- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:15961 CRL.A No. 341 of 2014 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 17TH DAY OF APRIL, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE RAMACHANDRA D. HUDDAR CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 341 OF 2014 (A) BETWEEN: STATE OF KARNATAKA BY LOKAYUKATHA POLICE HASSAN-573 201 …APPELLANT (BY SRI. B.S. PRASAD, ADVOCATE) AND: M.S. CHANDRAPPA S/O SOMASHEKARAPPA AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS ASSISTANT DIRECTOR KANNADA & CULTURE OFFICE KALABHAVAN, HASSAN-573 201 R/O 1ST CROSS, KUVEMPUNAGAR ST.MARYS SCHOOL ROAD CHIKKAMAGALORE-577 101 …RESPONDENT (BY SRI. SHARATH S. GOWDA, ADVOCATE) THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL IS FILED U/S.378(1) AND (3) CR.P.C PRAYING TO GRANT LEAVE TO APPEAL AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND ORDER OF ACQUITTAL DATED 28.10.2013 PASSED BY THE PRL. S.J. AND SPL. JUDGE, HASSAN IN SPL. CASE NO.32/2010 - ACQUITTING THE RESPONDENT/ACCUSED FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/S 7, 13(1)(d) R/W (2) OF PREVENTION OF CORRUPTION ACT, 1988. THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL HAVING BEEN RESERVED FOR JUDGMENT, COMING ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT THIS DAY, THE COURT, DELIVERED/PRONOUNCED THE FOLLOWING: CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE RAMACHANDRA D. HUDDAR Digitally signed by SHAKAMBARI Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:15961 CRL.A No. 341 of 2014 CAV JUDGMENT (PER: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE RAMACHANDRA D. HUDDAR) The appellant, complainant before the Trial Court has preferred this appeal, being aggrieved by the judgment of acquittal dated 28.10.2013 rendered by the Principal Sessions Judge and Special Judge, Hassan, in Special Case No. 32/2010, acquitting the accused for the offences punishable under Sections 7, 13(1) (d) read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. 2. The parties to this appeal are referred to as per their rank before the Trial Court for convenience. Brief facts of the case are as under: 3. That complainant by name K.N.Raghu under the aegis of Kannada and Culture Department, Hassan District used to conduct several programs on behalf of Government and he had conducted puppet shows. Similarly, he conducted a puppet show on 19.02.2009. It is stated that, to that effect, he was entitled for - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:15961 CRL.A No. 341 of 2014 Rs.10,000/- from the Department of Kannada and Culture. To get the said amount, he approached the accused, who was then working as Assistant Director, Kannada and Culture Office, Kalabhavana, Hassan and requested to issue a cheque for Rs.10,000/- for which, he was entitled. It is alleged that, at that time accused demanded illegal gratification of Rs.2,000/-, other than the legal remuneration as a motive for issuing the cheque. Accordingly, on 03.03.2009 at about 3.05 p.m, he received a bribe amount of Rs.1,000/- by way of first installment in his office and it is alleged that, for issuance of the said cheque for Rs.10,000/-, he demanded and accepted illegal gratification and thereby, he has received Rs.1,000/- by way of a first installment. With these allegations, initially, he filed a complaint on the demand made by the accused and thereafter, the Investigating Officer registered the crime against the accused for the aforesaid offences and set the criminal law in motion. - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:15961 CRL.A No. 341 of 2014 4. The Investigating Officer prepared the pre-trap panchanama, went to the office of the accused on 03.03.2009 at 3.05 p.m along with the shadow witnesses and other officials of his department. The complainant was sent initially to pay the amount to the accused and on demand as per the case of the prosecution, accused paid the amount and immediately, a raid was conducted by the IO and the post-trap panchanama was prepared in presence of the panchas. The amount so collected by the accused was recovered. All the procedure of raid was conducted. He was apprehended and arrested and thereafter enlarged on bail. On completion of investigation, a charge sheet came to be filed against the accused for the aforesaid offences. 5. After filing the charge sheet, cognizance of the offence was taken by the Special Court. Charges against the accused for the aforesaid offences were framed, read over and explained to him in Kannada, in the language - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC:15961 CRL.A No. 341 of 2014 known to him. He pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. 