Karnataka High Court

The State Of Karnataka vs Chandramohan Basavanneppa Chadachal on 19 June, 2025

                                                  -1-
                                                               NC: 2025:KHC-D:7836
                                                         CRL.A No. 100022 of 2016


                      HC-KAR



                         IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH

                                DATED THIS THE 19TH DAY OF JUNE, 2025
                                                BEFORE
                                THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH RAI K

                               CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.100022 OF 2016 (A)

                      BETWEEN:
                      THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
                      REPRESENTED BY SPECIAL PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
                      KARNATAKA LOKAYUKTA POLICE,
                      HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
                      BENCH AT DHARWAD, DHARWAD.
                      (LOKAYUTA POLICE BELAGAVI)
                                                                      ...PETITIONER
                      (BY SRI. G.I. GACHCHINAMATH, ADVOCATE)

                      AND:

                      CHANDRAMOHAN BASAVANNEPPA CHADACHAL
                      AGE: 77 YEARS,
                      OCC. SUPERVISOR (ON CONTRACT BASIS)
                      OFFICE OF ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER AND
                      COMPETENT AUTHORITY FOR LAND ACQUSITION,
                      NH-4A, BELAGAVI, R/O. PLOT NO.68,
                      CCB NO.369, SADASHIV NAGAR, BELAGAVI.
                                                                     ...RESPONDENT
YASHAVANT
                      (BY SRI. A.M. GUNDAWADE, ADVOCATE)
NARAYANKAR

Digitally signed by
YASHAVANT
NARAYANKAR
Date: 2025.06.21
                           THE CRIMINAL APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 378(1) & (3)
                      OF CR.P.C. SEEKING TO GRANT LEAVE TO APPEAL AGAINST THE
11:49:50 +0530




                      JUDGMENT AND ORDER OF ACQUITTAL PASSED BY THE IV ADDL.
                      DISTRICT AND SESSIONS & SPECIAL JUDGE (PCA), AT BELAGAVI
                      DATED 25/08/2015 IN SPECIAL CASE NO.36/2012 AND TO SET
                      ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND ORDER OF ACQUITTAL PASSED BY THE
                      IV ADDL. DISTRICT AND SESSIONS & SPECIAL JUDGE (PCA),
                      BELAGAVI DATED 25/08/2015 IN SPECIAL CRIMINAL CASE NO.
                      36/2012 AND TO CONVICT AND SENTENCE THE RESPONDENT /
                      ACCUSED PERSON FOR THE OFFENCE PUNISHABLE UNDER
                      SECTIONS 7, 13(1)(D) R/W. SECTION 13(2) OF PREVENTION OF
                      CORRUPTION ACT, 1988.
                           THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING THIS DAY,
                      JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:
                                      -2-
                                                     NC: 2025:KHC-D:7836
                                                CRL.A No. 100022 of 2016


    HC-KAR



CORAM:         THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH RAI K

                           ORAL JUDGMENT

(PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH RAI K)

The appellant/Lokayukta has filed this appeal against the

judgment of acquittal passed in Special Case No.36/2012,

dated 25.8.2015 by the IV Addl. District and Sessions Judge &

Special Judge (PCA), Belagavi1, whereby the learned Sessions

Judge acquitted the respondent/accused for the offences

punishable under Sections 7 & 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2)

of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 19882.

2. The facts in brief of the prosecution's case are that,

the accused was working as a Supervisor in the office of

National Highway Authority of India3, located at Belagavi, on

contract basis and he demanded a bribe money of Rs.18,000/-

from the complainant(CW1). Hence, the complaiannt lodged a

complaint against the accused before the Lokayukta Police

Belagavi as per Ex.P3. On the strength of the complaint-Ex.P3

lodged by CW1/complainant, a case has been registered in

Crime No.24/2011 by Belagavi Lokayukta Police. Subsequently,

Hereinafter referred to as 'Sessions Judge'

Hereinafter referred to as 'PC Act'

Hereinafter referred to as 'NHAI'

NC: 2025:KHC-D:7836

HC-KAR

on 25.11.2011, in between 17:00 hours and 17:20 hours in the

office of the NHAI located at Belagavi, the accused was trapped

for having demanded and accepted a bribe of Rs.5,000/- from

the complainant in discharge of his duty as public servant for

preparing the cheque in respect of compensation amount of

Rs.3,77,386/- awarded to the wife of complainant. After

conducting trap panchanama, the accused was arrested and

Investigating Officer (PW9) laid charge sheet against the

accused for the aforementioned offences before the Sessions

Court. After securing the presence of the accused, the learned

Sessions Judge framed charges against the accused for the said

offences and read over to him; however, he denied charges and

claimed to be tried.

