[Cites 7, Cited by 0]
Karnataka High Court
State By Police Inspector vs Sri. T. Ramaiah on 2 April, 2026
Author: H.P.Sandesh
Bench: H.P.Sandesh
-1-
NC: 2026:KHC:18106
CRL.A No. 557 of 2015
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 2ND DAY OF APRIL, 2026
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.557 OF 2015
BETWEEN:
1. STATE BY POLICE INSPECTOR
KARNATAKA LOKAYUKTA
POLICE WING
BENGALURU CITY DIVISION
BENGALURU-560 001.
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI. B.S.PRASAD, SPECIAL COUNSEL)
AND:
1. SRI. T. RAMAIAH
S/O LATE THIMMAIAH
AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS
POLICE INSPECTOR
VINAYAKA SIDDAPURA POLICE STATION
BV
BENGALURU
Digitally signed RESIDENT OF AT
by VINAYAKA B V
Date: 2026.04.06
BANAVARA MAIN ROAD
14:28:49 +0530 YESHWANTHAPURA HOBLI
BENGALURU-560 001.
2. SRI. C.V.KRISHNEGOWDA
S/O SRI. VEEREGOWDA,
AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS,
HEAD CONSTABLE 1193,
SIDDAPURA POLICE STATION
BENGALURU,
RESIDENT OF HOUSE
NO.31/C, 16TH CROSS,
-2-
NC: 2026:KHC:18106
CRL.A No. 557 of 2015
HC-KAR
B.T.M.LAYOUT, 2ND STAGE
BENGALURU-560 001.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. D.R. SUNDARESHA, ADVOCATE FOR R1 - [ABSENT];
SRI. B.J. PRAKASH SINGH, ADVOCATE FOR R2 - [ABSENT])
THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION
378(1) AND (3) OF CR.P.C PRAYING TO GRANT LEAVE TO
APPEAL AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND ORDER OF ACQUITTAL
DATED 31.12.2014 IN SPL.CASE NO.152/2007 PASSED BY THE
COURT OF THE XXIII ADDL. CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE
AND SPL. JUDGE, BENGALURU, ACQUITTING THE
RESPONDENTS OF THE OFFENCES PUNISHABLE UNDER
SECTIONS 7, 13(1)(D) R/W SECTION 13(2) OF THE P.C. ACT,
AND TO SET ASIDE THE AFORESAID JUDGMENT AND ORDER
OF ACQUITTAL OF THE OFFENCES PUNISHABLE UNDER
SECTIONS 7, 13(1)(D) R/W SECTION 13(2) OF THE P.C. ACT,
DATED 31.12.2014 IN SPL.CASE NO.152/2007 PASSED BY THE
COURT OF THE XXIII ADDL. CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE
AND SPL. JUDGE, BENGALURU, BY ALLOWING THE APPEAL AND
TO CONVICT AND SENTENCE THE RESPONDENTS FOR THE
AFORESAID OFFENCES PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTIONS 7,
13(1)(D) R/W SECTION 13(2) OF THE P.C. ACT, WITH WHICH
HE HAS BEEN CHARGED AND TRIED IN ACCORDANCE WITH
LAW.
THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING THIS
DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:
-3-
NC: 2026:KHC:18106
CRL.A No. 557 of 2015
HC-KAR
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH
ORAL JUDGMENT
Heard learned Special counsel appearing for the
appellant.
2. This appeal is filed praying this Court to set aside
the judgment and order of acquittal dated 31.12.2014 in
Spl.C.C.No.152/2007, on the file of the XXIII Additional City
Civil and Sessions Judge and Special Judge, Bengaluru, for the
offences punishable under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) read with
Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act ('PC Act' for
short) and to convict and sentence the respondents for the
above offences in accordance with law.
