAINST THE APPELLANT BY SETTING ASIDE
                                        JUDGMENT OF CONVICTION DATED 20/01/2016 AND ORDER OF
                                        SENTENCE DATED 21/01/2016 PASSED AGAINST THE APPELLANT
                                        BY II ADDL. DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE HAVERI (SITTING AT
                                 -2-
                                           NC: 2025:KHC-D:1658
                                     CRL.A No. 100056 of 2016
                                 C/W CRL.A No. 100067 of 2016



RANEBENNUR), IN SPECIAL SVC NO.7/2009 FOR THE OFFENCES
U/S 13(2) OF PREVENTION CORRUPTION ACT, 1988.


IN CRL.A. NO.100067 OF 2016:
BETWEEN:

SOMALINGAPPA
S/O. FAKKIRAPPA BENAKANNANAVAR,
AGE: 59 YEARS, OCC: ASSISTANT
COMMISSIONER COMMERCIAL TAX,
R/O. NEAR KBSR COLLEGE, 1ST CROSS,
PANCHASHARI NAGAR, GADAG.
                                                 ...APPELLANT
(BY SRI. K.L.PATIL, ADVOCATE)

AND:

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
BY SPECIAL PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD,
THROUGH KARNATAKA
LOKAYUKTA POLICE, HAVERI.
                                            ...RESPONDENT
(BY SRI. G.I.GACHCHINAMATH, STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR)

      THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL IS FILED U/SEC.374(2) OF CR.P.C.,
PRAYING TO CALL FOR THE RECORDS IN SPL. SVC NO.7/2009 ON
THE FILE OF II ADDL. DIST. & SESSIONS JUDGE HAVERI (SITTING
AT RANEBENNUR) AND TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND
ORDER OF CONVICTION DATED 20/1/2016 AND SENTENCE DATED
21/01/2016 PASSED BY THE HON'BLE II ADDL. DIST. & SESSIONS
JUDGE HAVERI (SITTING AT RANEBENNUR) IN SPL. SVC NO.7/2009
AND ACQUIT THE APPELLANT OF THE O/P/U/SEC.7 & 13(2) OF P.C.
ACT.

      THESE APPEALS, COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING, THIS
DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:

CORAM:    THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR
                                  -3-
                                              NC: 2025:KHC-D:1658
                                      CRL.A No. 100056 of 2016
                                  C/W CRL.A No. 100067 of 2016



                         ORAL JUDGMENT

1. The appellant/accused No.1 has been convicted for offences punishable under Sections 7 and 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, while the appellant/accused No.2 has been convicted for an offence punishable under Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act. Both have been sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of two years.

2. The prosecution's case is that P.W.1, the complainant, had filed an application for a contractor's license with the relevant department. The department required the complainant to produce a VAT certificate, so he approached the Commercial Tax Office, Ranebennur, and submitted an application. Thereafter, the complainant met accused No.1, who was working as an Assistant Commercial Tax Officer at the Local VAT Office, Ranebennur. Accused No.1 allegedly demanded a bribe of Rs.2,500/- for issuing the VAT certificate. Unwilling to pay the bribe, the complainant approached the Karnataka Lokayukta Office, Haveri. The Lokayukta Police provided the complainant with a micro tape recorder and instructed him to record his conversation with accused No.1.

3. Following these instructions, the complainant approached accused No.1 and recorded their conversation, wherein accused No.1 allegedly demanded Rs.2,500/- as illegal gratification. After recording the conversation, the complainant returned to the Lokayukta Police, who then registered an FIR against accused No.1 and assigned Govardhana (P.W.2) as a

NC: 2025:KHC-D:1658

shadow witness. The complainant (P.W.1) and P.W.2 proceeded to the Commercial Tax Office. The complainant entered the chambers of accused No.1, while the shadow witness (P.W.2) remained outside.

4. Inside the chamber, accused No.1 instructed one of the officials of the Commercial Tax Office to obtain the complainant's signature on a register. Thereafter, accused No.1 called accused No.2 into his chambers. Accused No.2 took the complainant's signature and handed over the VAT certificate. The complainant then showed the bribe money to accused No.1, who signaled him to hand it over to accused No.2. The complainant complied and later stepped outside to signal the Lokayukta Police.

5. Upon receiving the signal, the Lokayukta Police, along with a panch witness and other officials, entered the chambers of accused No.1 and apprehended him. They then proceeded to accused No.2's chamber, where they recovered the tainted money from his left pocket. The hands of accused No.2 were dipped into a chemical solution, which turned pink, confirming the presence of the tainted money. A panchanama was drawn up on the same day.

6. To establish its case, the prosecution examined P.Ws.1 to 11, produced documents marked as Exs.P.1 to P.44, and introduced material objects as M.O.Nos.1 to 9. The accused marked exhibits as Exs.D.1 and D.2.

NC: 2025:KHC-D:1658

7. After evaluating the evidence and hearing the arguments of both parties, the trial court framed the following point for consideration:

"Whether the prosecution has established the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubt?"