3. To prove the prosecution's case, the Lokayukta

examined in total 9 witnesses as PW1 to PW9; marked 24

documents as Ex.P1 to P24 and identified 12 material objects

as MO1 to MO12 before the learned Sessions Judge.

4. On assessment of oral and documentary evidence,

the learned Sessions Judge acquitted the accused for the

NC: 2025:KHC-D:7836

HC-KAR

charges leveled against him. Aggrieved by the same, the

Lokayukta has preferred this appeal.

5. I have heard the learned standing counsel Sri. G.I.

Gachchinamath for the appellant/Lokayukta, so also learned

counsel Sri.A.M. Gundawade for the respondent/accused.

6. The primary contention of the learned counsel for

the appellant is that the learned Sessions Judge grossly erred

while acquitting the accused without appreciating the evidence

on record in right perspective. He contended that the

prosecution has placed sufficient evidence and material before

the learned Sessions Judge to prove the guilt of accused.

Despite, the learned Sessions Judge acquitted the accused.

According to the learned counsel, PW4 & PW5 have supported

the case of the prosecution, among them, PW4 deposed that

the accused demanded a sum of Rs.18,000/- from the

complainant in the office of the accused. He further contended

that PW5, who is a shadow witness, has clearly stated that at

the time of trap, he was very much present in the office of the

accused. Though, he stood outside the office, but he stated that

he had seen the accused receiving bribe money by peeping

NC: 2025:KHC-D:7836

HC-KAR

through window; thereafter, the police seized the tainted

money at the instance of the accused and conducted chemical

test, wherein it is proved that the accused has accepted the

bribe money. In such circumstance, the prosecution has proved

the charges leveled against the accused beyond all reasonable

doubt. Additionally, he contended that the evidence of

investigating officer (PW9) clearly corroborates the testimony

of PW4 & PW5. Further, though statement of the accused was

recorded by PW9 soon after the trap, the accused pleaded his

ignorance. In such circumstance, there is no reason to

disbelieve the case of the prosecution. Accordingly, he prays to

allow the appeal and convict the accused for the charges

leveled against him.

7. Refuting the above submission, the learned counsel

for the respondent/accused submitted that the judgment under

appeal does not suffer from any perversity or illegality, since

the learned Sessions Judge after meticulously examining the

entire evidence on record passed a well-reasoned judgment,

which does not call for interference at the hands of this Court.

He contended that the contents of Ex.P3/complaint are not

NC: 2025:KHC-D:7836

HC-KAR

proved before the Court. He also contended that the evidence

of PW4 and PW5 is not trustworthy for the reason that though

PW4 claimed to be eye-witness for the alleged demand of bribe

made by the accused, however, the said aspect was not

forthcoming in the complaint. Further, the evidence of PW5

also not believable for the reason, according to him, he was

standing outside the office of the accused and peeped through

window and witnessed the incident. In such circumstance, the

prosecution failed to prove the guilt of the accused beyond all

reasonable doubt. Mere recovery of tainted money at the

instance of the accused, itself does not constitute the offence

under the PC Act. Additionally, he contended that the

investigating officer failed to obtain necessary sanction to

prosecute the accused. Accordingly, he prays to dismiss the

appeal.

8. Having heard the learned counsel for the respective

parties and also having perused the entire evidence and

documents on record, the only point that arises for my

consideration is:

"Whether the learned Sessions Judge is justified in acquitting the accused for the offences punishable

NC: 2025:KHC-D:7836

HC-KAR

under Sections 7 & 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of the PC Act?"

9. I have given my anxious consideration to the

submissions made by both learned counsel, so also evidence on

record.