6. To prove the guilt of the accused, prosecution in all examined 7 witnesses from PW1 to PW7 and got marked Exs.P1 to P32, so also MO Nos.1 to 11 and closed prosecution evidence. On closure of the prosecution evidence, accused was questioned under Section 313 of Cr.P.C, so as to enable him to answer the incriminating circumstances appearing in the evidence of the prosecution. He denied his complicity in the crime and did not choose to lead any defence evidence on his behalf. 7. Learned Trial Court by considering the oral and documentary evidence placed on record, passed the judgment of acquittal on 28.10.2013. Being aggrieved by the same, now the complainant - State is before this Court. - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC:15961 CRL.A No. 341 of 2014 8. I have heard the arguments of Sri. B.S.Prasad, learned counsel for the State and Sri. Sharath Gowda, learned counsel for the accused. 9. Sri. B.S.Prasad, learned Panel Counsel for the appellant submits that, the material placed on record by the prosecution do establish about the demand made by the accused and also acceptance of illegal gratification. He would submit that, the evidence of the complainant and other witnesses like, witness accompanied the complainant at the time of demanding and accepting the illegal gratification, so also other shadow witnesses support the case of prosecution. The pre-trap panchanama is duly proved in accordance with law, so also post-trap panchanama. His submission is that, from the evidence of these PW.1 to PW.7, it is clearly proved that, there was a demand of illegal gratification by the accused to release Rs.10,000/- and he demanded to pay Rs.2,000/- towards the same. As a first installment, he had accepted Rs.1,000/- and in the presence of shadow witnesses and - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC:15961 CRL.A No. 341 of 2014 other witnesses, a raid was conducted. He submits that, inspite of cogent and valid evidence placed on record, the Trial Court has acquitted the accused. Further, he would submit that, the accused is liable for conviction and sentence for the aforesaid offences. He would further submit that, by noticing certain minor contradictions and omissions, the Trial Court ventured to acquit the accused, as such, the view taken by the Trial Court was not a "plausible view", and the accused has to be convicted. He would submit that, the appeal so filed by the State deserves to be allowed. 10. Per Contra, Sri. Sharath Gowda, learned counsel appearing for the accused – respondent, by taking through the evidence and other material on record would submit that, the well-reasoned judgment of the Trial Court which was rendered by appreciating oral and documentary evidence on record, need not be interfered with by this Court. He would submit that, the findings recorded by the Trial Court are based upon the evidence on record and - 8 - NC: 2025:KHC:15961 CRL.A No. 341 of 2014 even if other view is possible, same is no ground to reverse the acquittal and convict the accused. Further, he would submit that even the complainant’s evidence is full of contradictions and omissions. Thus, he would submit that, there are no grounds to interfere into the well- reasoned judgment of the Trial Court. 11. Having heard the learned counsel for both sides, I have carefully perused the impugned judgment rendered by the Special Court and other oral and documentary evidence placed on record. 12. In this appeal, it is noticed that, PW.3 - K.N.Raghu, is the key witness and he was the complainant. According to his evidence, he is the resident of Karjuvalli village and he used to exhibit puppet shows. He is running a Sangha in the name of one “Manjunatha Thogalu Gombe Kalaa Sangha”. Right from his childhood, he is exhibiting such 'Thogalu Gombe' play and he is the member of the 'Thogalu Gombe Sangha' which is registered one. He is also the Secretary of the said - 9 - NC: 2025:KHC:15961 CRL.A No. 341 of 2014 Sangha. According to his evidence, because of such exhibition of the play of Thogalu Gombe, Government used to give certain grant. To that effect, it was brought to his knowledge that, Department of Kannada and Culture has released certain amount of Rs.10,000/- in his name and it was accused who had to issue cheque to that effect. Therefore, on several occasions, he approached the accused to release the said amount by issuing the cheque. It is his evidence that, on 19.02.2009, in the compound of Goni Maradamma temple, he had performed the 'Thogalu Gombe' show with permission of the Department of Kannada and Culture. To that effect, he was held entitled for Rs.10,000/- honorarium. 