Upon examination, the trial court held that the prosecution had proven the charges against the accused beyond reasonable doubt and accordingly passed the judgment of conviction and order of sentence.

8. The learned counsel for the appellants (accused Nos.1 and 2) argued that the prosecution had failed to establish that accused Nos.1 and 2 made any demand for illegal gratification. He contended that mere acceptance of the bribe by accused No.2, in the absence of a proven demand, does not constitute an offence under Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, as both demand and acceptance are sine qua non for establishing the offence. He further submitted that P.W.2 had clearly stated that he had not witnessed accused No.1 demanding a bribe from P.W.1. The testimony of P.W.2 was also inconsistent with the trap panchanama. Therefore, the appellants sought to have the conviction and sentence set aside.

9. In response, the learned counsel for the respondent (Lokayukta Police) argued that the testimonies of P.Ws.1 and 2 corroborated each other, establishing that accused No.1 demanded Rs.2,500/- as illegal gratification and that accused No.2 accepted

NC: 2025:KHC-D:1658

the amount on his behalf. He further contended that the recorded conversation, both before and after the trap, supported the prosecution's case beyond reasonable doubt. He submitted that there was no perversity or illegality in the trial court's judgment and, therefore, the appeal should be dismissed.

10. After thoroughly considering the arguments and reviewing the trial court records, the only point for determination is:

"Whether the prosecution has proved the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt, and whether the judgment of conviction and sentence passed by the trial court is legally sustainable?"

11. The complainant (P.W.1) filed an application at the Commercial Tax Office, Ranebennur, for a VAT certificate and approached accused No.1. In his complaint, P.W.1 alleged that accused No.1 demanded Rs.2,500/- as illegal gratification. The Lokayukta Police provided him with a tape recorder to record his conversation with accused No.1. The recorded conversation allegedly captured accused No.1 demanding the bribe. Following this, an FIR was registered, and the complainant, along with P.W.2 (shadow witness), was sent to the chamber of accused No.1.

12. As per the trap panchanama (Ex.P.3), P.W.2 initially stood outside the passage in front of the chamber leaning on a table . Accused No.1 called P.W.11 (Vani) to bring the relevant file, after which accused No.1 summoned accused No.2. In the presence of accused No.1, accused No.2 obtained the

NC: 2025:KHC-D:1658

complainant's signature. When the complainant attempted to hand over the bribe, accused No.1 signaled him to give it to accused No.2. After handing over the money, the complainant exited the chamber and signaled the raiding team. The police then apprehended both accused, recovered the tainted money from Accused No.2, and confirmed the presence of the chemical powder.

13. However, a critical analysis of P.W.2's testimony reveals inconsistencies. In his initial statement, he said he stood outside leaning on a table near the chamber's passage. Later, he claimed he stood outside the chamber door. His testimony contradicts the trap panchanama, as he initially stated that he could not see inside due to curtains covering the chamber's entrance but later claimed that he could see through a gap in the curtain. The prosecution failed to clarify why P.W.2's position changed. Additionally, the peon (P.W.5), who was present outside, confirmed that nothing could be heard from inside the chamber. The evidence of PW2 cannot be relied upon, as it contains inconsistencies, and he has neither seen nor heard Accused No.1 demanding the gratification amount from PW1.

14. The presence of a shadow witness during a trap in a bribery case is crucial, Since conviction under the Prevention of Corruption Act requires proof of both demand and acceptance of a bribe, an independent witness can corroborate the prosecution's case and eliminate doubts regarding the authenticity of the complaint. A shadow witness, usually a government official or

NC: 2025:KHC-D:1658

independent person, serves as an impartial observer to ensure that the trap is conducted fairly and lawfully, reducing the chances of false implication.

15. The tape-recorded conversation was also found to be unclear, and the prosecution failed to obtain a certificate under Section 65B of the Evidence Act, making the recorded evidence inadmissible. P.Ws.10 and 11, employees of the Commercial Tax Office, also failed to recognize accused No.1's voice.

16. While P.W.1 stated that accused No.1 demanded the bribe and accused No.2 accepted it on his behalf, the prosecution could not corroborate this beyond reasonable doubt. P.W.2's conflicting testimony, the lack of clear recorded evidence, and the absence of independent witnesses weaken the prosecution's case.

17. In criminal law, suspicion, however strong, cannot substitute proof. When two views are possible, the view favoring the accused must be adopted. Mere acceptance of tainted money without clear proof of demand does not constitute an offence under the Prevention of Corruption Act. It is a well-settled principle of law that demand and acceptance are sine qua non for constituting an offence under Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act.

18. Given these findings, the prosecution has failed to discharge its burden of proof. Therefore, the conviction of the accused cannot be sustained. Accordingly, I pass the following:

NC: 2025:KHC-D:1658

ORDER

i) Criminal appeals are allowed.

ii) The impugned judgment of conviction dated 20.1.2016 and order of conviction dated 21.1.2016 passed in Spl.SVC No.7/2009 by the learned II Additional District and Sessions Judge, Haveri (sitting at Ranebennur) is hereby quashed, and the accused are acquitted of the aforesaid offences.