Karnataka High Court

H Jagannatha Shetty vs The State By Police Inspector on 26 June, 2025

                                               -1-
                                                          NC: 2025:KHC:22519
                                                       CRL.A No. 848 of 2012


                  HC-KAR



                      IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

                            DATED THIS THE 26TH DAY OF JUNE, 2025

                                           BEFORE
                              THE HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE M G UMA
                              CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 848 OF 2012
                 BETWEEN:
                 1.   H. JAGANNATHA SHETTY
                      S/O H. SANJIVA SHETTY
                      AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS
                      DISTRICT MANAGER
                      KARNATAKA BACKWARD
                      COMMUNITIES AND
                      MINORITIES DEVELOPMENT
                      CORPORATION LTD.,
                      UDUPI.

                 2.   KUM. REVATHI
                      D/O PANDU MENDON
                      AGED ABOUT 24 YEARS
                      PRIVATE EMPLOYEE
                      R/O PADUKERI, MALPE TQ
                      UDUPI.
                                                                ...APPELLANTS
Digitally        (BY SRI: HASMATH PASHA, SR. ADVOCATE, FOR
signed by            SRI: PRAKASH M PATIL, ADVOCATE (A1) A/W
SWAPNA V             SRI: NITYANAND V. NAIK, ADVOCATE (A2))
Location: High
Court of
Karnataka
                 AND:
                 THE STATE BY POLICE INSPECTOR
                 KARNATAKA LOKAYUKTHA
                 UDUPI.
                                                               ...RESPONDENT
                 (BY SRI: B.S. PRASAD, ADVOCATE)

                       THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 374(2)
                 CR.P.C PRAYING TO SET-ASIDE CONVICTION AND SENTENCE DATED
                 31.07.2012 PASSED BY THE SESSIONS/SPECIAL JUDGE, UDUPI IN
                 S.C.NO.18/2009 - CONVICTING THE APPELLANTS/ACCUSED FOR THE
                 OFFENCE PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTIONS 7,8 AND 13(1)(D) READ
                                   -2-
                                              NC: 2025:KHC:22519
                                           CRL.A No. 848 of 2012


HC-KAR



WITH 13(2) OF THE PREVENTION OF CORRUPTION ACT; THE
APPELLANT/ACCUSED    NO.1   IS   SENTENCED    TO   SUFFER
IMPRISONMENT FOR A PERIOD OF ONE AND HALF YEARS AND PAY A
FINE OF RS.5,000/- AND IN DEFAULT TO PAY FINE, HE SHALL
UNDERGO FURTHER IMPRISONMENT FOR A PERIOD OF 2 MONTHS
FOR THE OFFENCE PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTIONS 7 AND 13(1)(D)
READ WITH 13(2) OF THE PREVENTION OF CORRUPTION ACT,
1988; THE APPELLANT/ACCUSED NO.2 IS SENTENCED TO UNDERGO
IMPRISONMENT FOR A PERIOD OF 6 MONTHS AND PAY A FINE OF
RS.2,000/- AND IN DEFAULT TO PAY FINE, HE SHALL UNDERGO
FURTHER IMPRISONMENT FOR A PERIOD OF 1 MONTH FOR THE
OFFENCE PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTION 8 OF THE PREVENTION OF
CORRUPTION ACT, 1988; THE APPELLANTS/ACCUSED PRAYS THAT
THEY BE ACQUITTED.

      THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL, COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING,
THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM:       HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE M G UMA

                        ORAL JUDGMENT

Accused Nos.1 and 2 in Special Case No.18 of 2009 on

the file of the learned Sessions/Special Judge, Udupi District at

Udupi, are impugning the judgment of conviction and order of

sentence dated 31.07.2012 convicting and sentencing accused

No.1 to undergo imprisonment for a period of 1½ years and to

pay fine of Rs.5,000/- for the offence punishable under

Sections 7, 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of PC Act, and

convicting and sentencing accused No.2 to undergo

imprisonment for a period of six months for the offence

punishable under Section 8 of PC Act, with default sentences.

NC: 2025:KHC:22519

HC-KAR

2. Brief facts of the case as made out by the

prosecution is that, accused No.1 is the public servant working

as District Manager in Karnataka Backward Communities and

Minorities Development Corporation Ltd., Udupi District. The

complainant had applied loan of Rs.86,000/- under Ganga

Kalyana Scheme. To sanction the loan applied by the

complainant, the accused demanded illegal gratification of

Rs.4,000/-. It is also the contention of the prosecution that

accused No.2 is the private employee in the said Department

working under accused No.1 and she accepted Rs.1,000/- on

04.04.2008 from the complainant as motive or reward herself

and also for accused No.1. Thereby, accused No.1 has

committed the offences punishable under Sections 7, 13(1)(d)

read with Section 13(2) of PC Act, and accused No.2 committed

the offence punishable under Section 8 of PC Act. The

Investigating Officer filed the charge sheet, after completing

the investigation.

