[Cites 4, Cited by 0]
Karnataka High Court
The State Of Karnataka vs Sri Basheerahamad S/O. Maktumsab Mulla on 18 February, 2026
Author: V.Srishananda
Bench: V.Srishananda
-1-
Crl. A.No.100136 of 2015
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, AT DHARWAD
DATED THIS THE 18TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2026
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V.SRISHANANDA
CRIMINAL APPEAL No.100136 OF 2015
BETWEEN
THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
SPECIAL PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
KARNATAKA LOKAYUKTA POLICE,
HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
BENCH AT DHARWAD, DHARWAD.
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI. SRINIVAS B. NAIK, ADVOCATE)
AND
SRI BASHEERAHAMAD S/O. MAKTUMSAB MULLA
AGE NOT KNOWN,
COMMERCIAL TAX INSPECTOR,
OFFICE OF ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF COMMERCIAL TAX,
HUBBALLI OF HUBBALLI,
R/O. KUSUGAL ROAD, PLOT NO. 5
MADHURA COLONY, HUBBALLI, DIST: DHARWAD.
...RESPONDENT
(BY SMT. VAISHALI K. KALADAGI, AMICUS CURIE)
CHANDRASHEKAR
LAXMAN THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL IS FILED U/S 378(1) AND (3) OF
KATTIMANI
CR.P.C., SEEKING TO GRANT LEAVE TO APPEAL AGAINST THE
JUDGMENT AND ORDER OF ACQUITTAL PASSED BY THE III ADDL.
DISTRICT & SESSIONS & SPECIAL JUDGE, AT DHARWAD DATED
29/12/2014 IN SPL. KLA C.C.NO.7/2013 AND TO SET ASIDE THE
Digitally signed by
CHANDRASHEKAR JUDGMENT AND ORDER OF ACQUITTAL PASSED BY THE III ADDL.
LAXMAN
KATTIMANI DISTRICT & SESSIONS & SPECIAL JUDGE, AT DHARWAD DATED
Date: 2026.02.21
11:44:50 +0530 29/12/2014 IN SPL. KLA C.C.NO.7/2013 AND TO CONVICT AND
SENTENCE THE RESPONDENT / ACCUSED PERSON FOR THE OFFENCES
P/U/SEC.7, 13(1) (D) R/W SECTION 13(2) OF P.C. ACT, 1988.
THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED
FOR JUDGMENT ON 31.01.2026 AND COMING ON FOR
PRONOUNCEMENT THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN
AS UNDER:
-2-
Crl. A.No.100136 of 2015
CAV JUDGMENT
(PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V.SRISHANANDA)
The Lokayukta, Dharwad, is the appellant challenging the
order passed in Special KLA C.C.No.7/2013 dated 29.12.2014
passed by the III Addl. District and Sessions and Special Judge,
Dharwad, wherein respondent/accused has been acquitted for
the offence punishable under Sections 7, 13(1)(d) r/w Section
13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.
2. The facts in the nutshell which are utmost necessary for
disposal of the present appeal are as under:
2.1 A complaint came to be lodged by one Sri Kiran
Koneri with Lokayukta Police, Dharwad, contending that
complainant is running an industry in the name and style 'Kiran
Industries' standing in the name of his mother-Smt. Surekha,
whereunder vehicle spare parts are being manufactured. The
Industry was situated at plot No.12, Lakamanahalli Industrial
Area, Dharwad. There are seven workers working in the
industry.
2.2 It is his further case that on 06.11.2012, when the
complainant was in the industry, Sri Balaswamy who is the
Commercial Tax Assistant Commissioner and his assistant-Sri
Basheerahamad, S/o Maktumsab Mulla (respondent/accused)
visited the industry and demanded the books of accounts for the
year 2011-2012 and 2012-2013 for inspection. Complainant
furnished the necessary instructions by taking the print out from
the computer and assured to furnish the account books and
balance sheets as the same were with the Chartered Accountant
and sought for about 2 to 3 days' time.
