Karnataka High Court
State By Lokayukta Police vs H.S. Kenge Gowda on 3 November, 2025
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC:45173
CRL.A No. 686 of 2013
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 3RD DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S RACHAIAH
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.686 OF 2013 (A)
BETWEEN:
STATE BY LOKAYUKTA POLICE
HASSAN. ... APPELLANT
(BY SRI. B.S. PRASAD, ADV.)
AND:
H.S. KENGE GOWDA
S/O SOMBE GOWDA,
AGE. 49 YEARS,
BILL COLLECTOR,
ATTAVARA HOSALLY
GRAMA PANCHAYAT,
DODDA HOBLI, HASSAN TALUK HASSAN.
...RESPONDENT
(BY SRI. ABHISHEK R.D. ADV.)
Digitally signed
by SAMREEN
AYUB
DESHNUR THIS CRL.A. IS FILED UNDER SECTION 378(1) AND (3)
Location: HIGH
COURT OF
KARNATAKA,
CR.P.C. PRAYING TO GRANT LEAVE TO APPEAL AGAINST THE
DHARWAD
BENCH JUDGMENT AND ORDER OF ACQUITTAL DATED 26.05.2012
PASSED BY THE PRL.S.J. AND SPL JUDGE, HASSAN IN SPL.
CASE NO.7/2009 - ACQUITTING THE RESPONDENT/ACCUSED
FOR THE OFFENCE PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTIONS 7, 13(1)(d)
READ WITH SECTION 13(2) OF THE PREVENTION OF
CORRUPTION ACT, 1988.
THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL HAVING BEEN HEARD AND
RESERVED ON 03.07.2025 AND COMING ON FOR
PRONOUNCEMENT OF JUDGMENT, THE COURT DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S RACHAIAH
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC:45173
CRL.A No. 686 of 2013
HC-KAR
CAV JUDGMENT
1. The appellant/Lokayuktha herein preferred this appeal
seeking to set aside the judgment of conviction dated
26.05.2012 passed in Special Case No.7/2009 by the
Principal Sessions Judge and Special Judge at Hassan,
wherein he has been acquitted for the offences
punishable under Sections 7, 13(1)(d) r/w 13(2) of the
Prevention of Corruption Act,1988 (for short 'P.C Act').
2. The rank of the parties in the Trial Court, henceforth will
be considered as per their rankings in the Court for
convenience.
Factual matrix of the case:
3. The case of the prosecution is that, the complainant -
Shivanna S/o Sannaravegowda, resident of
Bommenahalli lodges a complaint that Nagamma was
his wife. She was allotted a house under the scheme,
namely, Janatha Housing Scheme. To obtain that
benefit, the documents were required to be given to the
Secretary of the Gram Panchayath. Kengegowda/
accused was working as a bill collector at Attavara
NC: 2025:KHC:45173
HC-KAR
Hosalli Gram Panchayath. The Panchayath was
supposed to prepare a mortgage deed and the accused
was get it to be prepared. On 14.11.2007, at about
12.00 in the afternoon, the complainant on behalf of his
wife approached the accused and requested to complete
the mortgage deed. The accused demanded Rs.1,500/-
to prepare the documents and forward the same to the
Secretary of the Gram Panchayath. The complainant
being unhappy about the demand made by the accused,
approached Lokayuktha police. The Lokayuktha police
registered a case and conducted trap mahazar. After
investigating the case, submitted the charge sheet.
4. To prove the case of the prosecution, the prosecution
examined 7 witnesses as PWs.1 to 7 and got marked 36
documents as Exs.P1 to P36 and also identified 10
material objects as M.O.1 to M.O.10. The Trial Court
after appreciating the oral and documentary evidence on
record, acquitted the accused for the offences stated
supra. Hence, this appeal.
NC: 2025:KHC:45173
HC-KAR
5. Heard Sri.B.S.Prasad, learned Special Prosecutor for the
appellant-Lokayuktha and Sri.Abhishek R.D, learned
counsel for the respondent.
6. It is the submission of learned Special Prosecutor for the
appellant - Lokayukta that the judgment of conviction
passed by the Trial Court is erroneous, illegal and the
same is liable to be set aside.
7. It is further submitted that merely because the
complainant died and he has not led any evidence, it
would not vitiate the entire proceedings. The Trial Court
ought to have considered the shadow witnesses, panch
witnesses and independent witness, namely, PW.3 who
is none other than the wife of the complainant.
8. It is further submitted that the evidence of PW.3 would
indicate that the work was pending with the respondent
and he had demanded the amount of Rs.1,500/-. It was
paid and the said amount was recovered from the
respondent. When the case is proved by the
prosecution beyond reasonable doubt, the Trial Court
failed to take note of the said fact and opined that the
NC: 2025:KHC:45173
HC-KAR
amount was given to be paid as a fee to the Gram
Panchayat for the purpose of sanctioning the Janatha
house. Hence, the said findings of the Trial Court is
liable to be set aside. Making such submissions, the
learned Special Prosecutor for the appellant -
Lokayuktha prays to allow the appeal.
9. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent
submitted that judgment of the Trial Court is proper and
there is no infirmity in the said judgment. In fact, the
prosecution has failed to prove the demand of illegal
gratification which is sine-qua-non to demonstrate
Section 7 of the P.C. Act.
10. It is further submitted that recovery of the amount is
not sufficient, unless, it is shown that the said amount
was demanded by the accused.
11. It is further submitted that the amount alleged to have
been seized was to be paid as fee to the said Gram
Panchayat and the said aspect has been proved through
PW.5 who was working as Secretary to the said Gram
Panchayat. Therefore, it is not appropriate to interfere
NC: 2025:KHC:45173
HC-KAR
with the said findings. Making such submissions, the
learned counsel for the respondent prays to dismiss the
appeal.
12. Having heard the learned counsel for the respective
parties and also perused the findings of the Trial Court
in recording the acquittal, it is appropriate to state the
facts in brief for the purpose of arriving at a conclusion.
13. The respondent was working as a bill collector. PW.3
was the beneficiary under the Janatha Housing Scheme.
To avail the said scheme, some documents were to be
produced to the Panchayath office and fee should have
been paid to prepare the said documents.
14. It is noticed that the complainant died during pendency
of the case. PW.2 is a shadow witness, though, he
supported the case of the prosecution, there are
inconsistencies in the evidence of PW.2 and PW.5. As
per the evidence of PW.2, the respondent demanded the
illegal gratification. However, PW.5 says the amount
paid by the complainant was a fee payable to prepare
the documents for registration. These inconsistencies
NC: 2025:KHC:45173
HC-KAR
were to be considered by the Trial Court. Accordingly,
the Trial Court has rightly considered and rightly
recorded the acquittal.
15. Even though, the learned Special Prosecutor submitted
vehemently that the case has to be looked into with the
circumstances when the complainant is not available or
if the complainant is turned hostile, the said aspect
though it is accepted in the light of law laid down by the
Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of NEERAJ DATTA v.
STATE (GOVT. OF N.C.T OF DELHI) , the fact of demand
is controversial. Therefore, the said contention of the
learned Special Prosecutor is held to be unsustainable.
16. In the light of the observation made above, I proceed to
pass the following:
ORDER
The appeal stands dismissed.
Sd/-
(S RACHAIAH)
JUDGE
(2023) 2 S.C.R. 997
