- 1 - CRL.A No.100026 of 2021 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, AT DHARWAD DATED THIS THE 19TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V.SRISHANANDA CRIMINAL APPEAL No.100026 OF 2021 BETWEEN THE STATE OF KARNATAKA LOKAYUKTA POLICE, POLICE INSPECTOR, KARNATAKA LOKAYUKTA, POLICE STATION, BALLARI DISTRICT REPRESENTED BY SPECIAL PUBLIC PROSECUTOR KARNATAKA LOKAYUKTA, HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD-580001 ...APPELLANT (BY SRI. SANTOSH B. MALAGOUDAR, ADVOCATE) AND K.R. GOVINDAPPA S/O. RAMAPPA AGE. 60 YEARS, OCC. PSI, SPL. SQUAD, EXERCISE AND LOTTERY WING, HAVERI, R/O. HAVERI, TAL. AND DIST. HAVERI-581110. …RESPONDENT (BY SRI. A.M. GUNDAWADE, ADVOCATE) THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL IS FILED U/S 378(1) AND (3) OF CR.P.C., SEEKING TO GRANT LEAVE TO APPEAL AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND ORDER OF ACQUITTAL PASSED BY THE PRL. DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE AND SPECIAL JUDGE, AT HAVERI, DATED 04/03/2020 SPL. VIGILANCE CASE NO.10/2016 AND SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND ORDER OF ACQUITTAL PASSED BY THE PRL. DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE AND SPECIAL JUDGE, HAVERI DATED 04/03/2020 IN SPL. VIGILANCE CASE NO.10/2016 AND CONVICT AND SENTENCE THE RESPONDENT / ACCUSED PERSON FOR THE OFFENCES PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTION 7 OF THE PREVENTION OF CORRUPTION ACT, 1988. THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED FOR JUDGMENT ON 03.02.2026 AND COMING ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CHANDRASHEKAR LAXMAN KATTIMANI Digitally signed by CHANDRASHEKAR LAXMAN KATTIMANI Date: 2026.02.20 12:33:18 +0530 - 2 - CRL.A No.100026 of 2021 CAV JUDGMENT (PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V.SRISHANANDA) The Lokayukta, Haveri, is the appellant challenging the order passed in Special Vigilance Case No.10/2016 dated 04.03.2020 passed by the Principal District and Sessions Judge, Haveri, wherein respondent/accused has been acquitted for the offence punishable under Section 7 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: A complaint came to be lodged by one Sri Kotresh Basappa Kudarihal with Lokayuktha Police, Haveri, alleging that he is possessing the license in the name of his wife Smt.Anasuya for running a veg and non-veg dhaba by name ‘Sri Jagadamba Dhaba’ at Heeladahalli Cross. He used to frequently visit Ranibennur for purchasing grocery and other required items to run the said dhaba. 3. As such, on 01.03.2013 he had been to Ranibennur for purchase of the required groceries. At about 03.00 p.m. he receives a phone call from his wife stating that somebody from - 3 - CRL.A No.100026 of 2021 Haveri came in a police jeep. They took away the licence and beer bottles leaving their telephone number with her. She had forwarded the said telephone number to the complainant. Immediately complainant contacted the said telephone number. He received a reply stating that how he has stored beer bottles in the dhaba and he has not given ‘ªÀiÁªÀÄÆ°’.... They asked the complainant to come near Hiregoudru complex at Ranibennur. Complainant could not reach the said place on time and therefore again there was a call from the said person asking the complainant to come near the market where cattle are sold. 4. At about 05.30 p.m. complainant visited the said place and noted that Sri K.R.Govindappa, PSI and Chandrashekar K. Sanganal, constable and others were there with whom he was not acquainted with. 5. Thereafter, the complainant was made to sit in the jeep and was threatened that since liquor was stored illegally in his dhaba, case would be filed against him. If case is registered, he would be liable to pay fine upto Rs.50,000/-. Instead, if he wants to settle the matter then and there, he should pay Rs.15,000/- and he can avoid further complications. Further, - 4 - CRL.A No.100026 of 2021 complainant was asked to continue paying Rs.1,000/- every month as usual towards ‘ªÀiÁªÀÄÆ°’. 6. At that juncture, complainant said to have replied that he would enquire and revert. Constable Sanganal told the complainant that the Inspector is very strict and if he doesn't settle the issue, he has to run around the Court for about 8 to 10 years. 7. The complainant told that he would come and meet them in Haveri. Again on Saturday, accused No.2-Sanganal telephoned the complainant and enquired as to why he has not come to Haveri to meet them. Complainant replied that as his relative is not well he could not meet them. 8. On 04.03.2013 complainant went to Haveri and met accused No.2 wherein he demanded the illegal gratification. Complainant replied that he would request the PSI Govindappa - accused No.1, to which accused No.2 told that PSI has gone to the Court. 9. Again both accused Nos.1 and 2 demanded the legal gratification from the complainant. Since the complainant was not interested to part away with the money, he informed the - 5 - CRL.A No.100026 of 2021 Lokayukta police, Haveri. The Lokayukta police gave a voice recorder to the complainant to record his conversation with the accused. 10. As such, on 04.03.2013 complainant went to meet the accused persons. Sanganal-accused No.2 took him to the Court on his motorcycle. At about 01.30 p.m. accused No.1 came out of the Court and complainant kept the voice recorder on. At that juncture, accused No.1 demanded Rs.10,000/- from the complainant. But complainant told that he has got only Rs.5,000/-. Accused told that Rs.8,000/- should be handed over to a beeda shop fellow and told accused No.2 to work out the monthly ‘ªÀiÁªÀÄÆ°’. 