- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:17747 CRL.A No. 909 of 2012 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 29TH DAY OF APRIL, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE RAMACHANDRA D. HUDDAR CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 909 OF 2012 (C) BETWEEN: SRI. N. SURESH S/O NARASIMHA MURTHY AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS RAILWAY HOSPITAL S.W.RAILWAY HUBLI RESIDING AT NO.101 LAKSHMI PLAZA, BHAVANI NAGAR VIVEKANADA COLONY HUBLI …APPELLANT (BY SRI. R. NAGENDRA NAIK, ADVOCATE) AND: STATE BY CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION GANGANAGAR, BANGALORE …RESPONDENT (BY SMT. RAMULA, ADVOCATE FOR SRI. P. PRASANNA KUMAR, ADVOCATE) THIS CRL.A. IS FILED U/S.374(2) OF CR.P.C PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND CONVICTION DATED 25.07.2012 PASSED BY THE XLVIII ADDL. CITY CIVIL & S.J. AND SPL. JUDGE FOR CBI CASES, BANGALORE CITY IN SPL. C.C.NO.78/2012 - CONVICTING THE APPELLANT/ACCUSED FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/S 7 AND SEC.13(1)(d) R/W SEC.13(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 R Digitally signed by SHAKAMBARI Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:17747 CRL.A No. 909 of 2012 CAV JUDGMENT (PER: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE RAMACHANDRA D. HUDDAR) This appeal is directed against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 25.7.2012 passed by the 48th Addl.City Civil and Sessions Judge and Special Judge for CBI cases (CCH-49), Bengaluru in Spl.CC No.78/2012 convicting the appellant for the offences punishable under Sections 7, 13 (1) (d) read with Section 13(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (in short `the Act') and sentencing him as under: "The accused is sentenced to undergo SI for one year and to pay fine of Rs.5,000/- for the offence u/s 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act and to undergo SI for one year six months and to pay fine of Rs.5,000/- for the offence u/s 13(1)(d) read with 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act." Facts of the case: 2. The factual matrix of the prosecution case, as per the written report (Ex.P1) presented by PW.4 Ghanashyam P.Kalal before the Superintendent of Police, CBI, Bengaluru on 23.10.2005 is that, he is the resident of - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:17747 CRL.A No. 909 of 2012 Nehru Nagar, Gadag Road, Hubballi. His father was working as a Mechanic at Hubballi Railways and he died on 10.3.2013 when he was in service. Therefore, to get compassionate appointment, complainant submitted an application on 2.8.2005. He was directed to appear for medical examination at Railway Hospital, Hubballi. According to him, on 8.10.2005, he went to the Hospital. As the doctor was not available, again on 11.10.2005, he went to the hospital and met Dr.Renuka S.Kuchinad (PW.2). Several medical tests were conducted by the said doctor. He was also directed to get his eye tested from a private Ophthalmologist. Accordingly, on 14.10.2005, he got tested his eyes and brought the certificate and met PW.2 Dr.Renuka. Thereafter, PW.2 asked the complainant PW.4 to meet the accused who was also a doctor. Therefore, he met accused and on testing, it was noticed by the accused that, the complainant's heart beat is more and asked him to meet him on the next day. Therefore, on 17th and 18th, complainant met the accused but, he did not conduct medical test and asked him to come on the - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:17747 CRL.A No. 909 of 2012 following day. It is alleged, that on 19.10.2005, when the complainant met the accused, accused demanded Rs.5,000/- as bribe to issue the medical fitness certificate. The complainant expressed his inability as he is not having financial capacity to pay. But, even then it is alleged that accused told him that, unless he pays Rs.5,000/- as bribe amount, he would not issue the medical certificate and gave a threat stating, that if the amount is not paid, he will issue adverse report and thereby the complainant would not get the employment. Being scared of the said threat, he is ready to give Rs.500/- and the accused asked the complainant to pay that to his wife as amount advance and asked him to pay the balance of Rs.4,500/-. Accused said, after payment of the balance amount, he would issue the certificate. He gave his mobile number on a chit and after payment of the balance amount, he asked the complainant to call him on telephone. It