The State Of Karnataka vs Ramesh
2026 Latest Caselaw 1221 Kant

Karnataka High Court

The State Of Karnataka vs Ramesh on 12 February, 2026

Author: V.Srishananda

Bench: V.Srishananda

                                                     -1-
                                                              Crl.A.No.100147 of 2016




                            IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, AT DHARWAD
                             DATED THIS THE 12TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2026
                                                BEFORE
                               THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V.SRISHANANDA
                                 CRIMINAL APPEAL No.100147 OF 2016
                      BETWEEN

                      THE STATE OF KARNATAKA,
                      LOKAYUKTHA POLICE,
                      POLICE INSPECTOR,
                      KARNATAKA LOKAYUKTA,
                      POLICE WING, BELAGAVI.
                      REPRESENTED BY
                      SPECIAL PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
                      KARNATAKA LOKAYUKTA.
                                                                         ...APPELLANT
                      (BY SRI. SANTOSH B. MALAGOUDAR, ADVOCATE)

                      AND

                      RAMESH S/O TATYASAHEB TAVANAKKI,
                      AGE: 53 YEARS,
                      OCC: ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER,
                      HESCOM, CHIKODI.
                                                                       ...RESPONDENT
                      (BY SRI. G.M.BHAT, ADVOCATE)
CHANDRASHEKAR
LAXMAN
KATTIMANI
                            THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL IS FILED U/SEC. 378(1) AND (3) OF
                      CR.P.C., 1973, SEEKING TO GRANT LEAVE TO APPEAL AGAINST THE
                      JUDGMENT AND ORDER OF ACQUITTAL PASSED BY THE IV ADDL.
Digitally signed by
CHANDRASHEKAR
                      DISTRICT AND SESSIONS & SPECIAL JUDGE, AT BELAGAVI, DATED
LAXMAN
KATTIMANI
                      1/10/2015 IN SPL. C. No.37/2013 AND TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT
Date: 2026.02.13      AND ORDER OF ACQUITTAL PASSED BY THE IV ADDL. DISTRICT AND
12:47:06 +0530
                      SESSIONS & SPECIAL JUDGE, AT BELAGAVI, DATED 01/10/2015 IN
                      SPL.C. No.37/2013 AND TO CONVICT AND SENTENCE THE
                      RESPONDENT/ACCUSED PERSON FOR THE OFFENCES PUNISHABLE
                      U/SEC. 7, 13(1),(d) R/W SEC. 13(2) OF PREVENTION OF CORRUPTION
                      ACT, 1988.

                            THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED
                      FOR JUDGMENT ON 28.01.2026, COMING ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT
                      THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:
                                 -2-
                                             Crl.A.No.100147 of 2016




                          CAV JUDGMENT

(PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V.SRISHANANDA)

The State represented by Belagavi Lokayukta is the

appellant challenging the judgment of acquittal passed in Special

Case No.37/2013 dated 01.10.2015 by the IV Additional District

and Sessions Judge and Special Judge (PCA), Belagavi.

2. Facts in the nutshell, which are utmost necessary for

disposal of the present appeal are as under:

A complaint came to be lodged with Lokayukta police,

Belagavi, by Sri Anil Pandurang Kurani (P.W.2), contending that,

in the year 2011, he wanted to establish a flour mill and in that

regard, he had gone to the office of HESCOM at Ankalagi and

gave an application seeking permission.

3. After inspecting the spot, concerned Officer said to have

informed the complainant that two electric poles are to be

installed for providing necessary electric connection for

establishing the flour mill. He also sought for certain documents

which were furnished to him and he countersigned on those

documents and told that it should be sent to the higher officials.

4. On 14.09.2011, he took those documents and visited the

Office of Assistant Executive Engineer and met Sri Kullura. He

completed his work on the application and sent it to further

higher official who is the accused.

5. After verifying the documents that were given in a file,

accused said to have demanded Rs.2,200/- as illegal gratification

for according the permission. Since the complainant was not

interested in parting away with the said sum, he approached the

Lokayukta Police.

