- 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) 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. DISTRICT AND SESSIONS & SPECIAL JUDGE, AT BELAGAVI, DATED 1/10/2015 IN SPL. C. No.37/2013 AND TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND ORDER OF ACQUITTAL PASSED BY THE IV ADDL. DISTRICT AND 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: CHANDRASHEKAR LAXMAN KATTIMANI Digitally signed by CHANDRASHEKAR LAXMAN KATTIMANI Date: 2026.02.13 12:47:06 +0530 - 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. - 3 - Crl.A.No.100147 of 2016 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. - 4 - Crl.A.No.100147 of 2016 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 - 5 - Crl.A.No.100147 of 2016 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. - 6 - Crl.A.No.100147 of 2016 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 - 7 - Crl.A.No.100147 of 2016 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 - 8 - Crl.A.No.100147 of 2016 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. - 9 - Crl.A.No.100147 of 2016 • 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 - Crl.A.No.100147 of 2016 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 - Crl.A.No.100147 of 2016 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 - Crl.A.No.100147 of 2016 (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 - Crl.A.No.100147 of 2016 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 - Crl.A.No.100147 of 2016 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 - Crl.A.No.100147 of 2016 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 - Crl.A.No.100147 of 2016 36. He has admitted that complainant was not taking any money for supply of tea and he was doing ‘©nÖ ZÁPÀj ©nÖ ZÁPÀj ©nÖ ZÁPÀj ©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 - Crl.A.No.100147 of 2016 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 - Crl.A.No.100147 of 2016 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 - Crl.A.No.100147 of 2016 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 - Crl.A.No.100147 of 2016 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