Karnataka High Court
Umashankar vs State By Lokayuktha Police on 23 June, 2025
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC:21667
CRL.A No. 1257 of 2012
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 23RD DAY OF JUNE, 2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE M G UMA
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 1257 OF 2012 (C)
BETWEEN:
UMASHANKAR,
S/O. LATE P.G. BASAVAIAH,
AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS,
OCC: FDA, BEO OFFICE,
NELAMANGALA, BANGALORE
RURAL DISTRICT.
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI. K.A. CHANDRASHEKARA, ADVOCATE)
AND:
STATE BY LOKAYUKTHA
POLICE, TUMKUR.
...RESPONDENT
(BY SRI. LETHIF .B., ADVOCATE)
THIS CRL.A. IS FILED U/S.374(2) CR.P.C PRAYING TO SET
Digitally signed ASIDE THE ORDER OF CONVICTION AND SENTENCES DATED
by NANDINI B G
Location: High 30.10.2012 PASSED BY THE II ADDL. DIST. & S.J., TUMKUR IN SPL.
Court of
Karnataka CASE NO.214/2007 - CONVICTING THE APPELLANT/ACCUSED FOR
THE OFFENCE P/U/S 7, 13(1)(D) & 13(2) OF PREVENTION OF
CORRUPTION ACT, 1988 AND ETC.,
THIS CRL.A., COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING, THIS DAY,
JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE M G UMA
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC:21667
CRL.A No. 1257 of 2012
HC-KAR
ORAL JUDGMENT
The appellant being the accused in Spl.C.No.214/2007,
on the file of the learned II Additional District & Sessions Judge,
Tumkur, is impugning the judgment of conviction and order of
sentence dated 30.10.2012, convicting the accused for the
offence punishable under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) and 13(2) of
Prevention of Corruption Act (for short 'PC Act') and sentencing
him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of 1 year
with fine of Rs.5,000/- for the offence punishable under Section
7 of PC Act and to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 3 years
with fine of Rs.5,000/- for the offence punishable under
Sections 13(1)(d) and 13(2) of PC Act, with default sentences.
2. Brief facts of the case as per the prosecution are
that, the accused who was working as First Division Assistant in
the office of DDPI, Tumkur demanded and accepted the bribe
amount of Rs.10,000/- from PW1 to show the official favour.
Thereby, he committed the offence punishable under Sections
7, 13(1)(d) and 13(2) of PC Act. The Trial Court took
cognizance for the above said offences and summoned the
accused. Accused has appeared before the Trial Court and
pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. Prosecution has
NC: 2025:KHC:21667
HC-KAR
examined PWs.1 to 6, got marked Ex.P1 to P11 and MOs.1 to
12 in support of its contention. The accused has not led any
evidence nor stepped into the witness box to depose regarding
his defence. He got marked Ex.D1 to D4 - the portions of the
statements of PW1 and the draft sanction order.
3. The Trial Court after taking into consideration all
the materials on record came to the conclusion that the
prosecution is successful in proving the guilt of the accused
beyond reasonable doubt. Accordingly, passed the impugned
order convicting the accused for the above said offences. Being
aggrieved by the same, the accused is before this Court.
4. Heard Sri. K.A.Chandrashekara, learned counsel for
the appellant and Sri. Lethif.B, learned counsel for the
respondent. Perused the materials including the Trial Court
records.
5. In view of the rival contentions urged by learned
counsel for both the parties, the point that would arise for my
consideration is:
"Whether the appellant-accused has
made out a case to interfere with the
NC: 2025:KHC:21667
HC-KAR
impugned judgment of conviction and order
of sentence passed by the Trial Court?
My answer to the above point is in 'Partly Affirmative' for
the following:
REASONS
6. It is the contention of the complainant that he was
working as Assistant Teacher at the Government Lower Primary
School, Mannanapalya of Kunigal Taluk. There was a complaint
registered against him in Crime No.28/2006. Since criminal
case was registered against him, he was suspended from
service. Later, criminal case in C.C.No.176/2006 was decided
on 23.12.2006 and the complainant was acquitted in the said
case. But his order of suspension was not recalled by passing
necessary order in the office of DDPI, Tumkur. Therefore, the
complainant had filed an application with DDPI, Tumkur on
27.12.2006 requesting to revoke the order of suspension. Since
his application was not attended by the accused, who was
working as First Division Assistant in the office of DDPI,
Tumkur, the complainant met him on 28.02.2007. The accused
demanded illegal gratification of Rs.10,000/- to show the
official favour and insisted for the payment of the same.