6. After hearing the complaint averments, Lokayukta police

gave a voice recorder and asked the complainant to record his

conversation with the accused. Accordingly, complainant went

back to the office of the accused and got the conversation

recorded.

7. Thereafter, complaint came to be registered and based on

the complaint averments, Lokayukta police secured two

independent Government servants as panchas. Six currency

notes comprising of four notes of Rs.500/- denomination and two

notes of Rs.100/- denomination were secured and recorded the

serial numbers of the said currency notes on a separate paper.

Phenolphthalein powder was smeared on those currency notes

and demonstrated the chemical reaction of phenolphthalein

powder with sodium carbonate solution. Thereafter,

experimental mahazar was drawn.

8. Thereafter, complainant and shadow witness reached

Chikkodi and they went inside the office of the accused and met

him. Accused said to have demanded the bribe money and

accordingly, complainant tendered the tainted currency to the

accused which was taken by him and kept in his shirt pocket.

Immediately, complainant gave the pre-designated signal to the

remaining raid party members.

9. Following the said signal, remaining raid party members

including the head of the raid party arrived at the spot and

enquired the accused about handling of the tainted currency

which he took out from his shirt pocket. Same were seized in

the presence of panchas and the serial numbers of the tainted

currency were tallied with the numbers entered in the

experimental mahazar.

10. Thereafter, accused was arrested. Necessary documents

were collected and accused was produced before the

jurisdictional Special Judge and then he was sent to judicial

custody.

11. After thorough investigation, charge came to be filed.

Presence of the accused was secured and thereafter, charges

were framed. Accused pleaded not guilty and therefore, Trial

was held.

12. In order to prove the case of the prosecution, in all eight

witnesses were examined as P.Ws.1 to 8 comprising of

complainant, shadow witness, co-pancha, PWD Engineer,

sanctioning Authority, Investigation Officer and FSL Officer.

13. Prosecution, in all, placed on record 24 documents which

were exhibited and marked as Exs. P-1 to P-24, comprising of

spot map, letter by Assistant Executive Engeer, PWD, Chikodi,

trap panchanama, entrustment panchanama, sanction order,

statement of complainant, list of currency note numbers, voice

confirmation panchanama, explanation by accused, statement of

prosecution witnesses, agreement, acknowledgment, complaint,

FIR, letter to BEO, Belagavi, letter to District Officer, BCM

Department, arrest memo, FSL Rport, photographs and compact

disc.

14. Prosecution also placed on record 13 material objects

which were exhibited and placed on record as M.Os.1 to 13

comprising of cover containing sample of phenolphthalein

powder, bottle containing sample distillery water, sample sodium

carbonate powder, cash of Rs.2,200/-, bottle containing sample

of sodium carbonate solution, bottle containing the right and left

hand fingers wash solution, bottle containing the solution of shirt

pocket wash of accused, shirt of the accused, DVD and seal of

English alphabet 'B'.

15. On conclusion of recording of the evidence, accused

statement as is contemplated under Section 313 of the Code of

Criminal Procedure was recorded and thereafter, arguments were

heard and accused was acquitted by the impugned judgment.

16. Being agreed by the same, present appeal has been filed

by the State on following grounds:

• The evidence of PW-2 complainant Anil Pamdurang Kurani., has in his chief examination wherein he has categorically stated about the demand made by accused regarding payment of Rs.2200/- as illegal gratification and it is further stated in the evidence of PW-2 that Accused first demanded Rs.2200/ and on request of complainant to reduce he did not reduce. He

also admits about giving application for electricity supply to his Floor mill in Ankalgi HESCOM Office and he also admits as per the request of the Officer he took Bond and Record of Rights of the property to be signed by the Higher Officer HESCOM Chikodi on 14-9-2011, AEE Kullur after taking my signature and completing the procedure sent the papers to his Higher Officer i.e the Accused., after looking in to the file along with the estimate, I requested the accused to supply electricity to my floor mill, accused demanded Rs. 2200/- The Court below has not considered the chief examination of PW2 wherein he has admitted giving written complaint, and admitted the pre and post trap by the Lokayukta S.P Belgavi, ExP3, ExP3(a). ExP4, ExP4(a) MO1-4. The Trial Court Judge has not considered the Complainant's statement in his cross examination in para 4 of pg 10-11 denies.

