- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:6201 CRL.A No. 718 of 2012 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 12TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE V SRISHANANDA CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 718 OF 2012 (C) BETWEEN: PRAVEEN B.B., S/O LATE R BASAPPA SHETTY AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS KANAKADASA STREET, FORT, BELUR-573115, HASSAN DISTRICT (AMENDED V/O DATED 23.01.2025) …APPELLANT (BY SRI. ADINARAYAN. ADV. FOR LRs OF DECEASED APPELLANT) AND: THE STATE OF KARNATAKA BY THE LOKAYUKTA POLICE HASSAN. …RESPONDENT (BY SRI B.S. PRASAD, SPL P.P. FOR R/LOKAYUKTA) THIS CRL.A. IS FILED U/S.374(2) CR.P.C. PRAYING TO SET- ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND ORDER DATED 19.06.2012 PASSED BY THE PRL. S.J. & SPECIAL JUDGE, HASSAN IN SPL. C. NO.64/06 - CONVICTING THE APPELLANT/ACCUSED FOR THE OFFENCES P/U/S 7 AND 13(1)(d) R/W SEC. 13(2) OF PREVENTION OF CORRUPTION ACT, 1988 R/W SEC. 5(5) OF PREVENTION OF CORRUPTION ACT, 1988. THE APPELLANT/ACCUSED IS SENTENCED TO UNDERGO R.I. FOR A PERIOD OF ONE YEAR AND PAY A FINE OF RS.5,000/- (FIVE THOUSAND ONLY), IN DEFAULT OF PAYMENT OF FINE, HE SHALL Digitally signed by MALATESH K C Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:6201 CRL.A No. 718 of 2012 UNDERGO FURTHER IMPRISONMENT FOR 3 MONTHS FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/S 7 OF P.C. ACT.THE APPELLANT/ACCUSED IS SENTENCED TO UNDERGO R.I. FOR 3 YEARS AND PAY A FINE OF RS.15,000/- (FIFTEEN THOUSAND ONLY), IN DEFAULT TO UNDERGO FURTHER IMPRISONMENT FOR 6 MONTHS FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/S 13(1)(d) PUNISHABLE ACCORDING TO SEC. 13(2) OF PREVENTION OF CORRUPTION ACT, 1988. BOTH THE SUBSTANTIVE SENTENCES SHALL RUN CONCURRENTLY. THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE V SRISHANANDA ORAL JUDGMENT Heard Sri Adinarayana, learned counsel for the legal dependant of the original appellant and Sri B.S.Prasad, learned Special Public Prosecutor representing the Lokayukta. 2. One R. Basappa Setty stood for trial in Spl. Case No.64/2006 on the file of Principal Sessions Judge and Special Judge, Hassan for the charges under Sections 7, 13(1)(d) and 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (for short, 'PC Act'). After due trial, he was convicted and sentenced as under: "For the offence punishable under Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 the accused is sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of one (01) year and shall also pay a fine - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:6201 CRL.A No. 718 of 2012 of Rs.5,000/-and in default he shall undergo further imprisonment for a period of three months. For the offence punishable under w Section 13(1)(d) punishable according to Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 the accused is sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of three (03) years and shall pay a fine of Rs.15,000/- and in default to undergo further imprisonment for a period of six months. Both the substantive sentences shall run concurrently. The period of detention already undergone is given set off. Issue conviction warrant accordingly." 3. Being aggrieved by the same, he has filed the present appeal. 4. During the pendency of the appeal, said Sri R. Basappa Setty died. This Court permitted the legal dependant of said Sri R. Basappa Setty to pursue the appeal further so as to remove the stigma and also to question the validity of the conviction order. 5. Facts in brief which are at most necessary for disposal of the appeal are as under: - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:6201 CRL.A No. 718 of 2012 Mr. G.J.Coelho of Ever Green Estate, Watehalli post, Beluru Taluk, Hassan District purchased 36 acres of coffee land at Arehally, Belur Taluk, Hassan District. Out of the said land, 6 acres is granted to him through darakasth vide Permanent Saguvali Chit dated 31.02.2003. The said land is bearing Sy.No.33/1 of Watehalli village, Beluru Taluk. The land got surveyed about six months earlier to lodging of the complaint and surveyed bondstones were put to demarcate the boundaries. In Belur, Land Survey Officer to make 'durasth' entries (correction entries) in the books, said to have been demanded Rs.15,000/- as the illegal gratification. Complainant, who did not intend to give the illegal gratification of Rs.15,000/- demanded by the accused, approached Lokayukta Police at Hassan. 5.1 Thereafter, the Inspector of Police, Lokayuktha having got confirmed about the demand made by the accused, formed a raid team comprising of himself and his sub-staff. He secured two independent government officials as panchas for the intended trap and after securing their presence, he explained to them the contents of the complaint. Thereafter, head of the raid party has demonstrated the chemical reaction of phenolphthalein powder with sodium carbonate solution and - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC:6201 CRL.A No. 718 of 2012 thereafter he took the intended bribe money and smeared phenolphthalein power on those currency notes. 5.2 Further, complainant was directed to accompany Sri.K.Siddananjaiah (PW.2) - a shadow witness and only on demand made by the accused, he was directed to hand over tainted currency notes to the hands of the accused. 5.3 All these proceedings were recorded and entrustment mahazar was prepared. Thereafter, entire raid party proceeded towards the office of the accused. 5.4 Vehicles were stopped little away from the place of incident, complainant, car driver and shadow witness proceeded to the lodge. 