- 1 - CRL.A No.100144 of 2016 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, AT DHARWAD DATED THIS THE 11TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V.SRISHANANDA CRIMINAL APPEAL No.100144 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. ANIL KALE, ADVOCATE) AND BALAKRISHNA S/O. NARAYAN BIRJE AGE: 58 YEARS, OCC: FDA IN APMC BELAGAVI, R/O. 244/6, TAHASILDAR GALLI, BELAGAVI. …RESPONDENT (BY SRI M.H. PATIL, ADVOCATE) THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL IS FILED U/SEC. 378(1) AND (3) OF CR.P.C., SEEKING TO GRANT LEAVE TO APPEAL AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND ORDER OF ACQUITTAL PASSED BY THE IVTH ADDL. DISTRICT AND SESSIONS & SPECIAL JUDGE, AT BELGAVI, DATED 31/7/2015 IN SPL. C. NO. 43/2012 AND TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND ORDER OF ACQUITTAL PASSED BY THE IVTH ADDL. DISTRICT AND SESSIONS & SPECIAL JUDGE, AT BELGAVI, DATED 31/07/2015 IN SPL. C. NO. 43/2012 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 AND COMING ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CHANDRASHEKAR LAXMAN KATTIMANI Digitally signed by CHANDRASHEKAR LAXMAN KATTIMANI Date: 2026.02.12 16:54:58 +0530 - 2 - CRL.A No.100144 of 2016 CAV JUDGMENT (PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V.SRISHANANDA) Appeal by the State challenging the Judgment of acquittal recorded in Special Case No.43/2012 dated 31.07.2015 by the IV Addl. District and Sessions Judge and Special Judge (PCA), Belagavi. 2. Facts of the case in brief which are utmost necessary for disposal of the present appeal are as under: A complaint came to be lodged with Lokayuktha police contending that complainant is having a vegetable vending shop in Anantshayana Galli, Belagavi, for last 10 years. Father of the complainant is having a plot bearing No.18 in the APMC yard and complainant wanted to construct a shop in the said plot. In that regard, an application was filed on 24.12.2007 seeking permission for construction. However due to financial constraint complainant could not construct the shop immediately. As such, on 11.11.2010 he contacted the office of the APMC for obtaining necessary permission. 3. It is further contented that accused-respondent who was working as a First Division Assistant in the APMC Office, did not - 3 - CRL.A No.100144 of 2016 respond properly on and from 16.09.2011. Whenever the complainant contacted the accused, he used to reply that he would visit his shop and then decide about according permission. 4. As such, at about 8.30 p.m. on 16.09.2011 the accused visited the shop of the complainant. At that juncture, friend of the complainant by name Abhijith was also present. Complainant requested the accused to accord permission. 5. To get the permission sanctioned as per the application, accused said to have demanded Rs.35,000/- as illegal gratification. The conversation was recorded by Abhijith on his mobile telephone and the same was intimated to the Lokayukta police. 6. After receipt of the complaint, for the intended raid, Lokayukta police secured two independent Government servants as panchas and 35 currency notes of Rs.1,000/- denomination 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 the sodium carbonate solution. An experimental mahazar was drafted. - 4 - CRL.A No.100144 of 2016 7. Complainant and shadow witness were told to go to the office of the accused and on demand, to hand over the tainted currency notes. The shadow witness was told to observe the activities that could take place at the time of handing over the tainted currency notes. 8. Photographs of the experimental chemical reaction were taken. Thereafter, trap was conducted, trap mahazar was drawn. The accused was arrested and thereafter produced before the Special Judge. 9. On completion of the investigation, charge sheet came to be filed. 10. The presence of the accused was secured and charge was framed. Accused did not plead guilty. Therefore, trial was held. 11. In order to prove the case of the prosecution, ten witnesses were examined and 43 material documents were placed on record which were exhibited and marked as Exs.P-1 to P-43. Twelve material objects were placed on record as per MOs-1 to 12. - 5 - CRL.A No.100144 of 2016 12. Learned Special Judge, on conclusion of recording of evidence of the prosecution witnesses, recorded the statement of the accused as is contemplated under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Then, heard the arguments of the parties and by the impugned judgment, acquitted the accused. 