11. Thereafter, accused No.2 and complainant went near Upahara Darshini hotel around 02.00 p.m. and complainant proceeded to hand over a sum of Rs.2,500/- to accused No.2. But he refused to take the said money. However, he told that same should be handed over to beeda shop person by name Manju. Accused No.2 asked the complainant as to why he is giving only Rs.2,500/-, for which complainant replied that he - 6 - CRL.A No.100026 of 2021 would give the remaining amount on the next day and take back the dhaba licence. 12. The Lokayukta police after hearing the conversation recorded by the complainant, were sure of the demand made by the accused persons and then registered a case in Crime No.02/2013 for the offence punishable under Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act against accused Nos.1 and 2. 13. Based on the complaint averments, Lokayukta police secured two independent Government servants as panchas. Five currency notes of Rs.1,000/- denomination and one currency note 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. 14. On 06.03.2013 the Lokayukta police tried for the trap the accused but it was not successful. Again on 08.03.2013, the tainted currency notes were kept in the shirt pocket of the complainant. The complainant and shadow witness by name - 7 - CRL.A No.100026 of 2021 Dattaraj (P.W-2) visited the place of the accused around 11.15 a.m. At about 12.45 p.m., complainant and shadow witness came out of the police station of the accused without giving any pre-designated signal. Head of the raid party asked them as to what happened. Complainant told that accused No.1 has not visited the police station even on the said day. The trap failed for want of presence of accused No.1. 15. As such, third attempt was made on 11.03.2013 which also failed. Yet another attempt was made on 12.03.2013 which also ended in a failed trap. 16. A final attempt was made on 05.04.2013 at about 12.00 noon which also failed. As such, it was decided that the accused has entertained the doubt and therefore, he is not visiting the police station and, dropped the attempt to trap the accused and, based on demand alone, proceeded with investigation for the offence under Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act. 17. Therefore, Lokayukta police completed the investigation and filed the charge sheet for the offence punishable under Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act. - 8 - CRL.A No.100026 of 2021 18. After receipt of the charge sheet, presence of the accused was secured by issuing summons and charges were framed. 19. Accused No.1 pleaded not guilty. Therefore trial was held only against him, as accused No.2 viz., Chandrashekar K. Sanganal said to have died during the pendency of the investigation and therefore case stood abated as against him. 20. In order to bring home the guilt of the accused No.1- Govindappa, prosecution examined 14 witnesses as P.Ws.1 to 14 and placed on record 102 documents which were exhibited and marked as Exs.P-1 to P-102 besides marking four material objects as M.Os.1 to 4. 21. In the case on hand, complainant did not support the case of the prosecution. So also his wife who is examined as PW-7. 22. Admittedly, case of the prosecution is that there was demand of illegal gratification by accused Nos.1 and 2 in respect of dhaba licence. Five times the investigation agency tried to trap the accused. On all those five occasions, the trap failed. To prove that Rs.2,500/- was paid as bribe through one Manju, who is running a beeda shop near Upahara Darshini Hotel, there is no proper evidence placed on record. - 9 - CRL.A No.100026 of 2021 23. Likewise, the prosecution has failed to place on record any material to show that complainant was running a dhaba by name ‘Sri Jagadamba dhaba’ and he possessed the license and accused persons had illegally seized the license of the dhaba and in that regard, there was a demand of illegal gratification. 24. Taking note of these aspects of the matter, learned Trial Judge acquitted the accused No.1 for the offence under Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, as there is no material evidence placed on record, to substantiate the ingredients of Section 7 of the said Act. 25. Said judgment of acquittal is called in question by the State in this Appeal on the following grounds:  Sri. Kotresh S/o Basappa Kudarihal complainant who turned hostile. But the Special Court has failed to consider why the complainant turned hostile as the accused No.1 is the PSI in Special Squad Excise and Lottery Wing the complainant who is running a Dhaba and as such the accused might have over powered the complainant to save his skin and the complainant being the private person who runs a business don't wanted to depose against the accused. Hence, the accused has won over the complainant. This fact is not considered by Special Court. - 10 - CRL.A No.100026 of 2021  PW-2 to 4 are the Shadow witness and co-panchas of the mahazars. The panchas of the mahazar have supported to the prosecution case but the trap was not succeeded. Now the question arise if the accused is not demanded the bribe amount why the complainant came to Lokayukta Police Station and why the complainant recorded the conversations in between the accused and himself. Why the trial court have not the considered conversation of the accused. In the voice recordings the voice of the accused is identified by PW-5 and PW-6 who are accustomed with his voice and they worked together with him. The said conversation is marked as M.0-2. This voice recorder is not considered by the Special Court. The panchanama where the conversations are written are marked as Ex.P-2. But, the Special Court has not considered their evidence, hence requires interference by this Honble Court.  