5.5 After reaching the lodge, complainant on demand handed over the tainted currency notes to the hands of the accused and gave pre-designated signal to the remaining members of the raid party. Demanding and handing over the tainted currency notes was witnessed by the car driver as well as the shadow witness (PW.2). Soon after receiving the pre- designated signal, other members of the raid party, including the head of the raid party, arrived on the scene and on demand tainted currency notes was recovered from the custody of the accused. Colour wash of the hands of the accused was - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC:6201 CRL.A No. 718 of 2012 conducted. Its turned into positive and sample of sodium carbonate solution and pink colour sodium carbonate solution were sealed and seized separately. Tainted currency notes recovered from the custody of the accused was tallied with the serial numbers of those notes entered in the entrustment mahazar. They tallied each other. Explanation of the accused was taken and thereafter the accused was arrested. 6. Pending application regarding durasti of the land, necessary documents were seized. Thereafter, after detailed investigation, charge sheet came to be filed against the accused. 7. Learned Special Judge after securing the presence of the accused, after compliance of Section 207 of Cr.P.C. framed the charges against the accused for the offences punishable under Sections 7, 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of the PC Act. Accused pleaded not guilty. Therefore, trial was held. 8. In order to bring home the guilt of the accused, prosecution in all examined nine witnesses as PWs.1 to 9 comprising of car driver, complainant, shadow witness, - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC:6201 CRL.A No. 718 of 2012 panchas, medical analysis officer, official superior who issued sanctioned order and investigating officer. 9. Prosecution placed on record 38 documents which were executed and marked as Exs.P.1 to P.38 comprising of complaint, entrustment mahazar, seizure mahazar, sketch, photographs, bus tickets, photocopy of register extract of Sudha Lodge, sanctioned order, FIR, certified copies of the documents issued by the Deputy Commissioner, certified copy of the grant certificate and FSL report. 10. Prosecution also placed on record 54 material objects containing sample of sodium carbonate solution, phenolphthalein powder, hand wash and the wash of inner portion of the shirt pocket worn by the accused, micro cassette, video cassette, photographs of Ganesha and Chowdeshwari, shirt of the accused, cotton swab and tainted currency notes. 11. On conclusion of recording of the evidence, accused statement as is contemplated under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. was recorded by the learned Special Judge wherein accused denied all incriminating circumstances that were put to him as appeared in the case of the prosecution. For question - 8 - NC: 2025:KHC:6201 CRL.A No. 718 of 2012 No.133, he has answered that two persons visited his house at Belur and took him to Sudha Lodge. They made him to sit for ten minutes and thereafter took him to Lokayukta office. He has tendered one document in support of his defence. 12. Subsequent thereto, learned Special Judge heard the arguments of the parties in detail and on cumulative consideration of the cogent and documentary evidence placed on record, convicted the accused and sentenced him as referred supra. 13. Being aggrieved by the same, accused has preferred the present appeal and on his death, his legal dependant is now pursuing the matter. 14. Sri Adinarayana, learned counsel for the appellant, reiterating the grounds urged in the appeal memorandum, vehemently contended that entire case of the prosecution is a motivated case only with an intention to file a false case against the deceased accused. 15. He would further contend that the material evidence placed on record would depict that the trap is a motivated trap in order to falsely implicate the accused in the case and there is - 9 - NC: 2025:KHC:6201 CRL.A No. 718 of 2012 no material evidence placed on record to prove the demand and acceptance of the bribe money which is a sine qua non for establishing the offences punishable under Section 13(1)(d) of the PC Act and thus sought for allowing the appeal. 16. He would further contend that contradictions elicited by defence in the oral evidence of PW.1, PW.2 and PW.5 are totally ignored by the learned Special Judge while appreciating the demand and acceptance. 17. He would also contend that material evidence on record is hardly sufficient to establish that the accused voluntarily demanded the bribe money for completion of the work and therefore, conviction of the appellant is bad in law and sought for allowing the appeal. 18. Per contra, Sri B.S.Prasad, learned Special Public Prosecutor for the Lokayuktha, supports the impugned judgment. 19. He would further contend that conversation recorded in the micro cassette clearly shows that there was a demand even at the time of trap which is extracted in trap mahazar at Ex.P.2 wherein the complainant is saying that he - 10 - NC: 2025:KHC:6201 CRL.A No. 718 of 2012 would pay Rs.10,000/- but the accused demanded Rs.20,000/- and also stated that his work would be completed on the same day and balance work would be completed within a period of six days. 20. He would further contend that material evidence on record would clearly depict that there was a demand earlier to the trap and complaint averment clearly establish the same and even on the date of the trap accused was present at Sudha Lodge, made the demand and after acceptance of the bribe money and keeping it in his shirt pocket, complainant by pre- designated signal along with head of the raid team and others were able to immediately raid Room No.2 in Sudha Lodge and recovered tainted currency notes from the custody of the accused and colour wash hands was turned into positive. 