is stated that, as told by the accused, he went to the wife of the accused and handed over Rs.500/- to her. After coming out of the house, the complainant realized that, he is committing - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC:17747 CRL.A No. 909 of 2012 mistake and he is not supposed to pay any bribe amount. Therefore, on 22.10.2005, he called S.P.CBI, Bengaluru and requested him to register a crime against the accused and take necessary action against him. 3. PW.6 R.Purushotham, PW.7 M.Raja, as instructed by their Superior Officers went to Hubballi and by contacting the complainant, they asked him to come to the BSNL Guest House. Accordingly, on 22.10.2005, they went to Hubballi and stayed in BSNL Guest House, Hubballi. At 10.30 a.m. on 23.10.2005, complainant approached the Inspector of the CBI. CBI Inspector introduced the panchas by name M.N.Diwakar and B.G.Madabi. The complainant gave a typed complaint. Thereafter, IO prepared the pre-trap panchanama in the presence of the witnesses i.e. PW.1 and 2 who were introduced to the trap party members before whom the complainant narrated his grievance as mentioned in the FIR. This PW.5 produced the currency notes before the trap laying officer (TLO) and the denomination numbers of - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC:17747 CRL.A No. 909 of 2012 the said currency notes were written. A demonstration relating to the reaction of phenolphthalein power with 'sodium carbonate' solution was made and the sample chemical liquid was collected in bottles and were labeled and sealed. The said currency notes were smeared with phenolphthalein powder and it was kept in the shirt pocket of complainant PW.4. It was instructed to him that, the tainted money on demand has to be paid to the accused. Thereafter, he was taken to his house and the CBI Officers made the complainant to call the accused from the landline of his house and during that process, they had also got connected the tape recorder so as to record the conversation between the complainant and the accused. 4. It is stated that, when the accused received the call, complainant spoke to him and told that, amount is ready for payment. Then accused replied that, he is also ready. Thereafter, complainant asked the accused that, where to come and give money to him. Accused asked him to come to his house. Thereafter, the call was - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC:17747 CRL.A No. 909 of 2012 disconnected. The CBI officers verified the tape recorded conversation. Thereafter, TLO along with staff and panchas by fixing the microphone to the caller of complainant's banian went near the house of the accused. It was instructed to the complainant to go to the house of the accused along with PW.1. The shadow witness by name M.N.Diwakar, the Manager of the Bank by posing himself as that his maternal uncle of complainant. At 5.30 p.m. they went near the house of accused and as instructed, complainant and PW.1 went inside the house and TLO and officials stood little away from the house of the accused. Accused opened the door and asked the complainant and PW.1 to sit on the sofa. PW.1 told that, they have brought the money. At that time, accused told him that, for this complainant, he was charging Rs.5,000/- and for others, he charges Rs.50,000/- to Rs.60,000/- and asked the complainant that, whether he had brought the money. By saying `yes', complainant took out the tainted money from his shirt pocket and gave it to the accused. The accused, by receiving the said amount, kept the same by - 8 - NC: 2025:KHC:17747 CRL.A No. 909 of 2012 his side on the sofa. Then, PW.1 shadow witness asked the accused that, whether he would pass the complainant in the medical examination. The accused said in the affirmative. Then, both complainant and PW. 1 came out and gave a pre-arranged signal to the TLO who were standing outside the house. The CBI officials came inside the house along with the Mahazar, obtained the signature of the complainant and enquired the accused about receipt of money on demand by the complainant, so also received the microphone fixed to his banian and played the same and heard the conversation between complainant and accused. They got confirmed about the demand and acceptance of tainted by the accused by way of illegal gratification. Thereafter, all went to the Railway Hospital along with the accused and collected the documents from the hospital as per Ex.P21. After obtaining the sanction to prosecute the accused and on completion of investigation, charge sheet was filed by the CBI officer for the aforesaid offences. - 9 - NC: 2025:KHC:17747 CRL.A No. 909 of 2012 5. The learned Special Court took the cognizance of the offence, framed the charges, read over and explained to accused in the language known to him for which accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. 