- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:16539 CRL.A No. 849 of 2012 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 22ND DAY OF APRIL, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 849 OF 2012 BETWEEN: MEERA NAGARAJ, W/O LATE NAGARAJ, AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS, SDC, TAHSILDAR OFFICE, BANGALORE SOUTH TALUK, HANDICAPPED DISPATCH BRANCH, KEMEGOWDA ROAD, BANGALORE, R/AT NO.4, GROUND FLOOR, 6TH CROSS, 9TH MAIN, CENTRAL STREET, KUMARPARK WEST, BANGALORE – 20. …APPELLANT (BY SRI. HARSHA D. JOSHI, ADVOCATE) AND: STATE BY DEPUTY SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, CITY DIVISION, KARNATAKA LOKAYUKTHA, BANGALORE. REPRESENTED BY SPECIAL PUBLIC PROSECUTOR FOR LOKAYUKTHA CASES, HIGH COURT BUILDING, BANGALORE. …RESPONDENT (BY SRI. B.S.PRASAD, ADVOCATE) Digitally signed by DEVIKA M Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:16539 CRL.A No. 849 of 2012 THIS CRL.A. IS FILED U/S.374(2) OF CR.P.C., PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND ORDER OF CONVICTION AND SENTENCE IMPOSED ON 25.07.2012 PASSED BY THE SPL. JUDGE, PREVENTION OF CORRUPTION ACT, BANGALORE URBAN DISTRICT, BANGALORE CITY IN SPL.C.C.NO.202/2009 - CONVICTING THE APPELLANT/ACCUSED FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/S 7 AND 13(1)(d) P/U/S 13(2) OF PREVENTION OF CORRUPTION ACT, 1988. 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 Heard appellant's counsel and also counsel appearing for the respondent-Lokayuktha. 2. The factual matrix of the case of prosecution is that the complainant made an application to enhance amount of handicapped pension from Rs.400/- to Rs.1000/- and he had complied with the requisition to enhance the same and went and met accused No.1 and accused No.1 asked him to come after some days and he visited the office twice and ultimately on 25.02.2009 at about 2.00 p.m., he again went to Office of Tahsildar and met accused No.1 and accused No.1 told that order was ready and asked him to give Rs.300/-. Since he was not interested to pay the bribe amount to accused No.1, he lodged the complaint with the Lokayuktha Police. The - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:16539 CRL.A No. 849 of 2012 Lokayuktha Police secured the prosecution witnesses and conducted the entrustment mahazar and thereafter laid the trap. Accused No.2 received bribe money of Rs.300/- at the instance of accused No.1. Hence, Lokayukta Police filed charge sheet against accused Nos.1 and 2 and invoked Sections 7, 8, 13(1)(d) and 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (for short 'P.C.Act'). 3. Accused No.1 was working as Second Division Clerk in the Office of Tahsildar, Handicapped Dispatch Branch, Kempegowda Road, Bangalore and accused No.2 was also working in the same Office. The matter was investigated and charge sheet was filed against accused Nos.1 and 2. Both accused Nos.1 and 2 did not plead guilty and hence the prosecution in order to prove the case, relies upon the oral and documentary evidence and PWs.1 to 5 were examined; documents at Exs.P1 to P27 are marked and also MOs.1 to 8 are marked. The accused has not lead any defence evidence. 4. The trial court having considered oral and documentary evidence of PWs.1 to 5, PW.1 is the Sanctioning Authority; PW.2 is the shadow witness; PW.3 is the - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:16539 CRL.A No. 849 of 2012 complainant and PW.4 is the formal witness and PW.5 is the Investigation Officer, who conducted trap. 5. The trial Court having considered both oral and documentary evidence available on record, convicted accused No.1 and acquitted accused No.2, coming to the conclusion that Section 8 of the P.C.Act, is not proved against accused No.2 and convicted accused No.1 for the offences punishable under Sections 7, 13(1)(d) and 13(2) of the P.C.Act and imposed maximum punishment to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year with fine. Being aggrieved by the judgment of conviction and sentence, the present appeal is filed before this Court. 6. The main contention of the counsel appearing for the appellant is that the demand and acceptance is not proved and counsel also vehemently contended that the Sanctioning Authority has not applied its mind before granting sanction and Ex.P1 is without application of mind when no work of complainant was pending with the appellant. Counsel also vehemently contended that there is material contradiction in the evidence of the complainant and shadow witness and there - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC:16539 CRL.A No. 849 of 2012 was no motive at all on the part of the appellant either to demand or accept illegal gratification from the complainant. Further, Counsel vehemently contended that the trial Judge made a very