3. The factual matrix of the case of the Lokayuktha
Police is that accused No.1 was indulged in committing the
offences under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) of the PC Act, which is
punishable under Section 13(2) of the PC Act and accused No.2
for the offence punishable under Section 8 of the PC Act. It is
the case of the Lokayuktha Police that, accused No.1 was
working as Police Inspector and accused No.2 was working as
Head Constable in Siddapura Police Station and as such,
NC: 2026:KHC:18106
HC-KAR
accused Nos.1 and 2 are public servants. The complainant
P.W.1 is the Priest in Sri Shakthi Durga Parameshwari Temple
and Varasiddi Vinayaka Temple at Byrasandra, Bengaluru. On
11.12.2006 at 5.00 p.m., one Jayaram and others stopped the
developmental programme of the above temples and in that
connection, case in Crime No.255/2006 for the offence
punishable under Section 419 of IPC has been registered
against P.W.1. The investigation in that case was conducted by
accused No.1 herein, who on completion of the investigation,
filed the charge-sheet on 02.02.2007 against P.W.1. According
to the prosecution, very often P.W.1 approached accused No.1
to facilitate him to offer pooja in the above temples and to
finalise the complaint in Crime No.255/2006 of Siddapura Police
Station, Bengaluru in his favour. In that connection, accused
No.1 demanded illegal gratification of Rs.50,000/- to extend
official favour. Feeling offended by the said illegal demand of
accused No.1, P.W.1 set law into motion with the help of his
complaint Ex.P.1, which has been registered by P.W.5 Sri
B.S.Ram Mohan. After registration of the case against accused
No.1 in Crime No.2/2007, P.W.5 submitted FIR, which is
marked as Ex.P.18 in a sealed cover and thereafter secured one
NC: 2026:KHC:18106
HC-KAR
shadow witness P.W.2 and one panch witness as P.W.3 to his
office. P.W.1 produced cash of Rs.10,000/- in denomination of
Rs.1,000/- each, 11 currency notes of denomination of
Rs.500/- each and 5 currency notes of denomination of
Rs.100/- each before P.W.5. P.W.5 got entered the numbers of
the above currency notes on a sheet Ex.P.2 and also did the
formalities of pre-trap mahazar and got placed tainted notes in
the left side pocket of shirt of P.W.1 and also got prepared the
solution with water and sodium carbonate powder. After
obtaining the sample of solution, P.W.3 washed fingers of both
hands in the residual solution which consequently turned to
pink colour. P.W.5 seized the finger wash of hands of P.W.3 in a
bottle and thereafter instructed P.W.1 to approach accused
No.1 and to give tainted currency notes to accused No.1 in case
of express demand by accused No.1. P.W.1 was also instructed
by P.W.5 to wipe spectacles with kerchief in case of acceptance
of tainted notes by accused No.1 and by that mode to
communicate the acceptance of tainted notes by accused No.1.
P.W.5 instructed P.W.2 to accompany P.W.1 and to watch what
transpires between accused No.1 and P.W.1. P.W.5 conducted
pre-trap mahazar in terms of Ex.P.8 in his office and left his
NC: 2026:KHC:18106
HC-KAR
office in two Maruti Omni vehicles along with his staff and
P.W.1 to P.W.3 to Siddapura Police Station. P.W.5 along with
his staff and P.W.1 to P.W.3 got down at a distance of about
200 metres from Siddapura Police Station, Bengaluru.
