[Cites 5, Cited by 0]
Karnataka High Court
The State Of Karnataka vs P.S. Gangadharappa on 16 February, 2026
Author: V.Srishananda
Bench: V.Srishananda
-1-
Crl.A.No.100064 of 2017
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, AT DHARWAD
DATED THIS THE 16TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2026
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V.SRISHANANDA
CRIMINAL APPEAL No.100064 OF 2017
BETWEEN
THE STATE OF KARNATAKA,
REPRESENTED BY SPECIAL PUBLIC
PROSECUTOR,
KARNATAKA LOKAYUKTA POLICE,
HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
BENCH HAT DHARWAD, DHARWAD.
(LOKAYUKTA POLICE, HOSPETE)
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI. ANIL KALE, ADVOCATE)
AND
P.S. GANGADHARAPPA S/O SHIVARUDRAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS,
PANCHAYAT DEVELOPMENT OFFICE,
KANAHOSALLI,
R/O: PATTANASETTARA PAMAPANA COMPOUND,
GUDEKOTE ROAD, KUDLIGI.
...RESPONDENT
(BY SRI. HANUMANTHAREDDY, ADVOCATE)
CHANDRASHEKAR
LAXMAN THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL IS FILED 378 (1) AND (3) OF CR.P.C.
KATTIMANI
1973, SEEKING TO GRANT LEAVE TO APPEAL AGAINST THE
JUDGMENT AND ORDER OF ACQUITTAL PASSED BY THE I ADDL.
Digitally signed by
CHANDRASHEKAR
DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE AND SPECIAL JUDGE, BALLARI
LAXMAN
KATTIMANI (SITTING AT HOSAPETE) IN SPECIAL CASE NO. 49 OF 2012 AND TO
Date: 2026.02.17
16:59:10 +0530
SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND ORDER OF ACQUITTAL PASSED BY
THE I ADDL. DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BALLARI (SITTING AT
HOSAPETE) IN SPECIAL CASE NO. 49 OF 2012 AND TO CONVICT THE
SENTENCE THE RESPONDENT/ACCUSED PERSON FOR THE OFFENCES
PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTION 7, 13(1), (d) READ WITH SEC. 13(2) OF
PREVENTION OF CORRUPTION ACT 1988.
THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED
FOR JUDGMENT ON 28.01.2026 AND COMING ON FOR
PRONOUNCEMENT THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN
AS UNDER:
-2-
Crl.A.No.100064 of 2017
CAV JUDGMENT
(PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V.SRISHANANDA)
The State represented by Lokayukta, Hosapete, is the
appellant challenging the judgment of acquittal passed in Special
Case No.49/2012 dated 27.10.2016 by the III Additional District
and Sessions Judge, Ballari, sitting at Hosapete.
2. Facts in the nutshell, which are utmost necessary for
disposal of the present appeal are as under:
Complainant by name Sharanappa (P.W.1) lodged a
complaint with Lokayukta Police, Hosapete, alleging that he had
joined the job of a driver-cum-conductor in BMTC in the year
2004. He is discharging his work in Bengaluru. He possesses
landed property at Khana Hosalli village, Kudligi Taluk, bearing
Sy.No.907/B measuring 2 acres 12 guntas which is an ancestral
property. His mother Smt.Durugamma and wife Smt.Rekhamma
are residing in the said village. They are eking out their
livelihood by working under National Rural Employment
Guarantee Scheme ('NREGA' for short). They have been given
the job card bearing No.243 pertaining to Smt.Durugamma and
No.245 pertaining to Smt.Rekhamma. They have discharged the
work of constructing a bund in the land bearing Sy.No.907/B
under NREGA scheme.
3. However, since the payment was not made towards
discharge of the said work, complainant had approached the
Panchayath Development Officer ('PDO' for short) on 06.04.2011
who demanded amount in a sum of Rs.1,500/- as illegal
gratification for passing the cheque. Rs.500/- was demanded to
be paid immediately and balance sum of Rs.1,000/- was asked to
be paid later.
4. The complainant paid Rs.500/- and he was not willing to
part away the balance amount. Therefore, he lodged a
complaint with the Lokayukta police, Hosapete.