2.3 At that juncture, it is the respondent who said that
Rs.5,000/- to Rs.10,000/- would be charged per visit to the
industry and demanded the said money. When the complainant
refused to pay the same, he was instructed to visit the office of
the Assistant Commissioner of Commercial Tax along with the
necessary records. About 2 to 3 days later complainant visited
the office of the accused and met the accused. Again, accused
demanded the illegal gratification without even verifying the
documents that has been procured by the complainant.
2.4 On 20.12.2012, a notice dated 12.12.2012 came to
be issued to the industry directing the complainant to visit the
office of the accused with necessary records. As such, one of the
employee of the complainant viz., Ramesh Goddemmi was sent
to the office of the accused on 22.12.2012. Later, complainant
again visited the office and accused assured that he will verify
the papers and then clearance certificate will be issued. Further
documents were also demanded which were sent through
Ramesh Goddemmi by the complainant.
2.5 However, the clearance certificate was not issued and
issuance of the same was dodged on by the accused on one
pretext or the other. Later on, complainant used to receive
telephone call from the office telephone of the accused
demanding Rs.5,000/- as illegal gratification.
2.6 Having not interested in parting away with the illegal
gratification, complainant approached the Lokayukta Police,
Dharwad and lodged the written complaint.
3. Based on the complaint averments, Lokayukta police
secured two independent Government servants as panchas. Ten
currency notes of Rs.500/- 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.
4. On 23.02.2013, complainant, shadow witness and other
members of the raid team along with co-pancha left the
Lokayukta office at about 02.45 p.m. and reached the office
canteen at about 03.15 p.m. A button camera was also given to
the complainant to record at the time of complainant handing
over the tainted currency notes. After sometime, the
complainant came out from the canteen of the office of the
accused and gave a pre-designated signal by removing his specs.
Immediately, the rest of the raid team members proceeded to
the place where the accused, complainant and shadow witnesses
were there.
5. On enquiry, complainant told that accused showed him the
photocopy of the clearance certificate and demanded illegal
gratification of Rs.5,000/- and that he has handed over the
tainted currency notes which the accused took it from his right
hand and kept it in his shirt pocket and went to the office.
6. Thereafter, raid team followed the complainant inside the
office of the accused. At about 03.50 p.m., accused was
identified by the complainant and accused has been apprehended
by showing the identity card.
7. Accused revealed his name as Basheerahamad Maktumsab
Mulla and told that he has kept the money in the almirah and
took out the same. Ten currency notes of Rs.500/- denomination
were seized from the accused and serial numbers of the said
currency notes were compared with the serial numbers noted in
the experimental mahazar. The colour test stood positive and
accused was arrested.
8. After thorough investigation by the Lokayukta Police, a
charge sheet came to be filed.
9. Presence of the accused was secured and thereafter,
charges were framed. Accused pleaded not guilty and therefore,
Trial was held.
10. In order to prove the case of the prosecution, in all twelve
witnesses were examined as P.Ws.1 to 12 and, 29 documentary
evidence were placed on record which were exhibited and
marked as Exs.P.1 to P.29 besides 14 material objects, marked
as M.Os.1 to 14.
11. After completion of recording the evidence of the
prosecution witnesses, statement of the accused as is
contemplated under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal
Procedure was recorded, wherein, accused has denied all the
incriminatory evidence adduced against him.
12. Thereafter, arguments were heard and accused was
acquitted by the impugned judgment.
13. Being aggrieved by the same, present appeal has been
filed by the State on the following grounds:
"The evidence of PW-1 to PW-12 has been totally
misconstrued by the court below and rendering the
judgment of acquittal inspite of there prosecution having
proved the demand, acceptance and recovery being
proved in the case. Hence the impugned Judgment is
liable to be setaside.
The court below committed serious error in not
appreciating evidence of PW-1 and PW-2 which discloses
the demand made by accused for issuing clearance
certificate. The demand made on 23/2/2013 is witnessed
by PW-2 who stood the test of cross examination and
nothing worth is elicited to disbelieve the same.