NC: 2025:KHC:21667
HC-KAR
7. It is further contended that, the complainant was
not willing to pay the bribe. He lodged the complaint on
01.03.2007 with Lokayuktha police. On the same day, pre-trap
panchanama was drawn and tainted amount smeared with
phenolphthalein powder was entrusted to the complainant. The
complainant was accompanied by PW2 - the shadow witness to
meet the accused. The accused asked the complainant to come
near the Inspection Bungalow. But when the complainant and
the shadow witness went there, for some reason, the accused
asked them to come near Sri.Nanjundeshwara hotel.
Accordingly, all of them went to the hotel. After having coffee,
the accused came out, sat on his motor cycle, asked the
complainant to come to his office. At this point of time, the
complainant informed that he is having other work. Therefore,
asked him to receive the bribe amount there itself. When the
complainant tendered the tainted amount, the accused asked
whether he has brought the correct amount, received it with his
right hand, transferred it to the left hand and kept it in his left
pant pocket. Thereafter, he was trapped by the Investigating
Officer in the presence of the complainant, shadow witness and
the pancha witness.
NC: 2025:KHC:21667
HC-KAR
8. It is stated that both left and right hand wash of the
accused tested positive for the presence of phenolphthalein
powder as per FSL report. When the accused was asked
regarding the amount he has received, he stated that it is in his
left pocket. PW-3 - pancha witness was asked to remove the
said amount and accordingly, he took out the tainted amount
from his left pant pocket and produced before the Investigating
Officer. The accused was asked to explain regarding his defence
and the reason as to how the tainted amount was found in his
possession. The accused gave his explanation as per Ex.P8
stating that, the complainant kept the amount in his pant
pocket without his knowledge and deliberately got trapped him.
Thus, it is the contention of the prosecution that the accused
who is a pubic servant demanded and accepted the illegal
gratification to show the official favour i.e, to attend the case
pertaining to the complainant seeking revocation of his
suspension order.
9. PW1 has supported the case of the prosecution. He
stated that after having coffee in Nanjundeshwara hotel, he
came out with the shadow witness and the accused. The
NC: 2025:KHC:21667
HC-KAR
accused was about to go on his motor cycle and sat on it,
asking the complainant to come to his office. The complainant
insisted to take the amount there itself as he was to go to
lawyers office, and then he tendered the tainted amount and
the accused accepted it and kept it in his left pant pocket.
10. PW1 during cross examination states that he gave
the tainted amount and the accused received it in his left hand
and kept in his left pant pocket. But as per FSL report, both
hand wash tested positive for phenolphthalein powder.
11. PW2 - shadow witness, in chief examination states
that the accused asked the complainant as to whether he had
brought the amount while they were inside the hotel, while
taking coffee. PW1 tendered the tainted amount, the accused
received it in his right hand, transferred it to his left hand and
kept it in his left pant pocket.
12. During cross examination, PW2 states that after
coming out of the hotel, the accused sat on his motor cycle and
asked whether he had brought the amount. The complainant
tendered the tainted amount, the accused received it in his
right hand and since he was having his bike key in his right
NC: 2025:KHC:21667
HC-KAR
hand, he transferred the amount to left hand and kept it in his
left pant pocket.
13. As per the trap panchanama - Ex.P2, all of them
had coffee in the hotel, and the brother of the complainant paid
the bill. Thereafter, they came out of the hotel, and the
accused asked the complainant as to who is the shadow
witness. The complainant introduced him as his friend. The
accused stated that he is having urgent work and asked to pay
the money. The complainant took out the tainted money and
gave it to the accused. He received it with his right hand while
he was holding the bike key and transferred the amount to his
left hand and kept it in his left pant pocket and asked the
complainant as to whether he has paid the correct amount. The
complainant answered in the affirmative. During cross
examination of PWs.1 and 2, the accused had never stated
anything about his defence. The line of cross examination do
not disclose any defence on his part.
14. It is interesting to note that accused does not
dispute that, on the date of incident, he had met the
complainant when he was accompanied by the shadow witness-
NC: 2025:KHC:21667
HC-KAR
PW2. He is also not disputing that they had met near IB,
Tumkur, and thereafter, went to Nanjundeshwara hotel and had
conversation with them. The defence taken by the accused as
per Ex.P8 which is in his own hand writing is that, the
complainant had kept the tainted amount in his pant pocket
without his knowledge. But there is absolutely no cross
examination in this regard. Even though PW1 has deviated a
little from his earlier statement, the same is not fatal to the
case of prosecution. PW2 consistently stated that after coming
out of the hotel, the accused asked whether he has brought the
amount. Immediately, the complainant took out the entrusted
amount and tendered it to the accused. The accused received it
in his right hand and since he was having his motor cycle key in
the right hand, he transferred it to his left hand and kept it in
his left pant pocket. This version of PW2 remains unshaken
even after his cross examination.