6. To prove the guilt of the accused, prosecution examined 11 witnesses (PW.1 to 11) and got marked 36 documents (Ex.P1 to P36) and MOs nos. 1 to 14, closed its evidence. Thereafter, accused was questioned under Section 313 of Cr.PC 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 chose to lead defence evidence. Accordingly, examined three witnesses (DW.1 to 3) and got marked Ex.D1 and D2) on behalf of the defence. 7. The learned Special Court, on evaluation of evidence and on assessment of the same on hearing the arguments of both the side, found the accused guilty of committing aforesaid offences and sentenced him as stated supra. - 10 - NC: 2025:KHC:17747 CRL.A No. 909 of 2012 8. The defence plea of the appellant-accused was one of the complete denials of occurrence and it was pleaded that, PW.5 along with PW.1 came to his house and forcibly thrust the said tainted money in his hands. By that time, the trap laying party appeared and took out the money from him, prepared the trap panchanama. It was further pleaded by the appellant that, he was not aware as to the said demand of the said tainted money. He never demanded any money as bribe from the complainant. 9. As stated supra, the prosecution examined 11 witnesses. Amongst them, PW.1 M.N.Diwakar was the Manager of, the then State Bank of Mysore, Hubli Audit Section who was a member of trapping party and he stated about the preparation for the trap as well as preparation of the detection report after the trap. 10. PW.2 Dr.Renuka S.Kuchinad was the Divisional Medical Officer, Hubli at the relevant time and stated that, she has conducted some medical test to know the physical fitness of the complainant and also directed the - 11 - NC: 2025:KHC:17747 CRL.A No. 909 of 2012 complainant to get medically examined further by the accused. She states with regard to the ejection of systolic murmur in the pulmonary area of complainant on his examination. 11. PW.3 Sri Sunil Kumar Agarwal, the then Deputy Secretary in the Ministry of Railways stated that, he had received the prosecution papers for recording sanction to prosecute the accused and on evaluation and obtaining the opinion of Railway Board, sanction was issued as per Ex.P20. 12. PW.4 Ghanashyam P.Kalal was the complainant and has stated about demand of bribe money by the accused. He had agreed to pay Rs.500/-. There was demand to pay Rs.5,000/- also stated with regard to preparation of pre-trap and post-trap panchanamas. 13. PW.5 Dr.Shivayogi has stated that, he had medically examined PW.4 complainant twice i.e. 20.10.2005 and 21.10.2005 and stated as narrated in - 12 - NC: 2025:KHC:17747 CRL.A No. 909 of 2012 Ex.P14(d) with regard to systolic murmur in pulmonary area. 14. PW.6 R.Purushotham, SI of CBI Bengaluru at the instruction of his superior went to Hubali and assisted the IO as per his evidence and stated about preparation of the pre-trap and post-trap panchanama. 15. PW.7 M.Raja Inspector, CBI, ACB, Bengaluru is also a trap laying participant, so also investigated the offence against the accused. PW.8 A.K.Parashar is the Chief Vigilance Inspector, Southern Railway, Hubli and according to him, as directed by IO certain documents are produced before the IO from the office of the Railways as per Ex.P19 and 26. 16. PW.9 K.M.Ramesh was the Inspector of Police CBI, ACB Bengaluru and has also done the investigation and on completion of investigation, filed the charge sheet. PW.10 P.K.Ravindra was the Section Engineer, SCR, Hubli who used to look after maintenance of the quarters stated - 13 - NC: 2025:KHC:17747 CRL.A No. 909 of 2012 that, he had prepared the sketch as per Ex.P32 as shown by the IO. 17. PW.11 C.H.Gandhi, was the Government Examiner of Question Document, Hyderabad and stated about issuance of the opinion as per Ex.P35 and P36 the Questioned Documents as requested by the IO. 18. So far as defence evidence is concerned, DW.1 Krishna Reddy was the Pathologist and examined the complainant. He speaks of trap. 19. DW.2 Dr.Srinivas K.H, the Cardiologist of Jayadeva Hospital and has stated about referring of Heart patients by the accused to the Jayadeva Hospital for treatment. 