- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:495 CRL.A No. 200173 of 2016 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, KALABURAGI BENCH DATED THIS THE 24TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.VISHWAJITH SHETTY CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 200173 OF 2016 (374(Cr.PC)/415(BNSS)) BETWEEN: CHANDBI W/O BASHUMIYA @ ABDUL KHADDAR, AGE: 40 YEARS, OCC: PRESIDENT OF GRAM PANCHAYAT, R/O. NAIKAL, TQ. SHAHAPUR, DIST. YADGIRI-585102. …APPELLANT (BY SRI GANESH NAIK, ADVOCATE) AND: THE STATE THROUGH LOKAYUKTA P.S. YADGIRI, NOW REPRESENTED BY ADDL. S.P.P, HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, AT KALABURAGI BENCH, KALABURAGI. …RESPONDENT (BY SRI SUBHASH MALLAPUR, ADVOCATE) THIS CRL.A. IS FILED U/S. 372(4)OF CR.P.C PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT OF THE SESSION JUDGE SPECIAL COURT YADGIRI, PASSED IN SPL.CASE NO.71/2011 BY JUDGMENT DATED 03/12/2016. THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR FURTHER HEARING, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: Digitally signed by SHILPA R TENIHALLI Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:495 CRL.A No. 200173 of 2016 CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.VISHWAJITH SHETTY ORAL JUDGMENT (PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.VISHWAJITH SHETTY) 1. This appeal under Section 374(2) of Cr.P.C. is filed by the appellant/accused challenging the judgment and order of conviction and sentence dated 03.12.2016 passed in Spl. Case No.71/2011 by the Court of Sessions Judge, Special Court, Yadgiri. 2. Heard the learned counsel for the parties. 3. The appellant herein was charge sheeted by Karnataka Lokayukta Police, Yadigiri, for the offences punishable under Sections 7, 13 (1)(d) read with Section 13 (2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the P.C. Act’ for short). The allegation in the charge sheet is that appellant, who was the President of Naikal Gram Panchayath had demanded bribe amount of Rs.6,000/- from the defacto complainant/CW1 for signing the cheque which was prepared in the name of PW3, who had undertaken the civil work of construction of road and drain in Ward No.4 of Naikal Village. - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:495 CRL.A No. 200173 of 2016 The defacto complainant, who was working for PW3, was not willing to pay the bribe amount and therefore, after recording his conversation with the accused/appellant, he had approached the police and submitted the first information on the 28.04.2009 based on which, FIR was registered against the appellant in Crime No.5/2009. Thereafter, a trap was successfully laid on 30.04.2009 and the appellant was caught red handed while receiving the bribe amount of Rs.6,000/- from the defacto complainant/PW1 in her house. The bribe amount was recovered from the appellant under Seizure Panchanama Ex.P2 and thereafter, appellant was arrested and remanded to judicial custody. Investigation in the case was completed and charge sheet was filed. The Trial Court, after taking cognizance of the charge sheeted offences, had issued summons to the appellant, who had appeared before the Trial Court and claimed to be tried. 4. The prosecution in order to substantiate its charges against the appellant had examined seven witnesses as PW1 to PW7 before the Trial Court and also got marked 45 documents as Ex.P1 to P45. Twelve material objects were got marked as MO1 to MO12. After the prosecution had closed its side of - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:495 CRL.A No. 200173 of 2016 evidence, the statement of the accused under Section 313 of Cr.PC was recorded. However, the accused/appellant did not choose to lead any defence evidence nor was any document marked in support of defence. The Trial Court, after hearing the arguments addressed on both sides, by judgment and order dated 03.12.2016 passed in Spl. Case No.71/2011 convicted the appellant/accused for offences punishable Sections 7 and 13 (2) of the P.C. Act and sentenced her to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of two years and to pay fine of Rs.10,000/- and in default to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of three months for the offence punishable under Section 7 of the P.C. Act and further, for the offence punishable under Section 13 (2) of the P.C. Act, the appellant/accused was sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of four years and to pay fine of Rs.20,000/- and in default, to undergo imprisonment for a period of six months. Being aggrieved by the aforesaid judgment and order of conviction and sentence, the appellant/accused is before this Court. 5. Learner counsel for the appellant/accused having reiterated the grounds urged in the appeal memorandum submits that no work of the complainant/defacto complainant - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:495 CRL.A No. 200173 of 2016 was pending before the appellant at any point of time. PW2 and PW3 have not supported the case of the prosecution. The demand and acceptance of bribe has not been proved in accordance with law. The contradictions and inconsistencies found in the deposition of the charge sheet witnesses has not been properly appreciated by the Trial Court, which has resulted in erroneously convicting the appellant for the alleged offences. Appellant is a lady, aged about 70 years and the Trial Court has failed to appreciate the said aspect of the matter while imposing sentence on her. Accordingly, he prays to allow the appeal. 