• The court below ought to have seen that PW-4 shadow witness Mr:Mahabaleshwar Ramchandrappa Amashi.,has stated about the filing of complaint before Lokayukta Police.ExP-14.and ExP15.P.S.Crime No.19/2011, by the complaint. PW-4 has further stated about the entrustment of 4 currency notes of Rs. 500-/ and 2 currancy notes of Rs.100/- denominations, after applying the phenolphthalein powder to to the notes same were handed over to PW2 the complainant, conducting of chemical test, under Ex.P23. and also admits about the conversation in phone recorded which was played in his presence and the conversation

therein disclosed the demand made by the accused. ExP8 ExP24, 24(a)(b).

• That with regard to trap that PW4 shadow witness states that he along with complainant went to the Office of the accused to handover bribe amount to accused. As told earlier complainant gave a pre- arranged signal to the investigating officer who came along with his staff and also another panch to the spot. Accordingly tainted amount was recovered. same was seized with Rs.2200/- and sealed. And identifies the bate amount Rs.2,200/- which accused received-M.O.6. and the money recovered was the same which were entrusted to PW-2 under Ex P-4.

• PW-5 another punch witness Mr:Ramesh Parappa Devmane, corroborated with PW4. Regarding entrustment of money under ExP4. And supports the Prosecution adnits about pre and post trap panchaname ExP-3 ExP4.

• The accused did not dispute about the recovery of money as per Exp3. gave written explanation as under

Exp 9 and ExP9(d), of accused. Accused stated that the theory of defence is that said money was returned by the complainant as loan advanced by accused, is denied by the Complainant PW2 and PW4.

• The documents Exhibit P-4 entrustment panchaname, Ex P-3 i.e., trap mahazar and the FSL report at Exhibit P-23 would clearly prove the fact of demand and acceptance.

• The official favour for demanding bribe is clearly explained by the PW-2 as the accused told to pay the bribe. The said evidence would prove the official favour sought to done.

• The evidence of PW-2 clearly states the sequence of events in respect of demand, acceptance and recovery of bribe from accused. The said evidence is in consonance with the evidence of PW-4 which proves the guilt of accused punishable under Section 13 of Prevention of Corruption Act.

•     That the Court below has erred in not taking into
consideration       of      the       evidence      of    PW8

Sri:R.R.Amadagatti, who is the Investigation Office, who has stated the PW-2 appeared before him on 15/9/2011 and told him about the demand made by the accused and field written complaint No.19/2011,and in order to confirm whether there was such a demand by the accused, he gave tape recorder to PW2 and told to meet the accused and record the conversation. According on 16/9/2011 PW2 again appeared before the Police Station and handed over the mobile vice recorded conversation after hearing the contents. MO-12, was entrusted to PW2 Recovery of MO-6 from the accused after the trap under Mahazer ExP3.

• The court below erred in not appreciating presumption under Section 20 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1998 and in the absence of accused

- 10 -

rebutting the same court below was not justified in passed the judgment and order of acquittal."

17. Sri Santosh B. Malagoudar, learned counsel for the

appellant would contend that the complainant has supported the

case of the prosecution to a major extent. Minor contradictions

in his evidence and answers obtained in the cross-examination

has been wrongly appreciated by the learned Special Judge,

especially in recording an order of acquittal, that too when

shadow witness has supported the case of the prosecution and

trap is successful and colour test stood passed.

18. He would further contend that, co-pancha has supported

the case of the prosecution about the experimental mahazar and

his presence at the time of colour test, handling of the tainted

currency has been ignored by the learned Special Judge.

19. He would also contend that the illegal demand made by the

accused for showing the official favour which is a prime

ingredient and acceptance and handling of the tainted currency

and work of the complainant pending with the accused would

complete the offence inasmuch as all ingredients to attract the

offence under Sections 13(1)(d) and 13(2) of the Prevention of

Corruption Act has been met. Same is not properly appreciated

- 11 -

by the learned Special Judge and thus sought for allowing the

appeal.