20. DW.3 M. Mahadevaswamy was Electrician in Railways, Hubli and stated that accused was working as a Doctor at Railway Hospital, Hubli. - 14 - NC: 2025:KHC:17747 CRL.A No. 909 of 2012 21. The learned Special Court, after hearing the arguments and assessing the records, held that evidence of PW.5 is believable one and it is further held that the evidence of PW.5 finds corroboration from the evidence of other witnesses in material particulars. It is further held that there is no evidence on record showing that, there was no prior animosity of PW.1 or dispute with the appellant etc. Thus, it has come to the conclusion that the accused is guilty of committing the aforesaid offences. 22. The learned counsel Sri Nagendra Naik, for the appellant strenuously contended that, the learned Special Court has not assessed the evidence on record in its proper perspective. He argued that, there was no occasion for the appellant to demand anything from PW.5 on the dates stated supra, when already the medical certificate was prepared by Dr.Renuka and kept ready for issuance. It is contended that, the alleged demand stated to have been made by the accused is a doubtful feature. - 15 - NC: 2025:KHC:17747 CRL.A No. 909 of 2012 23. He asserted that, there was no occasion for the accused to demand money and just he had examined the complainant and noticed certain heart ailment in the complainant and advised him to take proper treatment. He emphasized on the conduct of PW.4-complainant in not reporting the demand of bribe made by the appellant to the appellant's authorities who were very much present in the hospital. It is further contended that, this PW.4 seems to have been hatched out a story of demand of bribe to falsely implicate the appellant for the best reason known to him. Thus, it is submitted that, it is a planted case against the accused-appellant. He would submit that, the learned trial Court has failed to appreciate the evidence and wrongly and erroneously passed the impugned judgment which requires interference by this Court. 24. Ms.Ramula, learned counsel appearing on behalf of learned Panel Counsel for P.Prasanna Kumar for respondent contended that, there is no infirmity or illegality in the impugned judgment of the learned Special - 16 - NC: 2025:KHC:17747 CRL.A No. 909 of 2012 Court. She argued that, prosecution has proved all the three aspects i.e., demand acceptance and recovery of bribe money and explanation furnished by the appellant is not acceptable. It is contended that, when PW.4 would have been benefited by issuance of fitness certificate by the appellant, there was no earthly reason on his part to bring false accusation against the appellant had there been no demand. Thus, it is prayed to dismiss the appeal. 25. Law is well settled that proof of demand of illegal gratification is the gravamen of the offences punishable under Section 7 and Section 13(2) read with Sections 13(1)(d)(i) and 92 of Act and in the absence thereof, unmistakably, the charge would fail. It is settled that, mere acceptance of any amount alleged by way of illegal gratification or recovery thereof, de hors the proof of demand ifso facto would not be sufficient to bring home the charge under the aforesaid Sections of the Act. As a corollary, failure of the prosecution to prove the demand for illegal gratification would be fatal and mere recovery of - 17 - NC: 2025:KHC:17747 CRL.A No. 909 of 2012 the amount from the person accused of the offence punishable under Sections 7 or 13 of the Act would not entail his conviction thereunder. For arriving at the conclusion as to, whether all the ingredients of offence i.e., demand, acceptance and recovery of illegal gratification having satisfied or not, it is settled that, Court must take into consideration the facts and circumstances brought on record in their entirety. Therefore, the burden rests on the accused to displace the statutory presumption raised under Section 20 of the 1988 Act by bringing on record such evidence, either direct or circumstantial to establish with reasonable probability, that the money was accepted by him, other than motive or reward as referred in Section 7 of the 1988 Act. The standard of burden of proof on the accused vis-à-vis the standard of burden of proof on the prosecution would differ. Therefore, it is said that, the evidence of the complainant should be corroborated in material particulars and the complainant cannot be placed on any better footing than that of accomplice and corroboration in material particulars - 18 - NC: 2025:KHC:17747 CRL.A No. 909 of 2012 connecting the accused with the crime has to be insisted upon as laid down in catena of judgments of the Hon'ble Apex Court. 