4. P.W.1 and P.W.2 went to Siddapura Police Station
at about 3.15 p.m. After the entry of P.W.1 and P.W.2, on the
instructions of accused No.1, P.W.1 asked P.W.2 to remain
outside. Accordingly, P.W.2 went out of the chamber of
accused No.1. Thereafter, accused No.1 demanded a sum of
Rs.50,000/-. P.W.1 pleaded inability and expressed that a sum
of Rs.10,000/- is brought. Accused No.1 called accused No.2
and instructed accused No.2 to receive Rs.10,000/-. As per the
instructions of accused No.1, P.W.1 gave tainted notes of
Rs.10,000/- to accused No.2, who accepted the same with right
hand and placed in the right side pocket of the pant at about
4.30 pm. The same was witnessed by P.W.2. Thereafter, P.W.1
came out of Siddapura Police Station and conveyed the
message as instructed and immediately P.W.5 along with his
staff and P.W.3 entered the police station and disclosed his
identity to accused Nos.1 and 2 and did the trap mahazar by
NC: 2026:KHC:18106
HC-KAR
seizing the tainted notes and hand wash of accused No.2 was
made with the solution and the same turned to pink colour and
collected the same in two different bottles and seized the pant
and provided alternative pant and all formalities were done.
Accused No.1 offered written explanation in terms of Ex.P.14.
Accused No.2 equally offered written explanation as per
Ex.P.15. P.W.5 obtained the papers pertaining to P.W.1 and
obtained the certified copies i.e., Ex.P.19 and also obtained
certified copies of Ex.P.20 of Station House Dairy and accused
Nos.1 and 2 were arrested by P.W.5 and photographs were also
taken in respect of pre-trap and also trap mahazar. Thereafter,
P.W.5 recorded the statement of P.W.1 to P.W.3 and other
witnesses. During the investigation, received the service
particulars of accused Nos.1 and 2 and report of chemical
examiner and sanction order. Thereafter, filed the charge-sheet
against accused Nos.1 and 2.
5. The accused persons did not plead guilty and
claimed trial. Hence, the prosecution relied upon the
prosecution witnesses' evidence P.W.1 to P.W.5 and documents
at Exs.P.1 to 24 are marked and so also M.O.1 to M.O.10 are
NC: 2026:KHC:18106
HC-KAR
marked. The defence also confronted and marked Exs.D.1 to 7.
The Trial Judge having considered both oral and documentary
evidence available on record, comes to a conclusion that the
Lokayuktha Police have not proved the case against the
accused and acquitted the accused.
6. Being aggrieved by the acquittal, the present
appeal is filed before this Court.
7. The main contention of the learned counsel for the
appellant is that accused No.1 demanded Rs.50,000/- and in
terms of the demand, an amount of Rs.10,000/- was paid to
accused No.2. The evidence of P.W.1 complainant, P.W.2
shadow witness and P.W.3 panch witness is very clear that
tainted money was recovered from the pocket of accused No.2
and FSL report also supports the case of the prosecution. The
learned counsel would submit that explanation was given in
terms of Ex.P.14 by accused No.1 and accused No.2 gave the
explanation in terms of Ex.P.15 and also work was pending.
P.W.3 is a witness to pre-trap and post-trap and Ex.P.16 is a
post-trap mahazar and Ex.P.8 is the pre-trap mahazar. The
learned counsel also submits that Ex.P.22 is the FSL report and
NC: 2026:KHC:18106
HC-KAR
there is a presumption under Section 20 of the PC Act and no
explanation was offered by the accused persons. The Trial
Court committed an error in acquitting both the accused and an
erroneous reasoning is given in paragraph Nos.17 to 19. It is
not in dispute that case was registered against the complainant
by the police and he was arrested and made to sit in the police
station and thereafter, he was produced before the Court and
he was enlarged on bail. The very reasoning given by the Trial
Court is that the Lokayuktha Police relied upon the evidence of
the complainant, shadow witness and panch witness and comes
to the conclusion that the same is not worthy evidence before
the Court to convict the accused. The Trial Court committed an
error in relying upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in
coming to the conclusion that mere recovery of tainted notes
itself is not enough and there must be a demand and proof.