The court below committed serious error in law in
misreading the evidence of PW-1 and PW-2 and has
erroneously come to a conclusion that they have given
admission to the effect that accused received sum of
Rs.5,000/- in order to do official favour of issuing
clearance certificate.
The currency notes mentioned in entrustment
panchanama at Exhibit P-2 and recovery made at the
instance of accused are one and the same. In addition
the chemical examiner's report at Exhibit P-20 also
fortifies the case of prosecution about the demand and
recovery of illegal gratification to do the official favour.
In view of the same there is clear case of offence being
made out punishable under Section 7, 13(1)(d) r/w
Section 13(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act.
The court below erred in not appreciating presumption
under Section 20 of the Prevention of Corruption Act,
1998 when there exists no rebuttal evidence to disprove
the said presumption. "
14. Sri Srinivas B.Naik, learned counsel for the appellant,
reiterating the grounds urged in the appeal memorandum, would
vehemently contend that the learned Special Judge has not
properly appreciated the material evidence on record. The
evidence of PWs.1 to 12 has not been appreciated in proper
perspective and wrongly acquitted the accused.
15. He would further contend that the material evidence placed
on record through oral testimony of PWs-1 and 2 clearly
discloses the demand of illegal gratification by the accused for
issue of clearance certificate to the complainant.
16. He further argued that PW-2 has specifically deposed that
on 23.02.2013 he has witnessed the demand made by the
accused and then the tainted currency was handed over to the
accused which was kept in his shirt pocket and recovered from
the almirah which would make it clear that the prosecution has
been successful in establishing all the ingredients to attract the
offence under Sections 7, 13(1)(d) r/w Section 13(2) of the
Prevention of Corruption Act. Therefore, the Order of acquittal is
incorrect.
17. Since there was no representation on behalf of the
respondent, Ms.Vaishali K.Kaladagi, learned counsel was
appointed as amicus curiae to represent the respondent/ accused
in the present appeal.
18. Learned amicus curiae would contend that the complainant
has not supported the case of the prosecution and he has turned
hostile. Therefore, complainant has been treated as partly
hostile witness and cross-examined by the prosecution in detail.
But no material is elicited in such cross-examination. Therefore,
demand and acceptance is not proved.
- 10 -
19. She would further contend that cross-examination of
shadow witness would make it clear that he did not actually
observe what transpired at the time of the alleged handing over
of the tainted currency.
20. Therefore, important material evidence viz., demand and
acceptance to establish the offence under Sections 7, 13(1)(d)
r/w Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act is not
established. Therefore, sought for dismissal of the Appeal.
21. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties, the
following points would arise for consideration:
(i) Whether the prosecution has successfully
established all the ingredients to attract the offence
punishable under Sections 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?
- 11 -
22. REGARDING POINT Nos.(i) AND (ii): In the case on
hand, complainant running an industry in the name and style
'Kiran Industries' which is standing in the name of his mother is
established. So also, accused along with the Assistant
Commissioner of Commercial Tax visiting the industry of the
complainant on 06.11.2012 is not in dispute. Subsequent visits
of the accused are also not in dispute.
23. Clearance certificate was sought for, which has been
deposed to by PW-1 in his examination-in-chief. He has also
deposed about the accused demanding Rs.5,000/- as illegal
gratification. However, PW-1 did not support the case of the
prosecution in toto. He has specifically answered in the
examination-in-chief itself that on the day of trap, he did not
visit the office of the accused as he had pain in the leg. Accused
had told him to wait in the canteen. However, when he reached
the canteen and called the accused, accused did not come and
after sometime he came on the second call. By then, accused
had brought the clearance certificate. Thus, work of the
complainant was not pending with the accused.
- 12 -
24. However, he did not support the case of the prosecution
further, in toto. He identified the experimental mahazar and his
signature on the mahazar. In his cross-examination by
prosecution, he admits the contents of trap mahazar.