26. It is settled that, even if the trap witness turns hostile and if the evidence of complainant and other circumstantial evidence placed is, found to be consistent then, such evidence can be accepted by the Court not consistent with the innocence of the accused. 27. Keeping the aforesaid principles in view, let me analyze whether the prosecution is able to establish the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt or not. 28. The Hon'ble Apex Court in case of Krishan Chander v. State of Delhi, reported in (2016) 3 SCC 108, has held that "demand for the bribe money is sine qua non to convict the accused for the offences punishable under Section 7 and 13 (1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of 1988 Act". Likewise, it is also held that, "the proof of demand has been held to be an indispensable essentiality - 19 - NC: 2025:KHC:17747 CRL.A No. 909 of 2012 and of permeating mandate for an offence under Sections 7 and 13 of the Act as held in P. Satyanarayana Murthy v. District Inspector of Police, State of Andhra Pradesh & another, reported in (2015) 10 SCC 152. Section 20 of the Act qua permits a presumption as envisaged therein. It is contingent as well for proof of acceptance of illegal gratification for doing or forbearing to do any official Act there must be demand of money. 29. As per the case of the prosecution, the accused doctor demand a bribe of Rs.5,000/- from the appellant for issuing physical fitness certificate and such a demand was made by him initially on 19.5.2005, when met the accused requesting him to issue the medical fitness certificate and again he demanded the balance money subsequently as stated in his complaint. 30. So far as demand of bribe money by the accused on 19.10.2005, Ex.P1 the complainant if read shows that, when the complainant met the accused on 17th and 18th of October 2005, no medical tests were - 20 - NC: 2025:KHC:17747 CRL.A No. 909 of 2012 conducted and he was asked to visit the hospital on 19.5.2005. Accordingly, when the complainant met him on 19.10.2005, accused demanded a bribe of Rs.5,000/- to issue the medical fitness certificate. It is his complaint that, as he was in financial difficulties, he was unable to pay the said amount and requested to issue the certificate without demanding the money. It is further averred in the complaint that, unless complainant pays Rs.5,000/-, it was told by accused that, he would not issue the said certificate and also gave threat that, if he writes adverse report, he will not get the job. As the complainant was having Rs.500/-, he said that, he would pay the same. At that time, accused told that, he would receive the said amount as advance and asked the complainant to hand over the said advance to his wife and on giving the balance amount only, he would issue the certificate. 31. Throughout his evidence, PW.4 is specific about the demand of bribe money by the accused. Even he stated that, for this complainant, he is charging Rs.5,000/- - 21 - NC: 2025:KHC:17747 CRL.A No. 909 of 2012 and for others he charges Rs.50,000/- to 60,000/-. Inspite of request by the complainant, this appellant sticked on to his demand. This PW.4 complainant was directed with severe cross-examination. He has stated that, as he was seeking the compassionate appointment, his medical certificate for joining the said appointment was very much required. Therefore, he approached the accused to issue his medical fitness certificate. At that time, accused demanded the bribe. Though lengthy and intensive cross- examination is directed to this PW.4 by the defence, he is consistent with regard to the preparation of pre-trap panchanama called as entrustment panchanama in the guest house of BSNL and also preparation of post-trap panchanama after laying the raid on the accused and recovery of the said tainted money from the possession of the accused. Therefore, in view of the evidence spoken to by PW.4 and discussion made from his evidence, it can be stated that, there was a demand of bribe amount by the accused in the manner complained by the complainant and accordingly stated by him in his evidence on oath. - 22 - NC: 2025:KHC:17747 CRL.A No. 909 of 2012 32. The evidence of this PW.4 (complainant) is corroborated by the evidence of PW.1, a shadow witness. As stated supra, this PW.1 is specific that, he was called by the IO to the BSNL guest house, Hubli