The Trial Court comes to the conclusion that with regard to the
demand and proof, there is no consistent evidence and the very
approach of the Trial Court is erroneous. The learned counsel
brought to the notice of this Court that the evidence of P.W.1
and P.W.2 is consistent. Though P.W.2 not heard the demand
and acceptance, but his evidence is very clear that he was
- 10 -
NC: 2026:KHC:18106
HC-KAR
standing outside the police station, since he was asked to go
out from the police station and he had accompanied P.W.1. The
accused No.1 doubted his presence and sent him out from the
place where the tainted notes were received from P.W.1 and
hence, this Court has to reverse the finding of the Trial Court.
8. This Court heard the matter yesterday i.e., on
02.04.2026 and respective counsels for respondent Nos.1 and 2
are absent. Hence, made it clear that if learned counsel for
respondent Nos.1 and 2 do not appear today, Amicus Curie will
be appointed to assist the Court before disposal of this appeal.
Inspite of the said order, learned counsels for respondent Nos.1
and 2 failed to appear before this Court to address their
argument. However, considering the submission of learned
counsel for the appellant, this Court thought it fit not to appoint
any Amicus Curie in the matter to dispose of this appeal.
9. Having heard learned counsel for the appellant and
also no assistance from learned counsels for respondent Nos.1
and 2, the points that would arise for consideration of this
Court are:
- 11 -
NC: 2026:KHC:18106
HC-KAR
(1) Whether the Trial Court committed an error in
acquitting the accused for the offences
invoked against accused Nos.1 and 2 for the
offence punishable under Sections 7 and
13(1)(d) which is punishable under Section
13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act
against accused No.1 and so also for the
offence under Section 8 of the Prevention of
Corruption Act against accused No.2 and
whether it requires interference of this Court?
2) What order?
Point No.(1):
10. Having heard learned Special Counsel appearing for
appellant-Lokayuktha and considering the material available on
record, the case of the prosecution in brief is that in the year
2007, accused No.1 was working as Police Inspector and
accused No.2 was working as Head Constable in Siddapura
Police Station and as such, accused Nos.1 and 2 are public
servants. The complainant P.W.1 is the Priest in Sri Shakthi
Durga Parameshwari Temple and Varasiddi Vinayaka Temple at
Byrasandra, Bengaluru. On 11.12.2006 at 5.00 p.m., one
Jayaram and others stopped the developmental programme of
- 12 -
NC: 2026:KHC:18106
HC-KAR
the above temples and in that connection, case in Crime
No.255/2006 for the offence punishable under Section 419 of
IPC has been registered against P.W.1. The investigation in that
case was conducted by accused No.1 herein, who on
completion of the investigation, filed the charge-sheet on
02.02.2007 against P.W.1. According to the prosecution, very
often P.W.1 approached accused No.1 to facilitate him to offer
pooja in the above temples and to finalise the complaint in
Crime No.255/2006 of Siddapura Police Station, Bengaluru in
his favour. In that connection, accused No.1 demanded illegal
gratification of Rs.50,000/- to extend official favour. Feeling
offended by the said illegal demand of accused No.1, P.W.1 set
law into motion with the help of his complaint Ex.P.1, which has
been registered by P.W.5-Sri B.S.Ram Mohan. After registration
of the case against accused No.1 in Crime No.2/2007, P.W.5
submitted FIR, which is marked as Ex.P.18 in a sealed cover
and thereafter, secured one shadow witness P.W.2 and one
panch witness as P.W.3 to his office. P.W.1 produced cash of
Rs.10,000/- tainted notes to the P.W.5 and P.W.5 instructed
P.Ws.1 and 2 to go to the office of accused No.1 and on
demand, pay the said amount to the accused No.1.