6. Learned counsel for the respondent has argued in support of the impugned judgment and order of conviction and sentence and submits that prosecution has proved its case beyond reasonable doubt. PW1, who is the defacto complainant and PW5, who is the shadow witness, have completely supported the case of the prosecution. The appellant has failed to offer any satisfactory explanation for having received the amount of Rs.6,000/- from PW1. The Trial Court having appreciated the oral and documentary evidence available on record and also taking into consideration the presumption - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:495 CRL.A No. 200173 of 2016 available under Section 20 of the P.C. Act, has rightly convicted the appellant. He submits that the order of sentence passed against the appellant is also just and proper. Accordingly, he prays to dismiss the appeal. 7. It is the case of the prosecution that PW3 was awarded with the contract to carryout certain civil work of construction of road and drain in Ward No.4 of Naikal Village. PW1/defacto complainant, who was working along with PW3 had approached the accused, who was the President of Naikal Village Panchayat with a request to sign the cheque for a sum of Rs.1,42,979/-, which was prepared towards payment of the bills raised by PW3 towards the work done by him. The appellant allegedly demanded 5% of the bill amount for the purpose of affixing her signature on the aforesaid cheque and on negotiation, the demand was reduced to sum of Rs.6,000/-. Since PW1 did not intend to pay the bribe amount to the appellant, he had approached the Lokayuktha Police after recording his conversation with the appellant and based on his first information, FIR in Crime No.5/2009 was registered. Thereafter, entrustment mahazar’s at Exs.P24 and P26 dated 29.04.2009 and 30.04.2009 respectively was prepared and a - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:495 CRL.A No. 200173 of 2016 trap was laid on 30.04.2009 and the appellant was caught red handed while receiving the bribe amount of Rs.6,000/- from PW1, who is the defacto complainant in the present case. 8. PW1 - Marulasiddappa, has stated that PW3/Siddappagouda was granted the contract of the road work and in turn PW3 had asked him to do the work. After completing the work awarded, PW1 had approached CW19, who was the then Secretary of the Grama Panchayat for issuance of the cheque who in turn issued the cheque as per Ex.P3 with his signature and thereafter, PW1 approached the appellant, who was the President of the Grama Panchayath with a request to affix her signature on Ex.P3. He has stated that appellant demanded 5% of the cheque amount as bribe and when he expressed inability, after negotiation, the amount was reduced to Rs.6,000/-. PW1 has stated that thereafter, he had approached the police who inturn asked him to record his conversation with the appellant and accordingly, he recorded his conversation in a tape recorder and once again approached the Lokayukta Police and handed over the tape recorder along with the cassette and thereafter, a complaint as per Ex.P1 was filed based on which, FIR in Crime No.5/2009 was registered. - 8 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:495 CRL.A No. 200173 of 2016 He has also spoken about the preparation of the entrustment mahazar in the office of the Deputy Superintendent on the next date and he has spoken about handing over of six notes of Rs.1,000/- denomination which was applied with a white powder with instructions to hand over the said tainted notes to accused/appellant on demand. On 29.04.2009, he was introduced to CW2 to 4. He has stated that on 30.04.2009 when he went to the house of appellant, he was accompanied by PW3 and appellant asked him whether he had brought the bribe amount of Rs.6,000/- and after he handed over the tainted money to the appellant, the cheque at Ex.P3 was handed over to him. Immediately thereafter, by putting his kerchief on his face, he gave signal to the police, who thereafter arrived at the spot and apprehended the appellant and seized the tainted money from her hand and prepared a trap mahazar and also washed the hands of the appellant and he has stated that the colour of the water changed after the hands of a appellant was washed. PW2 is the relative of PW1 and PW3 is the contractor to whom the work was allotted. PW2, who is said to have accompanied PW1 to the house of appellant has not supported the case of the prosecution. However, PW3 - 9 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:495 CRL.A No. 200173 of 2016 has partially supported the case of the prosecution and he has admitted that the work of road was allotted to him and he in turn had asked PW1 to do the work. However, this witness has stated that he is not aware of the demand made by appellant for payment of bribe. 