on 23.10.2005 at 10.30 a.m. and in his presence, complainant was introduced to all and as the complainant explained about the demand of bribe by accused and filing of complaint by him, in his presence, pre-trap panchanama was prepared. He had put his signature. Another pancha was also present. This PW.1 accompanied complainant PW.4 to go to the house of accused. At that time, micro voice recorder was fixed on the shirt of complainant and on taking instructions, on demand by the accused, there was payment of Rs.4,500/- to issue the medical fitness certificate by the accused. Accused had received the said amount and kept on the sofa. Both PW.1 and 4 came out of the house and gave a pre-arranged signal. Thereafter, the trap laying officer with officials entered the house of the accused. Enquired the complainant about payment of - 23 - NC: 2025:KHC:17747 CRL.A No. 909 of 2012 bribe money on demand by the accused. As complainant told about the payment of said bribe amount on demand, the said amount was seized by the TLO and procedure of seizure was followed as per the pancahnama stated above. Even the accused gave his voluntary statement. 33. Though this PW.1 is also cross-examined by the defence severally, but, he had consistently stated about the demand of bribe money by the accused, acceptance of the same and recovery of the same from the possession of the accused. The suggestions so directed to him that, he has not stated the evidence as spoken to examination-in- chief before the IO, is specifically denied by this PW.1. Thus, this PW.1 had withstood the test of cross- examination. That means, evidence of PW.4 and 1 is corroborative in nature with regard to demand of bribe money, its acceptance and recovery from the possession of the accused is proved from the evidence of these witnesses. - 24 - NC: 2025:KHC:17747 CRL.A No. 909 of 2012 34. In a case of present nature, it is mandatory on the part of the prosecution to seek sanction to prosecute the public servant. Evidently, the accused is a public servant as defined under the Act and therefore, the IO had sought the sanction. PW.3 Sri Sunil Kumar Agarwal, the then Deputy Secretary in the Ministry of Railways processed the file and obtained the sanction from the sanctioning authority as per Ex.P20. While marking this document, no little finger was raised by the defence. Except denial in the cross-examination, nothing worth is elicited with regard to the validity of the sanction Ex.P20. Therefore, rightly the IO has got the sanction from the competent sanctioning authority to prosecute the accused. Trial Court has assigned sound reasons regarding validity of sanction which does not call for any interference by this Court. 35. PW.5 Dr.Shivayogi was the Medical Officer in the Railway Hospital, Hubli and according to him, the CBI police came to the hospital and made enquiry and - 25 - NC: 2025:KHC:17747 CRL.A No. 909 of 2012 obtained the medical memo as per Ex.P14 to show that, he had examined the complainant Ghanashyam and noticed systolic murmur in pulmonary area which is mentioned in ExP14. Though this PW.5 is cross examined at length by the defence, the contents of Ex.P14 are not denied and thus, the clinical examination of the complainant by PW.5 is accepted by the defence. He stated that, his relationship with accused is cordial throughout. If that is so, it can be stated that, PW.5 has given natural evidence. The other witnesses examined in this case are consistent about they accompanying IO on receipt of complaint of demand of bribe by the accused. 36. As held by the Apex Court in various judgments, the complainant in a trap case is in the nature of accomplice and before any Court could act on his testimony, corroboration in material particulars is necessary. PW.3 in this case has corroborated the evidence of PW.4 complainant in material particulars. In the case of State of Bihar v. Basawan Singh, reported - 26 - NC: 2025:KHC:17747 CRL.A No. 909 of 2012 in AIR 1958 SC 500, it was held by the Hon'ble Apex Court that, "independent corroboration does not mean that every detail of what the witnesses of the raiding party have said must be corroborated by independent witnesses. Corroboration need not be direct evidence that the accused committed the crime: it is sufficient even though it is merely circumstantial of his connection with the crime." 