- 13 -
NC: 2026:KHC:18106
HC-KAR
11. It is the case of the prosecution that when P.Ws.1
and 2 went to the office of accused No.1 and accused No.1 sent
out P.W.2 making an enquiry and P.W.2 was outside the office
of accused No.1 and thereafter, accused No.1 demanded
money and when the P.W.1 said that he had brought money,
accused No.1 instructed him to pay the amount to P.W.2 and
kept the amount in the hands of P.W.2 and immediately, P.W.1
gave signal to the Lokayuktha police and all of them rushed to
the office of accused No.1 and apprehended accused Nos.1 and
2 and also conducted trap mahazar in terms of Ex.P16 and
formalities have been done and accused Nos.1 and 2 also
offered written explanation as per Exs.P14 and P15 respectively
and conducted mahazar in the presence of all the witnesses
and also recorded the statement of other witnesses and filed
the charge-sheet. The accused Nos.1 and 2 were secured
before the Trial Court and both of them claimed for trial.
12. Accordingly, the prosecution relies upon the
evidence of P.Ws.1 to 5 and also got marked the documents as
Exs.P1 to P24 and M.Os.1 to 10.
- 14 -
NC: 2026:KHC:18106
HC-KAR
13. Having reassessed both oral and documentary
evidence in view of the grounds which have been urged in the
appeal memo and no argument was canvassed by learned
counsels for respondent Nos.1 and 2. The P.W.1, who is the
complainant in his evidence reiterates the contents of the
complaint that accused No.1 demanded an amount of
Rs.50,000/- from P.W.1 and the same was negotiated and he
informed that at present, he is not having that much of amount
and he pleaded inability and the same was scaled down to
Rs.10,000/- and he was also interested to pay only Rs.10,000/-
. Accordingly, on demand, he paid amount of Rs.10,000/- to
accused No.2 on the instructions of accused No.1. It is his
evidence that before handing over the money, it was subjected
to pre-trap mahazar and the amount which was entrusted to
P.W.1 was given to accused No.1 and he reiterated that
accused No.1 called Krishnagowda i.e., accused No.2 and asked
him to receive the money and he handed over the amount to
accused No.2 and accused No.2 received the same and kept it
in his right side pocket of his pant and Lokayuktha Police
rushed to the office of accused No.1 on his signal and drawn
trap mahazar. But this witness in the cross-examination when
- 15 -
NC: 2026:KHC:18106
HC-KAR
the learned counsel for accused No.2 cross-examined him,
categorically admits that in the matter of his case, accused
No.2 has not spoken anything with him. But, he admits that
since accused No.1 instructed him to place currency notes at
the hands of accused No.2, he placed the currency notes at the
hands of accused No.2. He also admits that accused No.2 gave
explanation that as per the instructions of accused No.1, he
received the cash and admits that on 02.02.2007, accused No.2
has not demanded money from him. Hence, evidence of P.W.1
is clear that accused No.2 has not demanded any money from
him.
14. During the course of cross-examination of P.W.1 by
learned counsel for accused No.1, he categorically admitted
that he has not changed his name and caused any publication
in the newspaper on 25.06.2003 and also he has not met
notary by name B.G.Sridhar. He also admits that he gave
evidence during departmental enquiry and also copy of the
evidence given before the Enquiry Officer during departmental
enquiry which is marked as Ex.D6. In the cross-examination,
he also admits that one Jayaram, Secretary of Eshwara Temple
is known to him and he had filed complaint against him in
- 16 -
NC: 2026:KHC:18106
HC-KAR
Siddapura Police Station, Bengaluru which came to be
registered in Crime No.255/2006 and the accused No.1 himself
investigated the matter and filed the charge-sheet against him.
He admits that he visited the office of Lokayuktha twice. He
also admits that on 01.02.2007 when he visited the Lokayuktha
Police Inspector, he told about demand of bribe by accused
No.1 and he has given oral statement on 01.02.2007 and the
same was not reduced into writing. But, he says he was not
possessing cash on 01.02.2007 and accused No.2 was working
as Assistant Sub-Inspector of Police and he did not know the
rank of accused No.2 in the year 2007. But, accused No.2 had
not visited the above temple and he do not know who is the
witness by name Sridhar. He also says that one witness by
name Aradhya is known to him. Earlier to 02.02.2007 twice he
visited Siddapura Police Station, Bengaluru. On 29.12.2006 and
30.12.2006, he went to Siddapura Police Station and he also
says that he voluntarily went to the said police station on these
two days to ascertain about the case registered against him. At
that time, charge-sheet was not filed. But, he has not spoken
to Jayaram on those two days. When the suggestion was made
that, no work was pending with accused No.1 as on the date of
- 17 -
NC: 2026:KHC:18106
HC-KAR
alleged trap and the same was denied and suggestion was
made that accused No.1 never demanded any money and the
same was denied. It is suggested that accused No.2 was
favouring him in his official work in Siddapura Police Station
and the same was denied.