13. The validity of the said judgment is called in question in this appeal on following grounds: • “The evidence of PW-9 Abhijit Somnath Bathkhande... has in the examination wherein he has categorically stated about the demand made by accused regarding payment of Rs.35000/- as illegal gratification and it is further stated in the evidence of PW-9 that Accused first demanded Rs.50000/- and on request of complainant to reduce the same accused had reduced to Rs.35000/-. And has recorded the conversation of demand made by the accused in his mobile bearing No.9242288683. • That the Court below has failed to appreciate the evidence of PW1Dr:C.Somshekhar who is Director of Agriculture Karnataka State Agricultural Produce Marketing Department deposed that he has given sanction Order as Per EXP-1, after verifying the documents sent by ADGP Karnataka Lokayukta Bangalore on 12-2-2012. PW-2 who deposed about visitng the spot as shown by PW4. And prepared Map ExP-3. - 6 - CRL.A No.100144 of 2016 • The court below ought to have seen that PW-4 shadow witness Chinmaya Prabhu Malgowda Patil., has stated about the filing of complaint before Lokayukta Police.ExP-3.P.S.Crime No.20/2011, by the complaint. Which was read before him, PW-4 has further stated about the entrustment of 35 currency notes of Rs. 1000-/ denominations, after applying the phenolphthalein powder same were handed over to the complainant, conducting of chemical test, under Ex.P2. 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. • That with regard to trap that PW4 shadow witness states that he along with PW8, went to complainant's shop as told by accused on the phone, accused arrived at the shop of the complainant, demanded for bribe amount, as Complaint handed over bribe amount, accused told within 8 days sanction for construction will be given. 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.35000/- and sealed. And identifies the bate amount Rs.35,000/- which accused received -M.O.11. and the money recovered was the same which were entrusted to CW-1 under Ex. P-7. - 7 - CRL.A No.100144 of 2016 • PW5 another punch witness Mr:Anant Suresh Shinde., corroborated with PW4. Regarding entrustment of money under ExP-7, ExP17 • CW1 compliant has expired during trail, his father PW6 Shantaram Haribhahu Pawar., has stated about allotment of Plot No.18 to him by APMC. Depose about Order of High Court of Karnataka for granting permission for construction. • That the Court below has failed to appreciate the evidence of PW7, who is Secretary in APMC Belgavi, who deposed about identifying the Photos and Voice of the accused contained in CD.MO-12. PW-8 supports prosecution who deposed about identifying the Photos and Voice of the accused contained in CD.MO-12. And stated that accused was used to place in-charge of CW6 whenever he goes on leave for more than 10 days or for training as per order of the Secretary. • The accused did not dispute about the recovery of money as per Exp11. gave written explanation as under Exp 18. Which is denied by PW-4 and PW9. • The documents at Exhibit P-17 entrustment panchaname, Ex P-29 i.e., trap mahazar, photographs ExP19-28 and the FSL report at Exhibit P-42 would clearly prove the fact of demand and acceptance. - 8 - CRL.A No.100144 of 2016 • The official favour for demanding bribe is clearly explained by the PW-9 as the accused told to pay the bribe when he visits his shop, The said evidence would prove the official favour sought to done. • The written explanation of accused ExP-11 would show that the amount recovered is an illegal gratification received by the accused. • The evidence of PW-4, 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-5 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 PW10 Sri: Raghvendra B Havaldar, who is the Investigation Office, who has stated the Complainant CW1 appeared before him on 19/9/2011 and told him about the demand made by the accused and field written complaint No.20/2011, EXP-34, heard the phone recorded conversation recorded by PW-9, MO- 1, was entrusted to CW1 Recovery of MO-11 from the accused after the trap under Mahazer ExP29. • The court below erred in not appreciating presumption under Section 20 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1998 and in the absence of accused - 9 - CRL.A No.100144 of 2016 rebutting the same court below was not justified in passed the judgment and order of acquittal.” 14. Sri Anil Kale, learned counsel for the Lokayukta would contend that the reasoning recorded by the learned Special Judge that accused was not the person who was required to process the application of the complainant is incorrect as there was an order of sanction granted to prosecute the accused by the competent authority. 15. He would further contend that the finding recorded by the learned Special Judge that there was no work pending with the accused as on the date of trap is incorrect, having regard to the material evidence placed on record and therefore sought for allowing the appeal. 