- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:16897 CRL.A No. 483 of 2014 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 24TH DAY OF APRIL, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.483 OF 2014 BETWEEN: STATE OF KARNATAKA BY LOKAYUKTHA POLICE CHIKKABALLAPURA DISTRICT – 562 101 …APPELLANT (BY SRI VENKATESH S ARABATTI, SPL. PP) AND: 1. RAMESH S/O DODDAKALLAPPA AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS SECOND DIVISION ASSISTANT SURVEYOR, TALUK OFFICE R/AT CHANGAWARA VILLAGE SHIRA TALUK, TUMKUR DISTRICT-572137 2. S K VENKATANARAYANA RAO S/O S KESHAVA RAO AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS DEED WRITER, GUDIBANDE TALUK OFFICE, R/AT SOMENAHALLI VILLAGE, GUDIBANDE TALUK CHIKKABALLAPURA DISTRICT-562101 …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI S G RAJENDRA REDDY, ADVOCATE FOR R1; V/O DT.08.11.2023, APPEAL AGAINST R2 IS ABATED) Digitally signed by DEVIKA M Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:16897 CRL.A No. 483 of 2014 THIS CRL.A. IS FILED U/S.378(1) AND (3) OF CR.P.C PRAYING TO GRANT LEAVE TO APPEAL AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT AND ORDER OF ACQUITTAL DATED 09.04.2014 PASSED BY THE PRL. DIST. AND S.J., CHIKKABALLAPURA IN SPL. CASE NO.3/2009 - ACQUITTING THE RESPONDENT/ACCUSED FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/S 7, 13(1)(d), 8 R/W 13(2) OF PREVENTION OF CORRUPTION ACT AND ETC. THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH ORAL JUDGMENT This appeal is filed by the State challenging the judgment of acquittal dated 09.04.2014 passed in Spl.C.No.3/2009 by the Principal District and Sessions Judge, Chikkaballapura for the offence punishable under Sections 7, 13(1)(d), 8 read with Section 13(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act (for short ‘PC Act). 2. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the respective parties. - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:16897 CRL.A No. 483 of 2014 3. The factual matrix of the case of the prosecution before the Trial Court that the complainant is the owner of the land bearing Sy.Nos.96/2B, 96/2A & 96/2A1 of Varlakunda village in Gudibande taluk, Chikkaballapura and he intend to sell the property and for which, he is in need of survey sketch pertaining to the said land. Therefore, he made an application to obtain the survey sketch before the Tahasildar office in the month of March 2008. Respondent No.1 who was working as SDA in the survey section of Taluk Office was postponing to issue the survey sketch for one or the other reasons. In the month of June 2008, respondent No.1 demanded an amount of Rs.10,000/- as bribe for the said work and after negotiation, the same was scale down to Rs.6,000/-. On 25.06.2008, the complainant talked to respondent No.1 over phone and requested to reduce the bribe and the same was reduced to Rs.6,000/-. As the complainant was not willing to pay the bribe to respondent No.1, he filed the complaint before the Lokayuktha police, Chikkaballapura. Thereafter, the Lokayuktha police have - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:16897 CRL.A No. 483 of 2014 prepared for trap and secured the panch witnesses and shadow witnesses and complainant was entrusted the bribe amount and entrust mahazar was also conducted and thereafter proceeded to the office of the accused persons wherein accused No.1 demanded the money and accepted the money through accused No.2 and hence, trap mahazar was conducted and thereafter investigated the matter and filed the charge-sheet. 4. Both the accused were secured before the Trial Court and both of them did not plead guilty and claim for trial. The prosecution, in order to prove the case, examined four witnesses as PW1 to PW4 and also got marked the documents at Ex.P1 to P27(a) and also got marked the material objects as MO1 to MO17. The accused examined one witness as DW1 and got marked the documents at Ex.D1 to D5. The Trial Court having assessed both oral and documentary evidence placed on record comes to the conclusion that the accused persons have not committed any offences and thereby acquitted - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC:16897 CRL.A No. 483 of 2014 the accused persons for the offences punishable under Sections 7, 13(1)(d), 8 read with Section 13(2) of the PC Act. Being aggrieved by the judgment of acquittal, the present appeal is filed by the State. 5. The main contention of the learned counsel appearing for the State/appellant that accused No.1 is working as SDA in the Survey Department and accused No.2 is the Deed Writer. The complainant has filed the application for survey sketch in respect of the property belongs to him in the month of March 2008. The counsel would vehemently contend that when survey sketch was not prepared after filing the application, the complainant went and met accused No.1 in this regard and at that time, accused No.1 demanded bribe of Rs.10,000/- and the same was scale down to Rs.6,000/-. As the complainant was not willing to pay the bribe, he filed a complaint before the Lokayuktha police. Based on the complaint, a case was registered and procedure was followed and trap was conducted on 26.06.2008. The - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC:16897 CRL.A No. 483 of 2014 counsel would vehemently contend that the accused No.1 gave reply in terms of Ex.P20 immediately after