serious mistake of law and proceeded on the basis that legal presumption under Section 20 of the P.C.Act applies and burden lies on the complainant in proving the case and accused has nothing to prove his innocence. Counsel appearing for the appellant also vehemently contended that learned trial Judge failed to take note of the explanation given by accused No.1 and 313 statement is specifically denied including the incriminating evidence which was led before the Court. Counsel would also vehemently contend that essential ingredients of demand and acceptance is not proved and unless the same is proved, question of invoking Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) of P.C.Act does not arise. Counsel also vehemently contends that the records clearly reveals that the Tahsildar already passed an order enhancing amount and no work was pending and it was ordered on 16.02.2009 itself and case of demand on 25.02.2009 is not proved by the prosecution hence committed an error and hence it requires interference of this Court. - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC:16539 CRL.A No. 849 of 2012 7. Per contra, Counsel appearing for the respondent- Lokayuktha submits that it is not in dispute that application was given for enhancement from Rs.400/- to Rs.1000/- and also the fact that complainant has visited the Office of Tahsildar twice and ultimately on 25.02.2009, when the complainant had visited the Office of Tahsildar, demand was made and while demanding also it was made clear that order was ready but he has to make the payment of Rs.300/-. As the complainant was not interested to pay the bribe amount, he has lodged the complaint. Hence, procedure of entrustment mahazar was done securing the shadow witness-PW.2 and evidence of PW.2 is very clear even though she was blind, she identified accused No.1 having heard the voice of accused No.1 and also she categorically deposed that she could identify on hearing the voice and PW.2 is shadow witness who was very much present along with PW.3 and unequivocally spoken about the demand and acceptance by accused No.2 at the instance of accused No.1. Counsel also vehemently contend that even in the explanation in terms of Ex.P12, admitted the receipt of Rs.300/- and also accused No.2 categorically given the immediate explanation that she has received an amount of - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC:16539 CRL.A No. 849 of 2012 Rs.300/- at the instance of accused No.1 since accused No.1 accepted to collect the said amount. Counsel also vehemently contended that the evidence of PWs.3 and 5 is consistent and nothing is elicit in the cross-examination of PWs.2, 3 and 5 with regard to demand and acceptance. In the absence of any contra evidence and contradictions, question of exercising the appellate jurisdiction does not arise. 8. In reply to the arguments, Counsel appearing for the appellant would also contend that the amount is meager i.e., Rs.300/- and also now the appellant is aged about 70 years and Court has to take note of the said fact for consideration. 9. Having heard the counsel for the appellant and also counsel appearing for the respondent and on perusal of the material on record, the points that would arise for consideration of this Court are: "1. Whether the trial Court committed an error in convicting the accused invoking offences punishable under Sections 7, 13(1)(d) and 13(2) of the P.C.Act and whether it requires interference of this Court by exercising the appellate jurisdiction? 2. What order?" - 8 - NC: 2025:KHC:16539 CRL.A No. 849 of 2012 10. Having heard the learned counsel for the appellant and also counsel appearing for the respondent, it is not in dispute that an application was given for enhancement of handicapped pension in the Office of Tahsildar and it is also not in dispute that he was asked to come on some other dates. It is the specific case of PW.3 that he had visited the Office of Tahsildar and Tahsildar has met PW.3 and ultimately on 25.02.2009 accused No.1 asked about the payment of money of Rs.300/- when the order was ready. When the complainant visited the Office of Tahsildar and he was not interested to make the payment of bribe money to accused No.1, he lodged the complaint and it is also important to note that in the cross- examination of PW.3, he categorically deposes that when he went and met accused No.1 on 25.02.2009, asked him to bring Rs.300/-, otherwise she would not give order copy and the fact is that order copy was ready on 16.02.2009 itself. Further, in the cross-examination of PW.3 also, there is no specific denial of demand and acceptance of Rs.300/- and PW.3 has categorically given answer that he recognize the people only through voice but not through sight since he is blind. His - 9 - NC: 2025:KHC:16539 CRL.A No. 849 