13. According to him, he used to meet the accused continuously for a period of 20 days to get the cheque issued in his favour. When, he approached the accused to issue the cheque, the accused demanded Rs.2,000/- as bribe. As the complainant did not possess that much of amount, he said that, he is not capable to pay the said - 10 - NC: 2025:KHC:15961 CRL.A No. 341 of 2014 amount. But, accused asked him to give Rs.1,000/- initially and after encashing the cheque, the balance has to be paid to him. This fact was informed by the accused two days prior to filing of the complaint. As he felt difficulty in arranging the money to pay the same, he lodged a complaint to the Lokayuktha Police as per Ex.P3 on 03.03.2009 at about 1.45 p.m. According to his evidence, at 1.50 p.m itself, one Mallesh and Dharanikumar reported Lokayuktha Police Inspector and in their presence, the pre-trap panchanama was prepared. It was registered in writing. Even the First Information Report was prepared. Rs.1,000/- which was brought by the complainant was taken by the Lokayuktha Inspector and the said currency notes were Rs.500/- each and five notes of Rs.100/- each. The denomination of said currency notes was given to Mallesh and he wrote the denomination numbers. At that time, another witness Dharanikumar was very much present. It is his evidence that, in the office of the Lokayuktha Police itself, two bottles were opened and one bottle was containing phenolphthalein powder. In another - 11 - NC: 2025:KHC:15961 CRL.A No. 341 of 2014 bottle, there was a sodium powder. The effect of these powders was explained to him. The said phenolphthalein powder was pasted to the said currency notes. The said witness Dharanikumar did a search of the complainant's purse. He was having a copy of the FIR in his right pant pocket and in addition to that, he was possessing Rs.75 in his pocket. Thereafter, the said currency notes were given to the Mallesh. Thereafter, all of them at the instructions of the IO went to the office of the accused at about 2.45 p.m and complainant and Dharanikumar went inside the office of the accused. They reached the office of the accused at 2.50 p.m and accused was sitting alone on his chair. 14. As per the instructions of the IO, complainant requested the accused to issue a cheque for Rs.10,000/- and at the time, accused demanded to pay illegal gratification. Therefore, the complainant gave the said currency notes to the accused which were given by the IO. The accused received the said amount from his right hand - 12 - NC: 2025:KHC:15961 CRL.A No. 341 of 2014 and he counted the same with both fingers and kept in shirt pocket. At that time, shadow witness Dharanikumar was standing by his side. As instructed, he came outside and gave a signal to the IO and police staff. Immediately, the Lokayuktha staff and IO entered the office of the accused and PW.3 showed the accused to the IO. The IO introduced himself to the accused and asked his name and designation. The complainant told that, the accused had demanded money and he had given amount to him. At that time, the Lokayuktha staff caught hold the hands of the accused. His fingers were dipped into the Sodium solution and the said liquid turned into a pink colour. The amount was seized and post-trap panchanama was prepared. He identified the currency notes which were marked as MO No.5. Thus, according to his evidence, because of the illegal demand of money by the accused, he lodged a complaint against the accused and to that effect, the IO prepared pre-trap panchanama, as well as post-trap panchanama as stated in his examination-in- chief. - 13 - NC: 2025:KHC:15961 CRL.A No. 341 of 2014 15. This PW.3 is cross-examined at length by the defence. As per his evidence, he does not know to read and write. He just puts his signature. He is the resident of Karjuvalli village in Hassan Taluku. He had learnt the said puppet show from his grandfather. Since his childhood, he is playing such Thogalu Gombe shows. He has not understood the by-laws of the 'Kala Sangha' so stated above. Further, he states that on 19.02.2009, he exhibited a 'Thogalu Gombe' show at Karjuvalli village. To that effect, he has given the invitation to the Department of Kannada and Culture. He admits that, his Sangha has to be get audited from the competent Chartered Accountant. Further he states that, no such documents are produced with regard to the audit. To show that, he had exhibited such plays at various places, he had furnished the documents. He further states that, on 03.03.2009, after demand by the accused, he went to the office of the Lokayuktha. On the same day itself, another person by name Papegowda also demanded illegal gratification from him. To that effect he has not lodged - 14 - NC: 2025:KHC:15961 CRL.A No. 341 of 2014 any complaint before the Lokayuktha. He admits that, his wife Manjula also lodged a similar complaint of demand of illegal gratification against one Doctor. He admits that, at Aluru Rural Police Station, one Chinnappa was the Police Inspector and he has not gone to the said police station. He admits that, the said Inspector has registered a case against