the trap and accused No.2 also given his explanation in terms of Ex.D21. The counsel brought to notice of this Court the complaint at Ex.P3 wherein specific allegation is made regarding demand of bribe and trap mahazar also conducted in terms of Ex.P5. The counsel also brought to notice of this Court Ex.P13 to P18 which reflects that work was pending in the office of the accused. The counsel would vehemently contend that the Trial Court committed an error in coming to the conclusion that no work was pending and the very observation made by the Trial Court is erroneous. The counsel would vehemently contend that PW1 and PW2 was very much present at the time of demand and acceptance and both of them visited the office of the accused and PW2 is the shadow witness and his evidence also supports the evidence of PW1 and all the witnesses have supported the case of the prosecution inspite of it, the Trial Court committed an error in acquitting the accused. - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC:16897 CRL.A No. 483 of 2014 6. Per contra, the learned counsel appearing for respondent No.1 would vehemently contend that even though PW1 says that the demand of money was recorded in the voice recorder, same was not placed on record. The counsel also submits that no application was pending in the office of the accused. The counsel also would vehemently contend that there is no material with regard to the demand and acceptance and no recovery at the instance of this accused. If any recovery is made at the instance of accused No.2, the same cannot be a basis for convicting accused No.1. All these factors were taken note of by the Trial Court while acquitting the accused. The counsel submits that sanction authority was not examined before the Trial Court and this Court cannot comes to a other conclusion that the Trial Court committed an error and the Trial Court given reasoning while discussing the material on record in paragraph 33 onwards and well reasons are assigned while acquitting the accused. Hence, it does not require any interference of this Court. - 8 - NC: 2025:KHC:16897 CRL.A No. 483 of 2014 7. Having heard the learned counsel appearing for the respective parties and also on perusal of the material on record, the point that would arise for consideration of this Court is: 1. Whether the Trial Court committed an error in acquitting accused No.1 for the offences invoked against him and whether it requires interference of this Court exercising the appellate jurisdiction? 2. What order? Point No.1: 8. Having heard the learned counsel appearing for the respective parties and also considering both oral and documentary evidence placed on record, it discloses that the charges leveled against both the accused that accused No.1 is working as SDA in the office of the Survey Department and when the complainant made the application for survey work, he demanded bribe of Rs.10,000/- and the same was scale down to Rs.6,000/- - 9 - NC: 2025:KHC:16897 CRL.A No. 483 of 2014 and in this connection, a complaint was lodged and trap was conducted on 26.06.2008. Hence, invoked the offences punishable under Sections 7, 13(1)(d) and also Section 8 read with Section 13(2) of the PC Act against accused No.2 since he has received the bribe amount on behalf of accused No.1 and he was along with accused No1 at the time of accepting the bribe amount. 9. The prosecution in order to prove the charges leveled against the accused persons mainly relies upon the evidence of PW1 to PW4. PW1 is the complainant and PW1 in his evidence reiterates that he was having the property in Sy.No.96/2B, 96/2A and 96 and he intended to sell the property to one Prasad and for the said purpose, he was in need of survey sketch. PW1 also identified the accused before the Court and reiterates in his evidence that he made the application in the survey department in the month of March 2008 and after lapse of three months also, not given the survey sketch and when contacted accused No.1, he demanded bribe of Rs.10,000/- for the survey - 10 - NC: 2025:KHC:16897 CRL.A No. 483 of 2014 work and after negotiation, the same was scaled down to Rs.6,000/-. PW1 further deposed that as he was not having capacity to pay the amount of Rs.6,000/-, he lodged the complaint before the Lokayuktha police. It is also his evidence that when he contacted accused No.1 over phone requesting to reduce the amount, accused No.1 finally agreed to receive bribe of Rs.5,000/- and thereafter, PW1 went and gave the money in the office of the Lokayuktha and noted down the numbers of currency notes and the police have put phenolphthalein power on those notes and entrustment mahazar was conducted between 11.00 a.m. to 12.00 noon and at around 02.50 p.m., they left to the office at Gudibande. When they reached the office of accused around 3.50 p.m., PW1 went alone and accused No.1 was not in the seat and later on at about 4.00 p.m., he came to the office along with accused No.2 and when PW1 met accused No.1, accused No.1 took PW1 near the Banana shop and when PW1 went inside the Banana shop to make the payment, asked accused No.1 to do his work at the earliest and accused No.1 instructed - 11 - NC: 2025:KHC:16897 CRL.A No. 483 of 2014 him to give the money to Venkatanarayana and at the first instance, the said Venkatanarayana did not accept the amount, when accused No.1 asked him to accept the money, accused No.2 accepted the money. Thereafter, PW1 gave the signal to the Lokayuktha police and done the formalities in the office itself and seized the bribe money and accused No.2’s hand was subjected to hand wash and sodium also seized. 