20. It is his further contention that the written complaint is in

conformity with the voice recording and same is not properly

appreciated by the learned Special Judge. In the impugned

judgment, learned Special Judge has ignored the presumption

available to the prosecution under Section 20 of the Prevention

of Corruption Act and sought for allowing the appeal.

21. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent/accused Sri

G.M.Bhat, would support the impugned judgment by contending

that prosecution has not been able to establish that accused has

received the illegal gratification from the complainant and

explanation given by the accused is properly appreciated by the

learned Special Judge and sought for dismissal of the appeal.

22. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties, the

following points would arise for consideration:

(i) Whether the prosecution successfully established all the ingredients to attract the offence punishable under Section 7, 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988?

- 12 -

(ii) Whether the impugned judgment is suffering from legal infirmity or perversity and thus calls for interference?

(iii) If the answer to point No.(i) is affirmative, what is the sentence?

(iv) What Order?

23. REGARDING POINT Nos.(i) AND (ii): In the case on

hand, in order to establish the guilt of the accused, eight

witnesses have been examined and 24 documents and 13

material objects are placed on record. Among the prosecution

witnesses, PW-1 is the Engineer who prepared the spot sketch at

the request of Investigation Officer which is marked as Ex.P-1

and said evidence is formal in nature.

24. The complainant is examined as PW-2. He has supported

the case of the prosecution to a major extent in deposing about

his application being processed by the concerned officials right

from the Officer of Ankalagi till upto the stage of according

permission by the accused and accused demanding illegal

gratification in a sum of Rs.2,200/- and about the experimental

mahazar and trap mahazar.

- 13 -

25. However, he was treated as partly hostile as he deposed

that before proceeding to trap, nothing is taken from him. So

also, he did not support as to the photographs taken at the time

of experimental mahazar.

26. As such, the statement recorded under Section 161 of the

Code of Criminal Procedure by the Investigation Officer has been

confronted after treating the witness as partly hostile.

27. But, complainant did not support the handing over sum of

Rs.2,200/- by him to the Investigation Officer and also furnishing

the serial numbers of the currency notes.

28. In his cross-examination on behalf of the accused, he

admits that he has studied upto 7th Standard and he does not

know how to read and write English. He admits that the form

from the KPTCL is not obtained by him but it is obtained by the

contractor.

29. He admits that as on the date of cross-examination, he has

not installed the flour mill. He also admits that he was earlier

working as a gangman in Karnataka Electricity Board at Nippani

- 14 -

and he has been removed from the service as he was not

working satisfactorily.

30. He also admits that he was licensing between the

customers and KEB in getting the work done through the KEB

office. He admits that he has borrowed money from the KEB

officials whenever there used to be financial crunch. He also

admits that he was irregular in repayment of such loan amounts.

31. He specifically admits that, on the day of the trap, what

has been paid by him to the accused is the repayment of loan

amount borrowed from the accused.

32. The shadow witness is examined as PW-4. He supported

the case of the prosecution by deposing as per the contents of

experimental and trap mahazar. He specifically deposed about

handling of tainted currency by the accused and the actual trap

that has taken place.

33. In his cross-examination, he has stated that he had been

to the Lokayukta office on 15.09.2011 at about 06.00 p.m. He

has answered that he did not go to his school on 16.09.2011.

He has further answered that when they went inside the cabin of

- 15 -

the accused, there were 6 or 7 other persons. He admits that

Police Inspector alone had the talk with accused and no other

person had spoken to the accused. He further answered that he

does not know how to operate the voice recorder. He also

admits that he got acquainted with the complainant at 07.10 am

on 16.09.2011.

34. P.W-5 is co-pancha. He has supported the case of the

prosecution. He has been treated as partly hostile by the

prosecution. He admitted that written explanation was given by

the accused vide Ex. P-9. In his cross-examination, he has

stated that he is a MBA degree holder and he has acted as a

pancha for the first time. He admits that he is not an expert in

identifying the voice.

35. The Section officer of HESCOM is examined as PW-6. He

deposed about the trap having taken place in the office and shirt

pocket of the accused was washed in sodium carbonate solution

and colour test being positive. He has answered in his cross-

examination that complainant used to serve tea in the HESCOM

office. But he does not know the further details as to the

relationship between accused and complainant.