3. The Trial Court took cognizance of the offences and

summoned the accused. The accused appeared before the Trial

Court, pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. The

prosecution examined PWs.1 to 10, got marked Exs.P1 to P28

NC: 2025:KHC:22519

HC-KAR

and identified Mos.1 to 10 in support of its contention. The

accused denied all the incriminating materials available on

record in their statement recorded under Section 313 of

Cr.P.C., but have not led any evidence in support of their

defence. The portion of the statement of PW1 was marked

during cross examination as Ex.D1. The Trial Court after taking

into consideration all these materials on record, convicted and

sentenced accused No.1 and 2 as stated above. Being

aggrieved by the same, the accused are before this Court.

4. Heard Sri Hasmath Pasha, learned senior advocate

for Sri Prakash M Patil and Sri Nityanand V Naik, learned

counsel for the appellants and Sri B S Prasad, 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 appellants have made out any grounds to interfere with the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed by the Trial Court and to acquit them for the charges leveled against them?"

NC: 2025:KHC:22519

HC-KAR

My answer to the above point is in the 'Affirmative' for

the following:

REASONS

6. It is the specific contention of the prosecution that

accused No.1 was the District Manager in Karnataka Backward

Communities and Minorities Development Corporation Ltd.,

Udupi. The complainant had applied loan of Rs.86,000/- under

Ganga Kalyana Scheme and for sanction of said loan, he

demanded bribe of Rs.4,000/-.

7. My attention was drawn by the learned senior

advocate to Ex.P6, which is produced and relied on by the

prosecution as part of the records which was seized from the

office of the accused, where there is endorsement made by

accused No.1 on 12.02.2008 to the effect that since the

complainant had already obtained loans under Shrama Shakti

Scheme, as per Rule, she is not entitled for two different loans

at a time and therefore, the application was rejected. Even

according to the prosecution, the case papers as per Ex.P6 was

seized from the office of accused No.1 immediately after the

incident while trapping the accused.

NC: 2025:KHC:22519

HC-KAR

8. Ex.P8 is the explanation given by accused No.1

immediately after his trap where he has taken a defence that

even though the complainant had applied for loan under Ganga

Kalyana Scheme, it was found that she had already obtained

loan in a different scheme and since she is a defaulter, she is

not entitled for two loans at a time. Hence, the application was

rejected. As per the endorsement found in the case file, the

explanation given by accused No.1 as per Ex.P8 at the earliest

point of time corroborates with the endorsement produced by

the prosecution itself. When the document produced by the

prosecution itself discloses that the loan applied by the

complainant was already rejected by accused No.1, it cannot be

said that any official work of the complainant was pending with

accused No.1.

9. Learned Special Prosecutor for the respondent tried

to contend that even though such endorsement is found in

Ex.P6 that might not have been communicated to the

complainant, but unfortunately that is not the contention taken

by the prosecution before the Trial Court. Even according to the

case made out by the prosecution, PW1 - the complainant

tendered tainted amount of Rs.1,000/- to accused No.2 and not

NC: 2025:KHC:22519

HC-KAR

to accused No.1. It is the contention of the prosecution that

accused No.2 is not a regular employee of the Department, but

she is a private employee (contract employee) who received

Rs.1,000/- for and on behalf of accused No.1.

10. Accused No.2 gave her explanation as per Ex.P9 to

the Investigating officer immediately after the trap stating that

the complainant came and offered Rs.1,000/- towards

installment of the loan obtained by one Wilson Prasanna and

accordingly, she accepted Rs.1,000/- and gave receipt in the

name of Wilson Prasanna. Even the receipt book is seized by

the Investigating Office at the time of drawing trap

panchanama and it is as per Ex.P7. Ex.7(b) is the relevant

receipt dated 04.04.2008 which fully corroborates the

explanation given by accused No.2 at the earliest point of time,

as per Ex.P9.

11. When the prosecution itself is relying on Exs.P6 and

P7, which corroborate the defence taken by accused Nos.1 and

2, I do not find any substance in the contention taken by either

against accused No.1 or against accused No.2 for any of the

offences under special enactment. No amount of oral evidence

led by the prosecution will cure the inconsistency in their

NC: 2025:KHC:22519

HC-KAR

contention. Exs.P6 and P7 cut their case at the root. Therefore,

I am of the opinion that the explanation offered by both

accused Nos.1 and 2 are more probable and it has to be

accepted. Under such circumstances, I hold that the

prosecution has miserably failed to prove the guilt of the

accused beyond reasonable doubt and therefore, the accused

are entitled for acquittal.

12. I have gone through the impugned judgment of

conviction and order of sentence passed by the Trial Court.

The Trial Court proceeded to convict both the accused without

application of mind, solely on the basis of oral evidence given

by the witnesses, ignoring the material documents i.e., Exs.P6,

P8 and P9. Under such circumstances, I am of the opinion that

the appeal preferred by accused Nos.1 and 2 deserves to be

allowed. Accordingly, I answer the above point in the

affirmative and proceed to pass the following:

ORDER

(i) The Criminal Appeal is allowed.

(ii) The judgment of conviction and order of sentence

dated 31.07.2012 passed in SC No.18 of 2009 on the file of

NC: 2025:KHC:22519

HC-KAR

learned Sessions/Special Judge, Udupi District, Udupi, is hereby

set aside.

(iii) Consequently, accused No.1 is acquitted for the

offences punishable under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) read with

Section 13(2) of PC Act and accused No.2 is acquitted for the

offence punishable under Section 8 of PC Act.