10. PW1 was subjected to cross-examination. In the cross-examination, a suggestion was made that he has noted the note numbers and deposed before the Court and same was denied. PW1 deposed that he went and asked the Tahsildar, Tahsildar in turn told him to enquire with the surveyor. It is suggested that there is a difference in the boundary and akar in respect of his property and the property of one V.S. Anantha Murthy and requested to get it corrected and the same was told by Surveyor Chandrappa and the said suggestion was denied. However, he admits that accused No.1 told him and he says that he - 12 - NC: 2025:KHC:16897 CRL.A No. 483 of 2014 was in Lok-ayuktha office till 1.00 p.m. and except pahani, he has not given any documents. 11. The other witness is P.W.2. According to the prosecution, he is a shadow witness. He says that he was called to office of Lok-ayuktha and given instructions that he should be along with complainant and he went along with complainant and when he met the accused and he took him and also complainant near the tea shop and banana shop and accused demanded money and amount was given to accused No.2 and gave signal and all formalities were done and amount was also seized at the instance of accused No.2. This witness was subjected to cross-examination. In the cross-examination, suggestion was made that no entrustment mahazar was done in the office of Lok-ayuktha and the same was denied and also given instructions as to how to record the voice and voice recorder was also seized. He also admits that he cannot tell how many employees work in the survey section and suggestion was made that he did not witness anything in - 13 - NC: 2025:KHC:16897 CRL.A No. 483 of 2014 the tea shop or in the banana shop and the same was denied. He admits that Lok-ayuktha police have not told him to go to banana shop and told only to go to Taluka office. 12. The other witness is P.W.3. In his evidence, he says that on 04.08.2008, C.W.2 showed the place and as per the instructions of Lok-ayuktha police, he prepared the sketch in terms of Ex.P14 and the witness was subjected to cross-examination, but in the cross-examination, he admits that near the said place, no tea shop is in existence. 13. The other witness is P.W.4-Police Inspector, who conducted the trap. In his evidence, he says that, complaint was given and after receiving the complaint, he secured panch witnesses and thereafter entrustment mahazar was done and thereafter went to office of accused and they were waiting for signal from the complainant and shadow witness and when signal was given, they went near the banana shop and found accused - 14 - NC: 2025:KHC:16897 CRL.A No. 483 of 2014 Nos.1 and 2 along with complainant. Immediately, complainant told that he gave money and the same was accepted by accused No.2 and thereafter, both accused Nos.1 and 2 were surrounded and did the formalities of trap mahazar. This witness was also subject to cross- examination. In the cross-examination, he admits that FIR was sent to Court at 11.45 a.m. and he says that at the time of conducting entrustment mahazar, voice recorder was not seized and he did not make any mention about whether complainant was having any other money and no endorsement was made to that effect. When suggestion was made that complainant and shadow witness did not go to office of the accused, he says that survey sketch was not given and hence, work was pending. He admits that in terms of statement of C.W.9, work was entrusted to the accused on 26.06.2008 and complaint was given on the very same day and when the suggestion was made that accused was not having any pending work, the said suggestion was denied. - 15 - NC: 2025:KHC:16897 CRL.A No. 483 of 2014 14. The accused also examined one witness on his behalf as A.W.1. He says that an application was given and he has received the records in respect of Sheshamma and Ananthamurthy from the office of the Tahsildar and the same was received on 13.03.2008 and he has verified the survey records and he found difference in the extent in original documents and there was also some inter-change and son of the complainant came and met him and in view of difference, he did not conduct the survey and instructed him to get it correct the same from the office of District Magistrate and he sent back the records to the office. That on 16.09.2008, he gave the notice and thereafter conducted survey. In terms of the order of the Deputy Commissioner, he conducted survey and prepared sketch and the same is marked Ex.D3. This witness was also subjected to cross-examination and suggestion was made that he has received the records after the accused was trapped and the said suggestion was denied and he says that record was given to him on 26.06.2008 and the said suggestion was denied. He says that survey work was - 16 - NC: 2025:KHC:16897 CRL.A No. 483 of 2014 done on 16.09.2009 and he says that order was passed by Survey Officer on 04.08.2008 and thereafter only, he conducted survey. 