The Special Court has failed to consider why the complainant has given complaint against the accused. The complainant whose signature is appearing on the complaint and on mahazars and what made him to sign the mahazars and why he approached the Lokayukta Police. Why he recorded the conversation in between accused and himself. When it is not the case of accused that the complainant was having vengeance against him the trial court ought to have given consideration for these above mentioned material documents.  The Special Court has not considered why the FIR been the accused. Why the reason the lodged against investigation officer and panch witnesses are supported - 11 - CRL.A No.100026 of 2021 the prosecution. What is for the investigation officer to draw the mahazars. The Special Court has not appreciated the evidence of the mahazar witness PW-5 and PW-6 who identified the voice of accused and the evidence of investigation officer. Therefore the impugned judgment suffers from laxity and the same is perverse.  The accused was public servant is not disputed by the defence counsel. The accused has not adduced any rebuttal evidence to disprove the presumption under section 20 of the P.C Act. There are no inconsistencies or material discrepancies in the evidence of the prosecution witnesses. Thus viewed from any angle the judgment requires to be set aside and the accused be suitably convicted for the alleged offence leveled against him. “ 26. Sri Santosh B. Malagoudar, learned counsel for the State reiterating the grounds urged in the appeal memorandum would contend that the conversation recorded in the voice recorder is ignored by the learned Trial Judge while acquitting the accused for the offence under Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act and thus sought for allowing the appeal. 27. He would further contend that even in the absence of a proper trial, offence under Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act stands established by virtue of the material placed on record and thus sought for allowing the appeal. - 12 - CRL.A No.100026 of 2021 28. Per contra, Sri A.M.Gundawade, learned counsel for the respondent/accused supports the impugned judgment and sought for dismissal of the appeal by contending that there is no material evidence on record even to attract the ingredients of the offence under Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act. 29. I have heard the arguments of both sides and perused the material on record meticulously. 30. On such perusal of the material on record, following points would arise for consideration: (i) Whether the Prosecution has successfully established all the ingredients to attract the offence under Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act? (ii) Whether the impugned judgment is suffering from legal infirmity or perversity and thus calls for interference? (iii) If answer to point No.(i) is in the affirmative what is the sentence? (iv) What Order? 31. REGARDING POINT Nos.(i) AND (ii): In the case on hand, the prosecution alleged that when the complainant had been to bring grocery from Ranibennur, accused persons visited the dhaba run by the complainant in the name and style ‘Sri - 13 - CRL.A No.100026 of 2021 Jagadamba Dhaba’, serving both vegetarian and non vegetarian food. They seized the license and beer bottles from the said dhaba. They had furnished their telephone number to the wife of complainant(PW-7) who was present in the dhaba at that time. 32. Accordingly complainant contacted the telephone number furnished by PW-7 and at that juncture there was a demand for illegal gratification. Complainant met the accused near cattle market in Ranibennur. 33. The accused threatened the complainant that a case would be filed under Excise Act for storing the beer bottles illegally for which complainant would be fined upto Rs.50,000/-. If the complainant wanted to settled the matter then and there only, he has to pay Rs.15,000/- as illegal gratification and Rs.1,000/- of monthly ‘ªÀiÁªÀÄÆ°’. 34. The complainant was not interested in parting away the bribe money as demanded by the accused. Therefore, he approached the Lokayukta police who gave him the voice recorder. - 14 - CRL.A No.100026 of 2021 35. The conversation between the accused and the complainant recorded by the complainant is part of the experimental mahazar(Ex.P.2). 36. Thereafter complainant met the accused and as per the instructions of the accused, complainant said to have paid sum of Rs.2,500/- to the beeda shop owner by name Manju in the presence of accused No.2 who is no more and case stood abated as against him. 37. To establish these aspects of the matter, prosecution examined the complainant and his wife as P.Ws.1 and 7. Both of them have turned hostile to the case of the prosecution. 38. In the case on hand, since there is a failure of the trap, charge sheet is filed for the offence under Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act only. 39. Based on the voice recording of the accused No. 2, that too extracted in the experimental mahazar marked at Ex.P.2 in the absence of any proper proof including the Certification under Section 65B of the Indian Evidence Act, the learned Trial Judge was constrained to acquit the accused for want of necessary material evidence on record. - 15 - CRL.A No.100026 of 2021 40. It is also observed by the learned Trial Judge that to establish that the complainant and his wife were running a hotel in the name ‘Sri Jagadamba Dhaba’ no material evidence is collected by the Investigation Agency which would go to show that the investigation has been done in a perfunctory manner. 41. Therefore, viewed from any angle, this Court does not find any good reasons to interfere with the Order of acquittal passed by the learned Trial Judge. 42. Accordingly, point Nos.(i) and (ii) are answered in the negative. 43. 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. 44. 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