one Mani, his cousin. He admits that, he has contracted an inter-caste marriage. Further he states that, he wanted certain amount because of entering into an inter-caste marriage. Though he filed an application but, he did not get the money from the Government. According to him, as he got married second wife, therefore, Government has not released the amount. Further he states that, on 25.09.2011, he has given his performance at Kalabhavan, Hassan Town. To the said function, Dy.S.P. Sri Shivabasappa and Police Inspector Sri Rudramuni were invited, but they did not attend the said program. Further he states that, to lodge a complaint, he went to the Police Station at 12.30 p.m. Further he states that, after he reached the Lokayuktha - 15 - NC: 2025:KHC:15961 CRL.A No. 341 of 2014 Police Station, after 15 minutes, the Police Inspector came to the Police Station. After lodging the complaint, he was given the FIR to read the same. In the examination-in- chief, he states that, he does not know to read and write, but in the cross-examination he says that, he was given a FIR to read and understand. According to him, from the pocket of Chandrappa, one Dharanikumar, a witness took out the money. 16. On scrupulous reading of the entire evidence of PW.3, as rightly observed by the learned Trial Court, we find inconsistent evidence with regard to the very lodging of the complaint and conducting of pre-trap and post-trap panchanama. It has come in the evidence of PW.3 himself that, there was no work pending with the accused when the said raid was conducted. When no work of the complainant is pending with the accused, as per the submission of the counsel for the accused, question of complainant approaching the accused does not arise at all, - 16 - NC: 2025:KHC:15961 CRL.A No. 341 of 2014 so also demanding of the bribe amount from the complainant. 17. Learned counsel for the accused submits that, when the work was already completed, the question of complaint, again approaching the accused and there was demand made by the accused to pay the bribe amount etc., is a false story fabricated by the accused. In this case, as rightly submitted by the counsel for the accused, Ex.P7 does not disclose that, as on 19.02.2009, the application of the accused for releasing the said financial assistance for having played Thogalu Gombe show at Goni Maradamma Temple, Karjuvalli was still pending. The complainant has produced the invitation card and it shows that, under the aegis of Kannada and Culture Department, a play was conducted on 05.01.2008 at 6 p.m in the premises of Government School, Kavalikere village, Aluru Taluku, Hassan District. The invitation was issued by the accused as an Assistant Director of Kannada and Culture Department. - 17 - NC: 2025:KHC:15961 CRL.A No. 341 of 2014 18. During the course of cross-examination, as rightly observed by the Trial Court, this PW.3 – complainant has admitted that, accused had extended the invitation to the Kannada and Culture Department and to get the financial assistance, a certificate of Chartered Accountant was necessary. He also admitted that, he himself independently filed an application in the month of January 2009 in the office of the accused and gave a program list to one Kumara, who was working along with accused in his office. According to the evidence of the complainant (PW.3), for every program Rs.10,000/- used to be given by the Government as a financial assistance. Therefore, to get the said amount, accused demanded Rs.500/- for issuance the cheque. But the complaint averment shows that, there was no such demand of Rs.500/- but, he demanded Rs.2,000/-. It has come in the evidence of PW.3 that, he informed the said fact to Kumar and Manjegowda about the demand made by the accused. The honorarium was granted by the Deputy Commissioner. To that effect, cheque was issued to the - 18 - NC: 2025:KHC:15961 CRL.A No. 341 of 2014 accused. He further states that, the Deputy Commissioner sanctioned amount on 15.01.2009, within a week from the grant he demanded. He went to the office of the accused and requested for issuance of the cheque. Accused told him to give the cheque after program is over. He further specifically states that, he demanded the cheque four days prior to the program. The program was on 19.02.2009. This evidence spoken to by the witnesses as rightly submitted by the counsel for the accused shows that, when there was alleged demand by the accused to give the bribe amount, at that time, the complainant has not conducted any such programs or shows. Therefore, the question of submitting an application, much prior to conducting of the said show and seeking financial assistance from the Department of Kannada and Culture does not arise at all. I find certain force in the submission of the counsel for the accused. The learned