of 2012 categorical evidence is that the demand was made on 25.02.2009 and complaint was lodged on 02.03.2009 and on 02.03.2009, when he went to pay the amount, the same was accepted and on that day also the demand was made, asked him to pay the money to accused No.2 and accordingly he made the payment to accused No.2 and trap was also conducted and FSL Report is also positive and immediate explanation of accused No.1 in terms of Ex.P11 also very clear that amount of Rs.300/- was paid and accused No.2 has also given explanation in terms of Ex.P12 that on the instructions of accused No.1, she has received an amount of Rs.300/- and kept the said amount in the drawer. It is also evident from the records that PW.2 categorically deposed with regard to conducting of entrustment mahazar and went to Office of accused and both of them gave signal to the Lokayuktha Police having handed over the amount to accused No.2 on demand and the evidence of PW.2 is also very consistent that she accompanied the complainant and conversation was made in the presence of PW.2 and accused No.1 asked about the money and directed accused No.2 to collect money and accordingly amount was collected and also categorically says that amount - 10 - NC: 2025:KHC:16539 CRL.A No. 849 of 2012 was taken out from table drawer from PW.2 and thereafter only other formalities were done and immediate explanation was given by both the accused. 11. Having considered the evidence of PW.5-Investigation Officer who conducted trap, corroborates with evidence of PWs.2 and 3 and their evidence is also very clear that on receipt of the complaint, entrustment mahazar was conducted and thereafter they proceeded to the Office of the accused and trap was also conducted after receiving the signal and accused Nos.1 and 2 have given the explanation in terms of Exs.P11 and P12. In the cross-examination of PW.5 also he admits that he was not aware that work was over when the complaint was lodged but during investigation it was revealed it was kept pending for payment of bribe amount. The complainant and shadow witness were just near the table and they had taken their positions at the distance before conducting trap and sketch was written accordingly what he has seen. During the cross-examination of PW.5 also, he says that he has seen the application and other documents filed by the complainant in the Office of Tahsildar. Having seized records, it is very clear that order was ready on 16.02.2009 itself and also - 11 - NC: 2025:KHC:16539 CRL.A No. 849 of 2012 specific case of complainant that on 25.02.2009, demanded amount of Rs.300/- and he went with bribe amount of Rs.300/- on the date of trap and also the conversation between the accused and the complainant was witnessed by PW.2-shadow witness and in the evidence of PWs.2 and 3, no contradictions are elicited to disbelieve the case of prosecution and evidence of PWs.2, 3 and 5 are consistent. When such being the case, I do not find any error committed by the trial Court in convicting the accused for the offences punishable under Sections 7, 13(1)(d) and 13(2) of the P.C.Act, for the demand made and also acceptance of bribe amount and recovery of bribe amount is also marked as MO.3 before the trial Court and FSL Report is also marked as Ex.P26 and same is also positive. 12. Having considered that the money was collected by accused No.2 only on instructions of accused No.1, the challenge is also only against accused No.1 since accused No.2 was acquitted. Having re-assessing all the materials on record, I do not find any error committed by the trial Court by coming to the conclusion that the evidence of PWs.2 and 3 are consistent and corroborates with evidence of PW.5. When such being the case, and no explanation on the part of accused No.1 - 12 - NC: 2025:KHC:16539 CRL.A No. 849 of 2012 at the time of 313 statement and as the documentary and oral evidence are consistent, I do not find any grounds to exercise the appellate jurisdiction and reverse the findings of the trial Court. Hence, I answer the above point in the 'Negative'. 13. Counsel appearing for the appellant would submit that fine amount may be enhanced and the accused may be acquitted since she is aged about 70 years. The same cannot be a ground in a case of demand and acceptance of bribe amount. The Hon’ble Apex Court in case of acceptance of Rs.50/- also not shown any lenience and it is not the matter of the amount what they have received, it is offence against the society at large. Hence, the question of exonerating and imposing only fine does not arise in the case of demand and acceptance. Therefore, the said contention is also not accepted. 14. In view of the discussions made above, I pass the following: ORDER (i) Appeal is dismissed. Sd/- (H.P.SANDESH) JUDGE SMJ List No.: 1 Sl No.: 54