15. PW3, the pancha witness deposes regarding
entrustment panchanama and pre-trap panchanama drawn in
his presence and corroborates the version of PW2. The
Investigating Officer has also deposed before the Court about
- 10 -
NC: 2025:KHC:21667
HC-KAR
the registration of the FIR till recovery of the tainted amount
from the left pant pocket of the accused. Nothing has been
elicited from this witness to disbelieve their version.
16. From the materials on record it is clear that the
accused is not disputing that he was working as clerk in DDPI,
Tumkur at the relevant point of time. He also does not dispute
that the official work pertaining to the complainant was pending
in his office and he was required to attend the same. He never
disputes that on the date of the incident, he had met the
accused and the shadow witness and they were near
Nanjundeshwara hotel. He does not dispute recovery of the
tainted amount and giving the explanation as per Ex.P8. By no
stretch of imagination the explanation given by the accused
that the complainant kept the tainted amount in his left pant
pocket without his knowledge, can be accepted. Under such
circumstances, the evidence of PW1 and evidence of shadow
witness-PW2 with regard to the demand and acceptance of
illegal gratification cannot be disbelieved. Even the FSL report
produced as per Ex.P9 supports the contention of the
prosecution. Even though PW6-the sanctioning authority is
- 11 -
NC: 2025:KHC:21667
HC-KAR
cross examined at length, the sanction order Ex.P10 and the
evidence of PW6 discloses that there is application of mind
while according sanction to prosecute the accused.
17. When the prosecution is successful in proving that
the accused being the public servant has demanded and
accepted the illegal gratification, the presumption under
Section 20 of PC Act comes into operation and the burden shifts
on the accused to rebut the presumption by proving the
contrary. Even though the accused had taken the specific
defence as per Ex.P8, he has not probabalized the same. Under
such circumstances, it is to be held that the prosecution is
successful in proving the guilt of the accused beyond
reasonable doubt and he is liable for conviction.
18. I have gone through the impugned judgment of
conviction passed by the Trial Court. The Trial Court has
appreciated the oral and documentary evidence against the
accused and believed the version of the shadow witness-PW2
who is an official witness. It has also appreciated the evidence
of other prosecution witnesses including PW1 and proceeded to
convict the accused. I do not find any perversity or illegality in
- 12 -
NC: 2025:KHC:21667
HC-KAR
the reasons assigned by the Trial Court to interfere with the
judgment of conviction.
19. Learned counsel for the appellant alternatively
sought for showing leniency in favour of the accused. The
submission made by the learned counsel for the appellant is
considered. The Trial Court sentenced the accused to undergo
rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year with fine of
Rs.5,000/- for the offence punishable under Section 7 of PC Act
and to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three years with fine
of Rs.5,000/- for the offence punishable under Sections
13(1)(d) and 13(2) of PC Act, with default sentences. PC Act as
stood at the time of commission of offence calls for minimum
imprisonment for the period of six months for the offence
punishable under Section 7 of PC Act and minimum sentence of
one year for the offence punishable under Sections 13(1)(d)
and 13(2) of PC Act. I do not have any reason to impose
maximum sentence to the accused. Under such circumstances,
I am of the opinion that the order of sentence passed by the
Trial Court could be modified to impose the minimum sentence.
Accordingly, I proceed to pass the following:
- 13 -
NC: 2025:KHC:21667
HC-KAR
ORDER
(i) Criminal appeal is allowed in part.
(ii) The judgment of conviction dated 30.10.2012
passed in Spl.C.No.214/2007, on the file of the learned II
Additional District & Sessions Judge, Tumkur, is hereby
confirmed.
(iii) The order of sentence passed by the Trial Court is set
aside.
(iv) Consequently, the accused - appellant is convicted
and sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of
six months with fine of Rs.5,000/-. In default to pay fine, to
undergo further imprisonment for a period of 3 months for the
offence punishable under Section 7 of PC Act and to undergo
simple imprisonment for a period of one year with fine of
Rs.5,000/-. In default to pay fine to undergo further
imprisonment for a period of 3 months for the offence
punishable under Section 13(1)(d) and 13(2) of PC Ac.
Registry to send back the Trial Court records along with
copy of this judgment to the Trial Court for information and
- 14 -
NC: 2025:KHC:21667
HC-KAR
needful action i.e., to secure the presence of the accused to
issue conviction warrant, if not already issued.
In view of disposal of main matter, pending IA No.1 of
2013 stands disposed off.
Sd/-
(M G UMA)
JUDGE
SPV