Trial Court has properly appreciated such evidence spoken to by the complainant (PW.3). - 19 - NC: 2025:KHC:15961 CRL.A No. 341 of 2014 19. With regard to the antecedents of the accused, it is argued by the learned counsel for the accused that, this PW.3 has no good family background. His family members are involving some Government Officials into trouble. Even PW.3 during the course of cross-examination at page-12 has clearly admitted that, on 03.03.2009 he lodged the complaint against the Papegowda alleging that, he had demanded illegal gratification. Even his wife Manjula also lodged a complaint against the Doctor. So also he knew one Chinnappa, the then Inspector of Aluru Police Station. His cousin Mani has lodged a complaint in a Police Station. Thus, the background of the complainant shows that, they are the habitual complainers against the Government Officials. 20. Further, during the course of cross- examination at page-10, this PW.5 – Dharanikumar specifically stated that, when himself and complainant were talking with each other, the complainant Raghu had - 20 - NC: 2025:KHC:15961 CRL.A No. 341 of 2014 told that, by hook or crook, the accused had to be caught hold in a trap case. He further states that, when the raid was conducted on accused, he was standing near the door for two minutes and thereafter, complainant came out and gave a signal to the police. This evidence spoken to by PW.5, shows that, this complainant is in habit of filing similar complaints against the Government Officials, so as to trouble them. This fact though denied by PW.3, but PW.5 is specific about the conduct of PW.3 in filing similar complaints. 21. As narrated supra, PW.5 – Dharanikumar is a shadow witness and PW.4 – Mallesh was a witness to the entrustment mahazar, so also the trap mahazar. PW.6 – Rudramuni has done the part of investigation. If the evidence of all these three witnesses is perused, they are specific about preparation of entrustment mahazar in the office of the Lokayuktha. So also they speak about preparation of Ex.P4 – entrustment mahazar. On reading the content of this document, it is proved by the - 21 - NC: 2025:KHC:15961 CRL.A No. 341 of 2014 prosecution that Rs.1,000/- i.e., MO No.5, consist of one note of Rs.500/- and five notes of Rs.100/- each. From the evidence of PW.3 and PW.5 (complainant and shadow witness) both went to the office of the accused and there was a demand made by the accused to pay the money. Thus, if we read such evidence, the complainant had stated that, the shadow witness was standing by his side, when he offered the tainted money to the accused. But, the sketch so prepared by the Sethuram – PW.1, so examined in this case shows that, shadow witness was standing outside the chamber of the accused. This fact is rightly appreciated by the Trial Court on perusal of this Ex.P26 – the sketch. PW.5 – shadow witness states that, the chamber of the accused is enclosed with aluminum partition and there is a door on the eastern side of the chamber to have an entry into the chamber of the accused. According to him, the accused was sitting on his chair and there was a table in front of him. Further, it is stated that, when the shadow witness – PW.5 was standing outside as per the sketch, it was not at all - 22 - NC: 2025:KHC:15961 CRL.A No. 341 of 2014 possible for the shadow witness to see what transpired between the accused and the complainant. If he had seen the demand and acceptance of the money by the accused, this PW.5 would have spoken in his evidence, but the sketch is otherwise. 22. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the appellant that, when there is a recovery of the tainted money from the possession of the accused, this itself is sufficient to prove the guilt of the accused. There was demand made by the accused being a Government Official and he had accepted the money given by the complainant. Therefore, as it was illegal gratification, the Trial Court has committed illegality in acquitting the accused. 23. During the course of the argument, learned counsel for the accused pointed out so much of inconsistencies in the evidence of the complainant and evidence of the witnesses, like the shadow witness and other witnesses. When the shadow witness Dharanikumar was standing outside the chambers of the accused, there - 23 - NC: 2025:KHC:15961 CRL.A No. 341 of 2014 was no occasion for him to see the demand and acceptance by the accused. Therefore, in the considered opinion of this Court, the evidence of PW.3 and PW.5 is quite inconsistent with regard to the demand and acceptance of the illegal gratification by the accused. The IO is examined in this case and deposed in the cross- examination that, at the instance of the complainant, he registered the crime and conducted pre-trap and post-trap panchanama, the depositions of other witnesses are also similar. The key witness – PW.3 had not properly stated any acceptable incriminating evidence against the accused. 