25. In his cross-examination on behalf of accused, he admits
that his industry would be covered by Value Added Tax and he
would get the notice from the Value Added Tax Department. He
admits that on 06.11.2012, Balaswamy had visited the industry
for the first time. He deposes that he does not know whether
Balaswamy or the accused had the right to inspect the office. He
admits that for obtaining the clearance certificate, a specific form
needs to be furnished and he did not furnish the same.
26. He admits that he did not complain to the higher officials of
the Department with regard to the demand made by the
accused. He further admits that, when Lokayukta police made a
search of the accused, tainted currency was not found in the
shirt or the pant pocket of the accused. He also admits that he
has not given any requisition for issue of clearance certificate to
the office of the accused.
- 13 -
27. PW-2 is the shadow witness. He has supported the case of
the prosecution by deposing in line with experimental mahazar
and trap mahazar.
28. He has however answered in the examination-in-chief
regarding the voice recorded in voice recorder being not properly
audible. In his cross-examination, he has stated that he did not
give instructions to draft the contents of experimental mahazar
or the trap mahazar.
29. The rest of the material evidence are formal in nature.
30. As could be seen from the above, the demand and
acceptance is not properly established by the material evidence
placed on record, inasmuch as, complainant having turned
partially hostile to the case of the prosecution. The shadow
witness specifically admits that the recording in the voice
recorder is not properly audible.
31. There is total variation in the oral testimony of PW-1 vis-à-
vis the complaint averments which has been discussed by the
learned Special Judge at paragraph Nos.16 to 19 in detail in the
impugned judgment, as under:
- 14 -
"16. The material document complaint is marked through
the complainant in the form of Ex.P.1. As per evidence of
P.W.1 and complaint allegations, as long back as on
6.11.2012 itself the accused and Asst., Commissioner of
Commercial Tax have visited the Industrial Unit of
complainant and have inspected the accounts for the period
from 2011-2012 to 2012-2013. After inspection
immediately on the very day they have certified that, no
lapses were found and all the accounts kept by the
complainant were correct. Accordingly they have issued a
statement also to complainant. Under complaint itself the
complainant alleged that, after issuance of such statement
the accused approached him and demanded a bribe stating
that, they used to take Rs.5000/- to Rs.10,000/- per visit.
Therefore, the accused demanded the bribe from the
complainant for his above referred visit. This is one part of
the story narrated by the complainant. This story of the
complainant appears to be somewhat unnatural because, it
is not the case of the prosecution that, for issuance of
statement on 6.11.2012 the accused and his superior
officer Asst., Commissioner have demanded the bribe from
the complainant. If really on the very day i.e. on 6.11.2012
the accused had demanded the bribe from the complainant,
he could not have kept silent till the date of filing of the
complaint. Even this complainant did not complain about
the fact of demand of bribe by the accused either to the
Asst., Commissioner or to his higher officers. No
explanation of what so ever nature is coming from the side
of the prosecution regarding such deliberate silence of
complainant for a long period till February-2013. This is
one aspect.
- 15 -
17. As per the complaint allegations itself the complainant
has given up the first allegation of demanding of bribe by
the accused in respect of his visit to industry and by
changing this version he contends that the accused has
demanded the bribe in connection of issuance of clearance
certificate. According to the complainant on 20.12.2012 he
had received a notice from Commercial Tax Office wherein
the office has directed him to produce the accounts for
verification of payment of VAT. The complainant has
produced the documents along with his clerk Sri.
Goddemmi. The accused did not verify the records and
demanded the bribe once again. This is the 2nd story made
out by the complainant in his complaint in respect of
demand of bribe by accused.