10. It could be gathered from the records, one Ibrahim

Hudalikar had lodged a complaint before the Lokayukta Police,

Belagavi alleging that the accused being a Supervisor at NHAI,

located at Belagavi had demanded a bribe of Rs.18,000/- to

disburse the compensation amount of Rs.3,77,386/-. As such,

he lodged a complaint/Ex.P3 on 25.11.2011. The same was

registered in Crime No.24/2011 by Belagavi Lokayukta Police.

Thereafter, trap panchanama was held on the same day and

the accused was arrested and tainted money was recovered at

his instance. The prosecution has failed to examine the

complainant in the instant case. There is no explanation

whatsoever is forthcoming on record not to examine the

complainant. On perusal of the evidence of PW4, it is

forthcoming that the complainant was very much present in the

Court when PW4 was deposing the evidence. On analysis of

the evidence of PW4 and PW5, who are the material witnesses,

NC: 2025:KHC-D:7836

HC-KAR

among them PW4 accompanied the complainant to the office of

accused before lodging the complaint and according to him, on

that day, the accused demanded a sum of Rs.18,000/- to

disburse the compensation amount of Rs.3,77,386/-. Though

this witness has supported the case of the prosecution, on

careful scrutiny of his evidence, his presence in the office of

accused along with the complainant before lodging the

complaint is not forthcoming in the complaint/Ex.P3 as well as

pre-trap mahazar (Ex.P6). Though the prosecution has

produced audio recording of the conversation held between the

accused and complainant, there is no expert opinion obtained

by the investigating officer under the provisions of Section 65B

of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872. In such circumstance, much

credence cannot be attached to the evidence of PW4.

11. On careful scrutiny of evidence of PW5-eyewitness

to this evidence, he stated that he visited the office of the

accused on 25.11.2011 and stood outside the office of the

accused, however, the complainant entered inside the office.

According to him, the accused received bribe amount without

any conversation with the complainant and received the bribe

money by giving hand signal. Admittedly, this witness was

NC: 2025:KHC-D:7836

HC-KAR

standing outside the office of the accused and according to him,

he peeped through the window of the office of the accused.

PW5 has not stated in his evidence as to what the exact place

where he was standing and whether the office of the accused

was accessible to the place where he was standing. Further it is

also not forthcoming in the evidence, though he accompanied

the complainant till his office, why he did not enter inside the

office of the accused. In such circumstance, clear doubt arises

in the testimony of this witness (PW5). Except the evidence of

PW4, PW6 and Investigating Officer (PW9), no other material

evidence placed by the prosecution to prove the guilt of

accused.

12. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of N.

Vijayakumar Vs. State of Tamil Nadu4, held that "absence

of proof of demand for illegal gratification and mere possession

or recovery of currency notes is not sufficient to constitute such

offence and the presumption under Section 20 of the Act can be

drawn only after the demand for and acceptance of illegal

gratification is proved."

(2021) 3 SCC 687

- 10 -

NC: 2025:KHC-D:7836

HC-KAR

13. Further, the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of

Neeraj Dutta Vs. State (Government of NCT of Delhi)5 at

paragraph-18 has held as under:

"18. The allegation of demand of gratification and acceptance made by a public servant has to be established beyond a reasonable doubt. The decision of the Constitution Bench does not dilute this elementary requirement of proof beyond a reasonable doubt. The Constitution Bench was dealing with the issue of the modes by which the demand can be proved. The Constitution Bench has laid down that the proof need not be only by direct oral or documentary evidence, but it can be by way of other evidence including circumstantial evidence. When reliance is placed on circumstantial evidence to prove the demand for gratification, the prosecution must establish each and every circumstance from which the prosecution wants the Court to draw a conclusion of guilt. The facts so established must be consistent with only one hypothesis that there was a demand made for gratification by the accused. Therefore, in this case, we will have to examine whether there is any direct evidence of demand. If we come to a conclusion that there is no direct evidence of demand, this Court will have to consider whether there is any circumstantial evidence to prove the demand."

14. It is well settled position of law laid down by the

Hon'ble Apex Court in the aforesaid judgment as well as in

N. Vijayakumar's case supra, that proof of demand and

acceptance has to be proved by establishing each and every

circumstances.

(2023) 4 SCC 731

- 11 -

NC: 2025:KHC-D:7836

HC-KAR

15. Nonetheless, this being the appeal against acquittal,

this Court and the Hon'ble Apex Court in catena of judgments

held that, if the trial Court has taken plausible view, the