16. He would further contend that, admittedly father of the complainant, namely, Shantaram Haribahu Pawar examined as PW-6 held a shop in the APMC Yard, Belagavi, and his son i.e., the complainant was looking after the business of onion and potato in the said shop. He was the one who wanted to construct the shop. Therefore, an application was given seeking permission for construction. But they could not construct the - 10 - CRL.A No.100144 of 2016 shop immediately and therefore, again they approached the accused in the year 2011. 17. He further argued that on 16.09.2011, when the complainant approached the accused, he told that he would visit the shop. 18. Sri Kale would further contend that on 16.09.2011 at about 08.30 p.m. accused visited the shop of the complainant wherein, the complainant along with his friend were present and at that juncture accused has demanded Rs.35,000/-. The complainant was not willing to part away the said amount. Therefore, all ingredients required to attract offence for the offence punishable under Sections 7, 13(1)(d) and 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, have been established which has not been properly appreciated by the learned Special Judge and therefore, sought for allowing the appeal. 19. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent/ accused Sri M.H.Patil, supports the impugned judgment by contending that in the case on hand, the prosecution utterly failed to establish necessary ingredients viz., demand, acceptance and the work of the complainant that was pending with the accused. Therefore, - 11 - CRL.A No.100144 of 2016 the impugned judgment needs to be sustained and sought for dismissal of the appeal. 20. In the light of the above rival contentions, 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? (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? 21. REGARDING POINT Nos.(i) AND (ii): In the case on hand, complainant died before the evidence could commence. Therefore he is not examined as a witness. 22. The shadow witness is examined as PW-4. He deposed before the Court in line with the pre-trap mahazar. He has deposed about complainant handing over Rs.35,000/- which was sought to be given as illegal gratification comprising of 35 currency notes of Rs.1,000/- each and phenolphthalein powder - 12 - CRL.A No.100144 of 2016 being smeared on it and the chemical reaction of phenolphthalein powder with sodium carbonate solution. 23. He would further depose that since the accused has assured the complainant that he would come and collect the illegal gratification in his shop, the entire raid team proceeded to the Anantashayana Galli where the shop of the complainant was situated. 24. It is his further testimony that at about 07.40 p.m. on 19.09.2011 a person went inside the shop and sat on a chair. Complainant and his friend Abhijith were conversing with the said person. It is his case that the accused demanded money and assured the complainant that he would get the permission within eight days. 25. The complainant handed over the tainted currency to the hands of the accused. Accused counted the same with his two hands and kept it in his T-shirt pocket. Complainant gave the pre-designated signal and immediately head of the raid party and his sub-staff along with co-pancha came to the spot and recovered the tainted currency from the accused. They - 13 - CRL.A No.100144 of 2016 conducted the colour test in separate bowls which turned into pink colour. Thereafter, arrested the accused. 26. In his cross-examination, P.W.4 admitted that he worked as a physical education teacher in Honaga Marathi School for about 13 years. He has answered that there were no customers in the shop when the accused was trapped. He has further answered that there was one more person in the shop. But, when himself and the complainant went inside the shop, that person went away from the shop. He has further answered that accused took the money in the right hand and kept in his pocket. He has further answered that the writing of trap mahazar commenced at 08.55 p.m. and was completed at 10.20 p.m. 27. He has stated that he was standing outside the shop. Remaining members of the raid party were standing at about 30 to 40 feet away from the shop. 28. The sanctioning authority is examined as per P.W.1. He has stated that as per the request of the Investigation Officer, he has issued the sanction order vide Ex.P-1. - 14 - CRL.A No.100144 of 2016 29. In his cross-examination, he admits that as per the order of the High Court, construction of the shop should have taken place within one year from the date of the Order. But, complainant had not constructed the shop as per the order of the High Court. He admits that as per the office order dated 21.07.2010, it is the accused who was required to handle the file of the complainant. 30. PW-2 is the Engineer from P.W.D., who prepared the spot sketch as required by the Investigation Agency. 