15. The other witness is P.W.2, who is a shadow
witness. He says that he accompanied P.W.1 and also speaks
about mahazar drawn in terms of Ex.P2 as well as Exs.P8 and
P16. He also says that he went along with P.W.1 and accused
No.1 demanded a sum of Rs.50,000/- from P.W.1 and P.W.1
pleaded inability and told that he brought Rs.10,000/-. The
accused No.1 pointed out accused No.2 and told P.W.1 to give
Rs.10,000/- to accused No.2 and accused No.2 counted the
same in both hands and kept the same in right side pocket of
his hand. The accused No.1 came out of police station and
wiped his face with kerchief. This witness was subjected to
cross-examination. In the cross-examination, he admits that he
has given evidence before the Enquiry Officer in the
departmental enquiry against accused Nos.1 and 2. But, he
says that he has not read the complaint against P.W.1 touching
Durgaparameshwari Temple and he has not read Ex.P1 which
- 18 -
NC: 2026:KHC:18106
HC-KAR
was filed by P.W.1. He also says that he cannot say the date on
which the statement was recorded by the Investigating Officer.
Except on the day of trap, he has not visited the office of
C.W.15 on any other day and he has not seen the sketch drawn
by C.W.15 and he has not given any statement as per Ex.D1.
However, he gave evidence during departmental enquiry and
also admits two sheets consisting his evidence which is now
marked as Ex.D2. He also admits that he cannot say the name
of Centri in Siddapura Police Station, Bengaluru and also cannot
say the total number of police staff present in that police
station. It is also his evidence that P.W.1 entered that police
station and he was outside the said police station when P.W.1
entered and he could not hear the conversation between P.W.1
and accused No.1 and he has not heard the conversation
between accused No.1 and P.W.1. However, he says between
3.15 p.m. and 4.15 p.m. on that day, accused No.1 was not in
that police station. Nobody told him that accused No.1 had left
the police station for rounds.
16. The other witness is P.W.3, who is a panch witness
with regard to pre-trap. So also, P.W.4 is the retired
Superintendent of Police, who accorded sanction in terms of
- 19 -
NC: 2026:KHC:18106
HC-KAR
Ex.P17. The other witness is P.W.5, who is a retired Deputy
Superintendent of Police and having received the complaint, he
has done all the formalities.
17. Having considered the evidence available before the
Court, in a case of trap done by the Lokayuktha police, very
demand and acceptance is the sine qua non for convicting the
accused persons. In the case on hand, it is the case of
prosecution that work was pending with accused. It is also the
case of prosecution that accused No.1 instructed the accused
No.2 to receive money from P.W.1. The prosecution, in order to
prove the case of demand and acceptance relied upon the
evidence of P.Ws.1 and 2. No doubt, P.W.1 in his evidence says
that accused demanded money only to help him to do pooja as
priest in the temple. It is not the case of the prosecution that in
order to help him in the case registered against him, he gave
the money.