5. On receipt of the complaint, Lokayukta police secured two
independent Government servants as panchas. Ten currency
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.
6. On 07.04.2011, the complainant and shadow witness
proceeded to the office of the Lokayukta at 10.00 a.m.
Thereafter, they proceeded to the office of the accused around
11.30 a.m. The complainant was told by the head of the raid
party to hand over the tainted currency only on demand and
shadow witness was told to observe the activities that would take
place in the office of the accused and furnish the pre-designated
signal by washing the face with the kerchief.
7. After half an hour, complainant and shadow witness came
out of the office of Grama Panchayath and intimated that
accused was not available as he has gone to attend a meeting at
Kudligi and he would return at about 02.30 pm. Therefore, all of
them, i.e., the complainant and the raid team returned.
8. Again at about 02.40 p.m., the complainant and the raid
team went to the house of the accused, as the accused had
asked the complainant to come to his house at 2.30 pm. At
about 02.55 p.m., the complainant gave a pre-designated signal.
9. Immediately, the raid party went to the place where the
accused was found and recovered Rs.1,000/- from the accused.
Colour test was conducted which stood positive. Ten currency
notes of Rs.100/- denomination were recovered and its serial
numbers were tallied with the details mentioned in the
experimental mahazar.
10. Thereafter, accused was arrested and he was sent to
judicial custody. After detailed investigation, charge sheet came
to be filed.
11. Thereafter, learned Trial Judge took cognizance of the
offences alleged against the accused and secured his presence
and framed charges.
12. Accused did not plead guilty and therefore trial was held.
13. In order to prove the case of the prosecution, in all
fourteen witnesses were examined as PWs-1 to 14 and as many
as 47 documents were placed on record which were exhibited
and marked as Exs.P-1 to P-47.
14. During the course of cross-examination of PW-1, a
contradiction is marked on behalf of the defence as Ex.D-1.
15. Prosecution placed on record 20 material objects which
were marked as MOs-1 to 20.
16. Thereafter accused statement as is contempleated under
Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure was recorded
wherein, accused has denied all the incriminatory materials
alleged against him.
17. Subsequent there to, learned Trial Judge heard the
arguments of the parties and by the impugned judgment has
acquitted to accused.
18. Being aggrieved by the same, State has filed the present
appeal on the following grounds:
• "The court below ought to have seen the evidence of
PW-1 and PW-2 is consistent with regard to demand
and acceptance of bribe by accused and the
prosecution has proved beyond reasonable doubt
about the recovery of money from the accused as
such the conviction ought to have rendered for the
offences charged with to the accused.
• The fact that accused was PDO of Panchayat the wages
of complainant's mother and wife were not paid on the
date of trap is not disputed. The explanation of
accused at Exhibit P-26 at the time of raid given by
accused and produced in the case, showed that
accused do not dispute about the money being
recovered and his explanation was that money was
forcible given by PW-1. This fact is neither proved nor
a suggestion is put to any of the witnesses i.e., PW-1
and 2 in the cross examinations thereby admitting the
amount being received. There is no reason to
disbelieve the evidence of PW-1, 2 and the
investigating officer.
• The evidence of PW-1 and PW-2 clearly shows that
demand of money and receipt of the same by accused
for releasing the wages of complainant's wife and
mother under NAREGA. Minor discrepancies in the
evidence has been much considered by the court
below thereby rendering judgment of acquittal.
• The recovery of money during the duty is also not
disputed by the accused as such presumption under
Section 20 of Prevention of Corruption Act fully
attracts and there is no rebuttal to disprove the said
presumption.
• The court below ought to have seen that PW-2 shadow
witness has clearly stated regarding the demand and
acceptance of money from the complainant and the
stood the test of cross examination but nothing has
been elicited to disbelieve the version.
• The reading of entire judgment do not find appreciation
of evidence moreso when no defence evidence is
available to rebut the charge.
• The evidence of PW-5 and PW-6 clearly shows that
Durugamma i.e., mother of complainant was required
to be paid wages under NAREGA scheme and the said
cheque was in the file which was supposed to be given
by the accused."