15. Having considered both oral and documentary evidence placed on record i.e., P.Ws.1 to 4 as well A.W.1, it is not in dispute that having considered the documents available on record, particularly Exs.P16 to 18, the complainant has given three separate applications for survey in respect of his three survey numbers and request was made to prepare the sketch. Learned counsel for the appellant would vehemently contend that he had applied only for certified copy of sketch, but on perusal of the document, it is very clear that a request was made to survey the land and prepare the sketch and handover the same, since he was intending to sell the property in favour of one Prasad. It is important to note that accused No.1 was working as SDA in the office of Survey Department. 16. P.W.1 in his evidence says that he went alone to the office of the accused and the same is found in the - 17 - NC: 2025:KHC:16897 CRL.A No. 483 of 2014 chief evidence itself that he went alone and he did not go along with the shadow witness and throughout in his chief evidence, he never stated that he went along with shadow witness, but prosecution while examining P.W.2, he says that he was a shadow witness and he was instructed to go along with P.W.1 and in his presence, demand was made. But P.W.1 in his evidence says that when he went alone to the office of accused, at the first instance, accused No.1 was not found in his seat, later he came to office at 4.00 o’clock. It is also his evidence that when accused No.1 came to office, accused No.2 also came along with him and when he met the accused No.1, taken him to the tea shop and he says that when he went with them, he made an attempt to make payment to accused No.1 and requested him to do his work as early as possible and he instructed to handover money to Venkatanarayanarao i.e., accused No.2, but accused No.2 did not accept the amount and again when accused No.1 told accused No.2 to receive the same, he has received the money. But, P.W.2 in his evidence says that P.W.1 directly gave the money to - 18 - NC: 2025:KHC:16897 CRL.A No. 483 of 2014 accused No.2 when the demand was made by accused No.1 and not stated anything regarding conversation taken place between the accused and P.W.1. But, P.W.2 says that directly he gave money to Venkatanarayanarao. 17. Apart from that, it is very clear that there is no order passed by the Tahsildar or Survey Officer to conduct the survey and when there is no order passed by the competent authority to survey the land and merely because an application was given and the same is pending in the office, that cannot be a ground to arrive at a conclusion that work was pending with the accused No.1 and he is only a SDA and SDA never conducts any survey or prepares the sketch and he only assists the surveyor to conduct the survey work. The evidence of P.Ws.1 and 2 is not consistent and P.W.1 says that he went alone and he never says that he went along with shadow witness and evidence of shadow witness is that he went along with P.W.1 and no consistency in the evidence of P.Ws.1 and 2. Apart from that, P.W.1 says that he recorded the - 19 - NC: 2025:KHC:16897 CRL.A No. 483 of 2014 conversation between him and accused and no such voice recording is also placed before the Court. 18. The very contention of learned counsel appearing for respondent No.1 is that no application was pending cannot be accepted and documents Exs.P16, P17 and P18 is very clear that application was given on 13.03.2008 itself, but the fact of demand and acceptance is the sine qua non for invoking Sections 7 and 13 of the Prevention of Corruption Act and unless demand and acceptance is proved by placing cogent evidence before the Court, question of invoking Sections 7 and 13 does not arise. In the case on hand also, accused No.1 had not accepted any money. But it is only the case of the prosecution that on the instructions of accused No.1, accused No.2 has accepted the money. 19. I have already pointed out that evidence of P.W.1 is not in corollary to the evidence of P.W.2 and P.W.2 says nothing about the discussion made between accused No.1 and P.W.1 regarding demand and handing - 20 - NC: 2025:KHC:16897 CRL.A No. 483 of 2014 over the money, but P.W.2 says that directly he gave the money to accused No.2. When such evidence is available before the Court, there is no any corroborative piece of evidence regarding demand and acceptance and when there is no recovery at the instance of accused No.1, benefit of doubt goes in favour of accused No.1 and according to the prosecution, accused No.2 had received money is not in dispute. But now, he is no more and case against him is abated. When such material is placed on record, and evidence relied upon by the prosecution is only P.Ws.1 and 2 and no consistency in the evidence of P.Ws.1 and 2 with regard to both of them went together and demand and acceptance was made in the presence of both P.W.1 and P.W.2. Hence, the Trial Court taken note of these aspects while extending benefit of doubt in favour of the accused while acquitting accused Nos.1 and 2. When such being the case, in the absence of cogent evidence before the Court, the question of reversing the finding of Trial Court does not arise. Therefore, I do not - 21 - NC: 2025:KHC:16897 CRL.A No. 483 of 2014 find any ground to reverse the findings of the Trial Court and accordingly, I answer point No.(1) as ‘negative’. Point No.2 20. In view of the discussion made above, I pass the following: ORDER The criminal appeal is dismissed. Sd/- (H.P.SANDESH) JUDGE SN/ST