- 16 -

36. He has admitted that complainant was not taking any

money for supply of tea and he was doing '©nÖ ZÁPÀj' meaning

'free service'. He has answered that when Vajantri was the

Union Leader, there was no enmity between Vajantri and the

accused.

37. The Dy.S.P (Investigating Officer) is examined as P.W.8

who deposed about receipt of complaint, preparing experimental

mahazar, trap mahazar, actual trap and further investigation and

filing the charge sheet. The other witnesses are formal in

nature.

38. On cumulative consideration of the above evidence on

record, it is seen that complainant was earlier working as a

gangman in KEB. He has been removed from the service and

therefore he nurtured enmity. Further, he was acquainted with

all persons in the office as he used to supply tea in the office of

the accused.

39. Admittedly, complainant has studied only upto 7th Standard

and he has admitted that he could not read or write English

language. He admits that the application seeking permission to

- 17 -

install the flour mill was not filled up by him and it was done by

the contractor.

40. In his cross-examination, complainant has categorically

admitted that he used to borrow money from the officials of KEB

including the accused. He admits that he was irregular in

repayment of the loan amount borrowed from the officials.

41. In the cross-examination of complainant by the prosecution

itself, he has stated that he did not hand over Rs.2,200/- to the

hands of Dy.S.P which is smeared with the phenolphthalein

powder. Further he has specifically admitted that he had repaid

the sum of Rs.2,200/- which was borrowed by him. Who gave

Rs.2,200/- to the hands of the Dy.S.P before the experimental

mahazar took place is a question that remains unanswered.

42. If the complainant was having difficulty in repaying the

loan amounts to the officials from whom he had borrowed, how

he would be in a position to tender Rs.2,200/- to the accused

only with an intention to get him trapped is a question that

remains again unanswered.

- 18 -

43. Further, in the absence of positive evidence on record as to

the demand and acceptance of the illegal gratification, the

question of proving the prime ingredient to attract the offence

under Section 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act itself

is not established by the prosecution by placing cogent evidence

on record.

44. The shadow witness admits that about 5 to 7 persons were

present when the complainant gave the pre-designated signal to

the raid party. However, none of those persons are examined as

witnesses by the Investigation Agency. Co-pancha admits that he

is not an expert to identify the voice of the accused. No other

material is placed on record as to the proof of voice recording.

45. Taking note of these aspects of the matter, learned Special

Judge has recorded an order of acquittal, as evidence of shadow

witness alone was not sufficient to prove the prime ingredients,

especially when the complainant has turned totally hostile to the

case of the prosecution.

46. Further, after the complainant gave the contradictory

answers to the case of the prosecution by admitting the

suggestions made to him in the cross-examination by the

- 19 -

accused, the learned Special Public Prosecutor did not choose to

treat him as hostile witness and cross-examine on those aspects

of the matter bringing into the notice of the learned Special

Judge that the complainant is won over by the accused, after his

examination-in-chief.

47. All these aspects of the matter when viewed cumulatively,

this Court is of the considered view that the finding recorded by

the learned Special Judge is a possible finding and therefore,

needs no interference, in view of the fact that an order of

acquittal reinforces the innocence of the accused and if two

views are permissible, the view that favours the accused must be

preferred by the First Appellate Court.

48. It is also to be borne in mind that prosecution cannot seek

for an order of conviction only on suspicion inasmuch as

prosecution is required to travel a long distance between the

'suspicion' and 'actual proof' thereof.

49. Accordingly, from the above discussion, point Nos.(i) and

(ii) are answered in the negative.

- 20 -

50. REGARDING POINT No.(iii): Since the finding of this

Court on point No.(i) is in the negative, this point would not arise

for consideration.

51. REGARDING POINT No.(iv): In view of the finding of

this Court on point Nos.(i) to (iii) as above, the following:

ORDER

(i) Appeal dismissed.

(ii) Bail bond stands discharged.

Sd/-

(V.SRISHANANDA) JUDGE

kcm CT-CMU