19. Sri Anil Kale, learned counsel for the appellant reiterating
the grounds urged in the appeal memorandum vehemently
contended that the learned Trial Judge has not properly
appreciated the material evidence on record and wrongly
acquitted the accused.
20. He would further contend that evidence of PWs-1 and 2
though consistent with regard to the demand and acceptance of
illegal gratification, the learned Trial Judge has wrongly recorded
an order of acquittal.
21. He would further contend that accused being the PDO of
the Grama Panchayath, without paying the wages to the
beneficiaries i.e., the mother and wife of the complainant who
worked under the NREGA scheme, demanded illegal gratification
to pay the wages.
22. Therefore, all the ingredients required to prove the offence
under Section 7, Section 13(1)(d) r/w Section 13(2) stands
established which has not been properly appreciated by the
learned Trial Judge and therefore, sought for allowing the appeal.
23. He would further contend that the learned Trial Judge has
not properly appreciated the principles of law enunciated in the
decisions placed on record on behalf of the prosecution and
wrongly concluded that accused is innocent of the offences
alleged against him and thus, sought for allowing the appeal.
24. Per contra, Sri Hanumanthareddy Sahukar, learned counsel
for the respondent/accused would support the impugned
judgment.
25. He would contend that in the cross-examination of PW-2, it
is specifically elicited that it is the complainant alone who went
inside the house of the accused during the trap. Therefore, the
shadow witness was not at all present at the spot to establish
the demand and acceptance of alleged illegal gratification.
- 10 -
26. He would further contend that the very fact that accused
has paid Rs.500/- and not willing to pay Rs.1,000/- exposes the
hollowness in the case of the prosecution and thus sought for
dismissal of the appeal.
27. He would also contend that Bill Collector of the Grama
Panchayath has deposed about recovery of the action plan which
is marked at Ex.P-31, attendance register vide Ex.P-32 and bill
book at Ex.P-33, which would not establish that accused was
demanding the illegal gratification.
28. He also contended that the material evidence placed on
record is hardly sufficient for the purpose of establishing the
necessary ingredients to attract the alleged offence. There is no
proof in the voice recorder as to the demand and acceptance of
the illegal gratification and thus sought for dismissal of the
appeal.
29. Having heard the arguments of both sides, this Court
perused the material on record meticulously.
30. On such perusal of the material on record, the following
points would arise for consideration:
- 11 -
(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?
(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?
31. REGARDING POINT Nos.(i) AND (ii): In the case on
hand, acquaintance of the accused with the complainant is
established. Admittedly, complainant was working at Bengaluru
as a driver-cum-conductor in BMTC. According to him, his
mother Smt.Durugamma and his wife Smt.Rekhamma worked
under the NREGA scheme. Photocopy of the job card of
Durugamma is marked at Ex.P-2. Particulars of the name and
wages payable is found in Ex.P-2 and Ex.P-2(a). Likewise, list of
beneficiaries under the NREGA scheme is found at Ex.P-15.
32. The explanation offered by the accused is at Ex.P-26 which
reads as under:
- 12 -
"«µÀAiÀÄPÉÌ ¸ÀA§A¢ü¹zÀAvÉ CªÀjUÉ £Á£ÀÄ AiÀiÁªÀÅzÉà jÃwAiÀÄ°è
ºÀt¨ÉÃrPÉ EnÖgÀĪÀÅ¢®è. CªÀgÀÄ £À£ÀUÉ §®ªÀAvÀªÁV ºÀt
PÉÆqÀĪÀÅzÀPÉÌ §AzÁUÀ £À£ÀUÉ PÉÆqÀĪÀÅzÀPÉÌ §AzÁUÀ £Á£ÀÄ ºÀt
vÉUÉzÀÄPÉÆAqÀĪÀÅzÀ CAvÀ ºÉýzÀgÉ ¸ÀºÀ £À£Àß ºÀwÛgÀ §AzÀÄ
§®ªÀAvÁ ºÀt PÉÆqÀĪÀÅzÀPÉÌ §A¢zÁÝgÉ. DzÀÝjAzÀ vÁªÀÅUÀ¼ÀÄ
£À£ÀߣÀÄß PÀë«Ä¸À¨ÉÃPÁV «£ÀAw."