21. Even as on the date of the trap, work of the complainant was not completed, and hence, all ingredients to attract the offence under Sections 7 read with Sections 13(1)(d) and 13(2) of PC Act stand established and therefore sought for dismissal of the appeal. - 11 - NC: 2025:KHC:6201 CRL.A No. 718 of 2012 22. Having heard the learned counsels for the parties in detail, this Court perused the material on record. 23. In view of the rival contentions of the parties, the following points would arise for consideration: (1) Whether the material evidence placed on record would be sufficient enough to maintain the conviction of the appellant for the offences punishable under Sections 7, 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of PC Act? (2) Whether the legal dependent of the appellant makes out a case that impugned judgment is suffering from legal infirmity or perversity and thus sought for interference. (3) Whether the sentence needs modification? (4) What order? REG.POINT Nos.1 AND 2: 24. In the case on hand, appellant being the officer incharge of the file pertaining to the survey 'Durasth' of the complainant at Belur is not in dispute. Material on record depicts that the complainant is the owner of 36 acres of coffee land at Arehalli, Belur Taluk. Out of 36 acres, 6 acres of land situated in Sy.No.33/1 of Watehalli village Belur Taluk was a - 12 - NC: 2025:KHC:6201 CRL.A No. 718 of 2012 land that was granted to the complainant under Darkasth and the Permanent Saguvalli chit was issued on 31.02.2003. Bifurcation of the lands were sought to be made and in that regard, necessary application had been filed by the complainant. 25. After receipt of the complaint, land was also surveyed and bondstones were to be installed to demarcate the land. At this juncture, the accused demanded illegal gratification in a sum of Rs.15,000/- which was not accepted by the complainant and therefore, complaint came to be lodged. 26. Contents of the voice recording would make out a case that accused did demand illegal gratification. On the day of trap, accused visited the complainant in Room No.2 at Sudha Lodge, Belur. What was the necessity of the presence of the accused at 'Sudha Lodge' is a question that has to be answered by the accused. In that regard, he tried to explain that when he was at his residence, two persons came to his house and took him to Sudha Lodge and thereafter to Lokayukta office. Who are the two persons who came there and what was the necessity for him to visit Sudha Lodge with two strangers is a question which remains unanswered. - 13 - NC: 2025:KHC:6201 CRL.A No. 718 of 2012 27. Admittedly, the work of the complainant was not completed as on the date of trap. Tainted currency notes were recovered from the pocket of the accused in Sudha Lodge. Photographs amply depict the same. Even at the time of trap, conversation that took place between the complainant and the accused has been recorded in the micro cassette and the same is also part of the trap mahazar marked as Ex.P.2. 28. Admittedly, PW2 - Sri K.Siddananjaiah did not nurture any previous enmity or animosity towards the complainant to depose falsely. He being the Government servant, had witnessed the demand actually made by the accused at the time of trap and after receipt of the tainted currency notes, he kept the same in the pocket. The colour wash of the hands of the accused and the inside cloth portion of the shirt pocket of the accused having turned positive, amply establishes the handling of tainted currency notes by the accused on the date of the incident . 29. No explanation is forthcoming in this regard by the accused. Since there was a demand of illegal gratification, it has been established not only through the oral evidence of - 14 - NC: 2025:KHC:6201 CRL.A No. 718 of 2012 PWs.2 and 5 but also from the oral evidence of car driver (PW.6) who accompanied the complainant and accused. Colour test having stood positive, handling of the tainted currency notes is established by placing cogent evidence on record and since the work of the complainant was pending as on the date of trap and in the absence of any other material on record to establish that a false case is filed against the accused, finding of guilt recorded in the impugned judgment by the learned Special Judge is based on sound and logical reasons. 30. Grounds of the appeal is taken into consideration by this Court and on re-appreciation of the material evidence on record, this Court does not find any legal infirmity or perversity. Accordingly, point No.1 is answered in the affirmative and point No.2 are answered in the negative. Reg. Point No.3: 31. Since the appellant is no more, automatically jail sentence has lost its significance. Fine amount of Rs.5,000/- ordered by the learned Special Judge if not paid by the legal dependant of the appellant is to be paid on or before 10.03.2025, failing which the same needs to be recovered as - 15 - NC: 2025:KHC:6201 CRL.A No. 718 of 2012 the arrears of land revenue. Accordingly No.3 is answered in the negative. REG.POINT No.4: 32. In view of the findings of this Court on point Nos.1 to 3 as above, following: ORDER (i) Appeal grounds are merit less. (ii) Accordingly, appeal is dismissed. (iii) Fine of Rs.5,000/- if not deposited by the legal dependant of the appellant or the appellant, the same shall be deposited on or before 10.03.2025, failing which the same shall be recovered as arrears of the land revenue. Office is directed to return the trial Court records with copy of this order forthwith. Sd/- (V SRISHANANDA) JUDGE SA List No.: 1 Sl No.: 38