18. It is contended by the complainant that, on 20.2.2013
he approached the Lokayukta Police and intimated this fact
of demand of bribe by the accused to said Lokayukta
Police. On that day the I.O. gave a voice recorder with an
instruction to the complainant to record the voice of
accused demanding the bribe. Accordingly on 22.12.2013
itself the complainant and his clerk Sri.Goddemmi have
approached the accused near at a canteen situated in
Commercial Tax Office compound. The complainant has
secured the accused on phone and once again the accused
demanded the bribe of Rs.5000/-. The complainant has
recorded the voice of the accused in voice recorder and
came back to the Lokayukta Police station and produced it
before the Lokayukta Police. It is pertinent to note that,
even on 22.2.2013 no complaint is registered against the
accused though the voice recorder was handed over to the
I.O. at about 7 p.m. On the contrary the complainant has
- 16 -
approached the Lokayukta Police on the next day and filed
a computerized complaint Ex.P.1 at about 11 A.M. As per
the version of I.O. P.W.12 on 23.2.2013 the complainant
has filed the complaint and he registered the same at
Lokayukta Police Crime No. 1/13. Therefore, there is a
delay in registering the complaint by the I.O. Besides this,
as per the evidence of P.W.12 I.O. on 23.2.2013 the
complainant has filed the complaint with three zerox
documents only. While as the complainant has stated in his
evidence that on 23.2.2013 he filed the complaint along
with documents and one CD prepared by himself wherein
the voice of accused was recorded through voice recorder.
He himself has prepared CD in respect of phone
conversation held with the accused and submitted it to I.O.
on 23.2.2013 at the time of filing of complaint. This say of
complainant regarding submission of CD to the I.O. is not
supported by the say of I.O. P.W.12 I.O. has stated in his
evidence that, the complainant has produced only voice
recorder and later on he got it converted into a script and
CD with the help of his staff. Therefore, there arises a
doubt as to whether the CD has been prepared by the
complainant himself or by the I.O.
19. As per the evidence of P.W.1 on previous day of trap,
he along with his clerk Sri. Goddemmi have visited the
office of accused and met him near at canteen. All of them
had had a tea in the canteen. In the presence of Sri.
Goddemmi the accused has demanded the bribe from the
complainant by showing the copy of the clearance
certificate. In order to prove this fact, the prosecution got
examined Sri. Goddemmi in the form of P.W.9. But, this
P.W.9 has turned hostile to the prosecution and he has
- 17 -
stated that, he never witnessed the demand of bribe by the
accused from the complainant near at canteen on the
previous day of trap."
32. In other words, when no application was given for the
purpose of issue of clearance certificate and, when accused and
Balaswamy were not competent for issue of clearance certificate,
the complaint averments and oral testimony of the complainant
that accused demanded illegal identification for issue of
clearance certificate cannot be countenanced in law.
33. Moreover, it has been admitted by PW-1 that the first visit
took place in the month of November 2012 and the demand was
in the month of February 2013.
34. Why would the complainant keep quiet without complaining
to the higher authorities regarding the illegal gratification
demanded by the accused is a question that remains unanswered
on behalf of prosecution.
35. Complainant has also categorically admitted that his
industry is covered by Value Added Tax. How accused and his
assistant namely Balaswamy were involved in issuance of the
clearance certificate is not properly established by the
prosecution.
- 18 -
36. Taking note of these aspects of the matter, merely on the
ground that there was a demand made by the accused and
accused taking out the tainted currency from the almirah kept in
the office and colour test turning positive would not be sufficient
enough to hold that prosecution has successfully proved all the
ingredients to attract the aforesaid offences.
37. It is settled principles of law and requires no emphasis that
whenever a duly constituted Court records an Order of acquittal,
it reinforces the innocence of the accused as the accused is
presumed to be innocent.
38. Likewise, it is yet another celebrated principles of criminal
jurisprudence that if two views are permissible on the same set
of facts, the view which favours the accused must be preferred.
39. It is equally settled principles of law that prosecution has to
travel a long distance between 'may be proved' and 'actual
proof'.
40. Applying the above principles to the facts of the case, on
re-appreciation of the material on record, this Court does not
find any compelling reasons to upset the finding of acquittal
recorded by the learned Special Judge.
- 19 -
41. Accordingly, point Nos.(i) and (ii) are answered in the
negative.
42. 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.
43. 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.
Services rendered by learned amicus curiae is appreciated
and placed on record.
Sd/-
(V.SRISHANANDA)
JUDGE
kcm
CT-CMU