24. It is mainly contended by Sri. Sharath Gowda, learned counsel for the accused that, the view taken by the Trial Court is a “plausible view” having regard to the evidence on record. He would submit that, the Trial Court had recorded cogent and valid reasons in support of findings for acquittal. Sofar as other evidence so placed on record by the prosecution is concerned, as rightly - 24 - NC: 2025:KHC:15961 CRL.A No. 341 of 2014 observed by the Trial Court, sanction to prosecute the accused is not in dispute. To that effect, prosecution relied upon the evidence of PW.2 – M.K.Bharmarajappa, the then Additional Secretary of Kannada and Culture Department who had issued the sanction as per Ex.P2. No such argument is advanced either by the prosecution or by the accused that, the sanction is invalid. Thus, Ex.P2 is duly proved in accordance with law as rightly observed by the Trial Court, which never suffers from infirmity. Sofaras other evidences so placed on record by the prosecution is concerned, as a judgment of acquittal is challenged under Section 378(1) and (3) of Cr.P.C, no differentiation is made between an appeal against the acquittal and the appeal against the conviction. 25. With regard to the scope of interference with the acquittal judgment, the Hon’ble Apex Court in Chandrappa and Others v. State of Karnataka, reported in (2007) 4 SCC 415, has categorically laid down the general principles regarding the powers of the - 25 - NC: 2025:KHC:15961 CRL.A No. 341 of 2014 Appellate Court while dealing with an appeal against an order of acquittal. Para-42 of the said judgment is relevant to be incorporated in this case, which reads as under: "42. From the above decisions, in our considered view, the following general principles regarding powers of the appellate court while dealing with an appeal against an order of acquittal emerge: (1) An appellate court has full power to review, reappreciate and reconsider the evidence upon which the order of acquittal is founded. (2) The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 puts no limitation, restriction or condition on exercise of such power and an appellate court on the evidence before it may reach its own conclusion, both on questions of fact and of law. (3) Various expressions, such as, “substantial and compelling reasons”, “good and sufficient grounds”, “very strong circumstances”, “distorted conclusions”, “glaring mistakes”, etc. are not intended to curtail extensive powers of an appellate court in an appeal against acquittal. Such phraseologies are more in the nature of “flourishes of language” to emphasise the reluctance of an appellate court to interfere with acquittal than to curtail the power of the court to review the evidence and to come to its own conclusion. (4) An appellate court, however, must bear in mind that in case of acquittal, there is double presumption in favour of the accused. Firstly, the - 26 - NC: 2025:KHC:15961 CRL.A No. 341 of 2014 presumption of innocence is available to him under the fundamental principle of criminal jurisprudence that every person shall be presumed to be innocent unless he is proved guilty by a competent court of law. Secondly, the accused having secured his acquittal, the presumption of his innocence is further reinforced, reaffirmed and strengthened by the trial court. (5) If two reasonable conclusions are possible on the basis of the evidence on record, the appellate court should not disturb the finding of acquittal recorded by the trial court." 26. Thus, the powers of the Appellate Court while dealing with the judgment of acquittal, the Court has to consider that, whether the conclusion recorded by the Trial Court is not a “plausible view”, then only the High Court can interfere and reverse the acquittal to that of a conviction. In the aforesaid judgment, the distinction from that of a “plausible view”, to “erroneous view” or a “wrong view” is explained. In the judgment of Hon’ble Apex Court reported in Murugesan and Others v. State, reported in (2012) 10 SCC 383, in para-33 has observed as under: - 27 - NC: 2025:KHC:15961 CRL.A No. 341 of 2014 "33. The expressions “erroneous”, “wrong” and “possible” are defined in Oxford English Dictionary in the following terms: “erroneous.— wrong; incorrect. wrong.—(1) not correct or true, mistaken. (2) unjust, dishonest, or immoral. possible.—(1) capable of existing, happening, or being achieved. (2) that may exist or happen, but that is not certain or probable.” 