33. In the case on hand, complainant has partly supported the
case of the prosecution. Admittedly, when the trap was to be
laid in the morning session, it was a failed trap inasmuch as
accused was not available in the office. It is the complainant
who has stated that he had a conversation with the accused over
mobile telephone wherein accused said to have told the
complainant to visit his house at 02.30 p.m. and handover the
bribe amount.
34. In his cross-examination, he has admitted that he does not
know what happened in the house of the accused in the
afternoon when the accused demanded for the payment of
money. Further, he denied having given a statement as per
Ex.D-1 (a line marked in Ex.P.18 at page No.105) which reads as
under:
- 13 -
"£ÀAvÀgÀ vÀªÀÄä ¸ÀÆZÀ£É ªÉÄÃgÉUÉ ¥ÀAZÀ-2gÀªÀgÀÄ £À£Àß
CAUÀ ±ÉÆÃzsÀ£É ªÀiÁrzÀÄÝ, £À£Àß°è F PÉù£À ¥ÀæxÀªÀÄ
ªÀvÀðªÀiÁ£À ªÀgÀ¢ ªÀiÁvÀæ EzÀÄÝ £ÀAvÀgÀ vÀªÀÄä ¸ÀÆZÀ£É
ªÉÄÃgÉUÉ ¦ü£Á¥ÀÛ°£ï ¥ÀÄr ºÀaÑzÀ £ÉÆÃlÄUÀ¼ÁzÀ
gÀÆ.1,000/- UÀ¼À£ÀÄß ¥ÀAZÀ-1gÀªÀgÀÄ £À£Àß µÀnð£À
JqÀUÀqÉ eÉé£À°è ElÖgÀÄ."
35. Complainant also deposed that he does not know what
conversation took place which is recorded in the voice recorder.
36. PW-3/Rekhamma did not support the case of the
prosecution. Likewise, PW-7 who is the co-worker of the
accused stated that he does not know about the accused
withholding the wages of mother and wife of the complainant
and demanding illegal gratification for payment of said wages.
37. Thus, when the prosecution is unable to prove the fact of
demand and acceptance of bribe money which is a sine qua non
parameter, this Court has to look into whether there is any
material evidence through the oral testimony of shadow witness
who is examined as PW-2.
- 14 -
38. Sri Suresh is the shadow witness who is examined as PW-2
has deposed about the entrustment mahazar and signatory to
the trap mahazar.
39. In his cross-examination, he specifically admits that in the
second attempt to trap the accused in his house, it is the
complainant alone who went inside the house and he did not go
inside the house. Therefore, he does not know what transpired
inside the house of the accused.
40. But the contents of trap mahazar would go to show that
shadow witness had also accompanied the complainant and has
observed the demand and acceptance of the tainted currency.
He also did not answer about recording of the voice of accused
and the complainant at the time of demand and acceptance.
41. Thus, there is no material evidence which would specifically
establish that there was demand and acceptance.
42. It is settled principles of law and requires no emphasis that
prosecution has to establish the fact of demand and acceptance
of bribe money by placing cogent evidence on record in order to
bring home the guilt of the accused to establish the offence
- 15 -
punishable under Sections 7, 13(1)(d) r/w Section 13(2) of the
Prevention of Corruption Act.
43. Further, explanation marked at Ex.P-26 referred to supra,
shows that the money was thrusted into the hands of the
accused.
44. Admittedly, when PW-2 did not accompany the
complainant inside the house of the accused at 02.55 p.m., on
07.04.2011, only on the basis of the contents of the trap
mahazar, there cannot be a finding that prosecution has
established that the accused willfully received the tainted
currency (illegal gratification) from the custody of the accused.
45. Complainant also having turned hostile to what transpired
inside the house of the accused and no useful material having
been elicited in the cross-examination of the complainant, this
Court does not find any good ground to interfere with the finding
recorded by the learned Trial Judge in establishing the fact that
the prosecution has failed to prove the case against the accused.
46. Thus from the above discussion, point Nos.(i) and (ii) are
answered in the negative.
- 16 -
47. 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.
48. 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