31. PW-3 is the official of APMC, Belagavi. He has deposed that the application of the complainant was being handled by an official by name Malagali. Whenever he was on leave, as an in- charge officer, accused was required to handle the file. 32. He admits that in Ex.P-5, it is mentioned that the accused had already completed his portion of the work in respect of the complainant’s application and had forwarded the same to Secretary, APMC. 33. In his cross-examination, he admits that he cannot specifically say or reveal the date on which the accused has - 15 - CRL.A No.100144 of 2016 worked as in-charge Officer. He also admits that in Ex.P-5 at page No.81, the office note does not contain the date on which said note has been prepared. He also admits that the final decision to process the application is with the Secretary of the APMC and not the accused. 34. P.W.5 is the co-pancha who has supported the case of the prosecution deposing in line with the experimental mahazar and after the pre-designated signal, visiting the shop of the complainant and tallying the serial numbers of the tainted currency notes recovered from the T-shirt pocket of the accused and subscribing his signature to the trap mahazar. 35. PW-6 is the father of the complainant. He deposed that he had possessed a plot in APMC yard and they wanted to construct a shop in the said plot. In that regard, they had earlier applied for permission but construction could not be completed. Therefore, again on 16.09.2011, an application was filed seeking permission to construct the shop. It is his case that his business was looked after by his son/complainant-Kiran. In his cross- examination, he admits that he does not know personally as to how he has interacted with the accused. - 16 - CRL.A No.100144 of 2016 36. Remaining evidence on record is in the form of scientific officer and that of the Investigation Officer. 37. On cumulative consideration of the aforesaid evidence on record, prosecution case is weakened to an extent that the complainant was no more when the trial was commenced. Therefore, demand and acceptance of illegal gratification is sought to be established by the prosecution by examining the shadow witness who has supported the case of the prosecution, coupled with the contents of the trap mahazar and complaint averments including the conversation recorded in the mobile telephone of the friend of the complainant by name Abhijith. 38. In the case on hand, colour test stood positive. But the material evidence placed on record would go to show that the Officer by name Malagali was the person who was required to handle the application of the complainant. The material on record also depicts that, earlier permission obtained by the complainant was not utilized by completing the construction within an year. - 17 - CRL.A No.100144 of 2016 39. As such, the complainant had sought for permission afresh to construct the shop in the plot owned by his father in the APMC Yard. The material on record, especially, the document marked at Ex.P.5 would go to show that being the in-charge officer of Malagali, accused has completed his work and has put up the Note as required and placed the file before the Secretary, APMC for further necessary action. 40. The witness categorically admitted that the Secretary of APMC is the proper person to pass suitable Orders on the application of the complainant. It is not the case of the prosecution that for and on behalf of the Secretary, APMC, that the accused had demanded illegal gratification from the complainant. 41. Thus, on cumulative consideration of the material on record, the prosecution though established its case that there is handling of the tainted currency in the shop of the complainant by the accused which has been noticed by the shadow witness who was standing outside the shop, since the work of the complainant was not pending with the accused as on the date of - 18 - CRL.A No.100144 of 2016 handling of the tainted currency, learned Trial Judge recorded an Order of acquittal. 42. 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. 43. 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. 44. It is equally settled principles of law that prosecution has to travel a long distance between ‘may be proved’ and ‘actual proof’. 45. Applying the above principles to the facts of the case, on re-appreciation of the material on record, this Court does not find compelling reasons to upset the finding of acquittal recorded by the learned Special Judge, more so, having regard to the fact that the work of the complainant was not pending with the - 19 - CRL.A No.100144 of 2016 accused, so as to demand illegal gratification from the complainant. 46. Accordingly, point Nos.(i) and (ii) are answered in the negative. 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