27. On scrupulous reading of the evidence of all the witnesses in this case, except the evidence of the IO, it is found that, there are material contradictions, omissions and discrepancies in the evidence of key witness – PW.3, as well as shadow witness- PW.5. Thus, it is clear from the deposition of these witnesses that, this PW.3 has some animosity against the accused and he had in mind that anyhow the accused has to be caught hold under the provisions of Prevention of Corruption Act, as spoken by PW.5. Thus, he had developed animosity against the accused. He himself has stated in the cross-examination that, as on the date of demand, no such 'Thogalu Gombe' play was performed by him. The complainant went to the - 28 - NC: 2025:KHC:15961 CRL.A No. 341 of 2014 office of the accused for seeking financial assistance of Rs.10,000/-, four days prior to his performance. PW.5’s evidence is corroborative in nature to that effect. Therefore, the Trial Court has highly disbelieved the evidence of PW.3, PW.4 and PW.5 by recording several valid and cogent reasons. There is a proper appreciation of evidence by the Trial Court. In view of the material contradictions, omissions and discrepancies arising in the evidence of the prosecution witnesses, the prosecution has not proved its case beyond reasonable doubt to convict the accused. 28. It is equally well settled that, mere recovery by itself cannot prove the charge of the prosecution against the accused. In this regard, the learned counsel for the accused placed reliance on the judgment of the Hon,ble Apex Court in Neeraj Dutta v/s. State (Govt. of N.C.T. of Delhi) reported in 2023 Livelaw SC 211. In this judgment, the Hon’ble Apex Court categorically held that “every demand made for a payment of money is - 29 - NC: 2025:KHC:15961 CRL.A No. 341 of 2014 not a demand for gratification. It has to be something more than demand for money”. Thus, the submission of the counsel for the accused that, mere recovery of the money from the accused is not a ground to believe the story of the prosecution. 29. Sofaras, Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act is concerned, it is settled position of law that, demand of illegal gratification is a sine quo non to constitute the said offence and mere recovery of currency notes cannot constitute the offence under Section 7 unless it is proved beyond all reasonable doubt that, the accused voluntarily accepted the money knowing it to be a bribe. The above position of law as laid down in several judgments of the Apex Court, including Neeraj Dutta supra. Therefore, the only other material available in this case is the recovery of tainted currency notes from the possession of accused. But in fact, such possession is admitted by the accused himself. As held in the aforesaid judgment, mere possession and recovery of the currency - 30 - NC: 2025:KHC:15961 CRL.A No. 341 of 2014 notes from the accused without proof of demand will not bring home the offence under Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act. Thus, this evidence spoken by the witnesses so examined by the prosecution would conclusively disprove the case of the prosecution and favour the accused. 30. Sofar as, presumption available under Section 20 of the Prevention of Corruption Act is concerned, such a presumption can only be in respect of the offence under Section 7 and not under Section 13 (1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act. In any event, it is only on the proof of acceptance of illegal gratification, that presumption can be drawn under Section 20 of the Act that such a gratification was received for by doing or bearing to do any official act. This ingredient is missing in this case. As the same is lacking in the present case, the primary facts on the basis of which the legal presumption under Section 20 can be drawn or wholly absent. - 31 - NC: 2025:KHC:15961 CRL.A No. 341 of 2014 31. In view of the contradictions noticed above, in the deposition by key witness PW.3 – complainant and other missing evidence placed on record by the prosecution, I am of the considered view that, the demand and acceptance of the bribe amount by the accused is not duly proved in accordance with law and not proved beyond reasonable doubt. Having regard to such evidence on record, the acquittal by the Trial Court is “possible view” as such the judgment of the Trial Court deserves to be confirmed. Therefore, if all these factual features coupled with the position of law is put together, it can very well state that, there is no merit in this appeal and appeal fails. 32. Resultantly, I pass the following: ORDER (i) The Criminal Appeal is dismissed. (ii) The judgment of acquittal dated 28.10.2013 passed in Spl.C.No.32/2010 by the Principal Sessions Judge and - 32 - NC: 2025:KHC:15961 CRL.A No. 341 of 2014 Special Judge, Hassan is hereby confirmed. (iii) Bail bond of the accused stands cancelled. (iv) Sent back the Trial Court Records along with copy of this judgment. Sd/- (RAMACHANDRA D. HUDDAR) JUDGE AM List No.: 2 Sl No.: 1