18. It is important to note that already charge-sheet
was filed on 02.02.2007 itself. When such being the case, with
regard to filing of charge-sheet, no work was pending with
accused No.1. It is also important to note that P.W.1 says that
- 20 -
NC: 2026:KHC:18106
HC-KAR
in order to help him to continue the job in the temple, he gave
him the cash. But, the fact is that to continue pooja as priest in
the temple demanded money and the fact that accused No.1
investigated the matter and filed the charge-sheet against
P.W.1 is not in dispute. When such being the case, the Court
has to appreciate the evidence with due care and caution and
the fact that accused No.1 initiated criminal prosecution against
P.W.1 is not in dispute and investigation is completed and
charge-sheet is also filed. Hence, normally, when the accused
No.1 has not helped him during the course of investigation,
there will be an animosity against accused No.1.
19. It is also important to note that P.W.1 says when he
went along with P.W.2 to the office of accused No.1, accused
No.1 enquired him about the presence of P.W.2 and when he
replied that he was his uncle, he was made to go outside the
office of accused No.1. Hence, it is clear that P.W.2 was not
present at the time of demand and acceptance of money by
accused No.1 and even given instructions to accused No.2 to
receive money. P.W.2 categorically admits in the cross-
examination that he did not hear any conversation between
- 21 -
NC: 2026:KHC:18106
HC-KAR
accused No.1 and P.W.2. Hence, the question of demand and
acceptance does not arise.
20. It is further important to note that P.W.1 says that
when he accompanied P.W.2, P.W.2 was sent out and the same
is not spoken by P.W.2. But, in his chief evidence, he says that
in his presence, demand was made and accused No.2 accepted
the money. It is also important to note that it is the case of the
prosecution that Lokayuktha police rushed to the office of
accused No.1 at 3.45 p.m. and all procedures were done
including the trap at 4.30 p.m. P.W.2 says that accused No.1
was not in the police station and when the presence of accused
No.1 is disputed and the evidence is not consistent with the
evidence of prosecution witnesses and the theory of defence
that the tainted money was thrusted in the pant of accused
No.2 is probabilized.
21. It is also important to note that the Trial Court
while considering the evidence of P.W.5, who is the
Investigating Officer and also considering the evidence of
P.Ws.1 and 3 comes to the conclusion that mere recovery of
tainted money i.e., phenolphthalein powder on the notes itself
- 22 -
NC: 2026:KHC:18106
HC-KAR
will not amount to come to such a conclusion. The Trial Judge
also having considered the principles laid down in the judgment
in AIR 2013 SC 3368, AIR 2012 SC 2263 and the judgment
in (2011) 6 SC 450 taken note that mere recovery of tainted
amount in the absence of corroboration regarding demand will
not fasten the guilt. In the case on hand, when the demand and
acceptance is not proved by any of the independent witness
and the evidence of shadow witness is not consistent and P.W.1
evidence is not suffice to come to a conclusion that there was
demand and acceptance and sine qua non regarding demand
and acceptance is not proved in the case on hand.
22. Hence, the Trial Court rightly not accepted the case
of prosecution and arrived at the conclusion that accused Nos.1
and 2 have not committed the offence punishable under
Section 8 and 13(1)(d) punishable under Section 13(2) of
Prevention of Corruption Act. When such reasoning is given by
the Trial Court, it is not a case to reverse the findings of the
Trial Court. While reversing the finding, there must be cogent
evidence before the Court and evidence of P.Ws.1 and 2 which
are material in a case of trap is concerned is not consistent with
each other and the evidence of P.Ws.1 and 2 is contrary to
- 23 -
NC: 2026:KHC:18106
HC-KAR
each other. Though, P.W.3 supports the case of prosecution,
the same will not tilt the case of prosecution. The P.W.5
conducted the trap and the Court cannot accept the theory of
demand and acceptance in the absence of consistent evidence.
Hence, I do not find any ground to reverse the finding of the
Trial Court in the absence of cogent evidence before the Trial
Court. Therefore, I answer Point No.(1) accordingly.
Point No.(2):
23. In view of the discussion made above, I pass the
following:
ORDER
The criminal appeal is dismissed.
SD/-
(H.P.SANDESH)
JUDGE
MD/ST
List No.: 1 Sl No.: 5