9. PW4 - Dr. Sanjeevkumar, is the mahazar witness and PW5 - Manjunath is the shadow witness. PW4 and PW5 have completely supported the case of the prosecution. PW5 has clearly stated that he had accompanied PW1 to the house of the appellant on 30.04.2009 and he also has stated that he had seen PW1 handing over the tainted money to the appellant after she made a demand for payment of the same. PW4 has identified the tainted notes which were the subject matter of the entrustment mahazar’s at Exs.P24 and P26 dated 29.04.2009 and 30.04.2009 respectively. Though PW1, PW4 and PW5 were extensively cross-examined on behalf of the defence, nothing material has been elicited from their mouth so as to disbelieve their statement. PW6 - Chinnappa, who is the Deputy Superintendent of Lokayukta Police, has investigated the case. He is the officer, who had trapped the appellant and this witness has stated about recording the conversation - 10 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:495 CRL.A No. 200173 of 2016 between appellant and PW1 and also about preparation of the entrustment mahazar and trap mahazar. PW7 J. H. Inamdar speaks with regard to conducting further investigation in the matter and recording the statement of CWs 14, and 18 to 20. This witness has completed the investigation and filed the charge sheet. 10. From a reading of the evidence of PW1 and PW3 and perusal of Ex.P25 to P28, it is very clear that the work of road repair which was allotted to PW3 was undertaken by PW1 and therefore, he had approached appellant/accused with a request to affix her signature on the cheque which was towards payment of the work done. From the evidence of PW1 and PW4 to PW6, the prosecution has established that there was a demand for payment of bribe by the appellant and it is only after payment of the bribe amount, the cheque was signed by the appellant and handed over to PW1. Though immediately after the trap, the appellant had given an explanation in writing that the amount of Rs.6,000/- received by her from PW1 was towards repayment of the amount borrowed by him earlier from her, such a defence was not taken at the time of trial. Even in her statement made, while examining her under - 11 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:495 CRL.A No. 200173 of 2016 Section 313 of Cr.PC, she has not offered such an explanation. The prosecution by proving the demand and acceptance of the bribe amount by placing oral and documentary evidence before the Trial Court has discharged its initial burden and thereafter, the presumption that arises against the accused under Section 20 of the P.C. Act is required to be rebutted by the accused, failing which the accused shall be liable to be convicted for the alleged offences. In the case on hand, the appellant/accused has failed to produce any rebuttal evidence so as to disprove that there was a demand and acceptance of bribe amount by her in the present case. Under the circumstances, I am of opinion that the Trial Court was fully justified in convicting the appellant for offences punishable under Sections 7 and 13(2) of the P.C. Act and I do not find any illegality or irregularity in the judgment and order of conviction passed by the Trial Court. 11. Learned counsel for the appellant has brought to the notice of this Court that the appellant is a lady aged about 70 years. Though in the cause title of the impugned judgment and order of conviction and sentence and in the appeal memorandum, the age of the appellant is stated to be 40 years, the Adhaar Card of the appellant/accused produced - 12 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:495 CRL.A No. 200173 of 2016 before this Court would go to show that her date of birth is 02.06.1955. If that is so, she is aged about 70 years as on this day. The incident is of the year 2009 and sixteen years have lapsed from the date of incident. The Trial Court has sentenced the appellant/accused to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of two years for the offence punishable under Section 7 of the P.C. Act and sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of four years for the offence punishable under Section 13(2) of the P.C. Act. Considering the age of the appellant, who is a married lady having family and also since, sixteen years have now lapsed from the date of registration of FIR, I am of the opinion that if the sentence imposed on her by the Trial Court is modified, the same would serve the ends of justice. Accordingly, the following:- ORDER (i) The Criminal Appeal is partly allowed. (ii) The impugned judgment and order of conviction dated 03.12.2016 passed in Spl. Case No.71/2011 by the Court of Sessions Judge and Special Court, Yadgiri, convicting the appellant/accused for offences punishable under Sections 7 and 13 (2) of the P.C. Act is hereby confirmed. However, the - 13 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:495 CRL.A No. 200173 of 2016 order of sentence passed against the appellate/accused by the Trial Court dated 03.12.2016 is modified. (iii) The appellant/accused is sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of six months and to pay fine of Rs.25,000/- and in default to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of one month for the offence punishable under Section 7 of the P.C. Act, and for the offence punishable under Section 13(2) of the P.C. Act, the appellant/accused is sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of one year and to pay fine of Rs.50,000/- and in default to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of two months. (iv) The sentences and in default sentences shall run concurrently. (v) The appellant is entitled for the benefit of set-off as provided under Section 428 of Cr.P.C. Sd/- (S.VISHWAJITH SHETTY) JUDGE DN List No.: 1 Sl No.: 47 CT:PK