37. If this analogy is applied to the present facts of the case, PW.1 and PW.4 coupled with the evidence of other witnesses discussed above, do establish that, there was a demand of bribe money by the accused and he has accepted the same in his house as stated in the complainant and the said tainted money was recovered from the possession of the accused. To that effect, PW.1 and PW.4 have specifically stated not only in the complainant Ex.P1, so also in their statements recorded by the IO and also in their respective evidence. - 27 - NC: 2025:KHC:17747 CRL.A No. 909 of 2012 38. With regard to undergoing of various tests by the complainant including his heart test is not denied by the defence. It was revealed that, on Echo Cardiograpy test performed on complainant on 25.1.2000, it was revealed that, there was not cardiac abnormality. But, even then, to issue the fitness certificate, Dr.N.Suresh i.e., accused demanded the bribe and accepted the same which was recovered from his possession by the trap laying officer. To that effect panchanama was prepared. 39. It was the defence of the accused that, forcibly the said tainted currency notes were thrust into his hands. But, no such effective evidence is brought on record. The learned trial Court rightly disbelieved such explanation furnished by the appellant, that the tainted money was thrust into his hands forcibly by the complainant. PW.4 and PW.1 have specifically denied such thrusting of tainted money. 40. Therefore, in the considered view of this court, from the evidence of these witnesses, demand and - 28 - NC: 2025:KHC:17747 CRL.A No. 909 of 2012 acceptance of tainted bribe money is proved. The conduct of the appellant immediately after conducting the trap shows that, he was perplexed. He took a defence that, the amount was thrust into his hands. This evidence is not challenged by the accused throughout the cross- examination directed to PW.4 in particular and PW. 1 in general. 41. Even PW.1 being a shadow witness has stated that, the hands of the appellant-accused were dipped in sodium carbonate solution and they turned into pink colour. The IO has specifically stated that, on washing of the hands of the appellant in sodium carbonate solution, there was a change in the colour of the solution. The hand wash of the appellant collected in a bottle is marked as MOs 1 and 2. It was sent for chemical examination. It was found to be faintly pink and phenolphthalein was detected in the sodium carbonate solution. The learned Special Court has discussed with regard to such a - 29 - NC: 2025:KHC:17747 CRL.A No. 909 of 2012 smearing of such phenolphthalein powder in the hand wash of the appellant. 42. It is settled principal of law that, a Court has to be more careful, cautious and meticulous in scrutinizing the evidence placed on record in a case of present nature. When the money is recovered from the possession of the accused in the presence of panchas and the appellant was made to dip his fingers in the sodium carbonate solution, and now the conduct of the appellant when the trap was conducted definitely attracts the provision of Section 6 of the Indian Evidence Act for the simple reason that, the appellant was perplexed when the trap was laid and there was no opportunity to fabricate a false story or concoct the same. The conduct of the appellant becomes admissible as 'res gestae' within the meaning of Section 6 of the Evidence Act. There is no evidence that, the accused has been victimized and harassed unnecessarily by the complainant or the IO. Sofar as recovery of the tainted money is concerned, it was recovered which was kept by - 30 - NC: 2025:KHC:17747 CRL.A No. 909 of 2012 the appellant by his side on the Sofa. This fact is not denied by the appellant and his only defence is that forcibly the said amount was thrust into his hands by the complainant. Therefore, there is clinching evidence brought on record by the prosecution to the witnesses stated above with regard to demand and acceptance of the amount as illegal gratification and said amount is recovered from the accused. The evidence of the complainant was accepted by the Special Court, so also PW.1 - shadow witness. The submission of the learned standing counsel for the respondent that, there was no earthly reason on the part of PW.4 to bring false accusation against the appellant had there being no demand is quite convincing as PW.4 wanted compassionate appointment. To that effect, he was expected to get the medical fitness certificate. There was no motive for complainant - PW.4, to falsely implicate the Doctor who was to issue the medical fitness certificate. There may be different motives operate in the mind of different persons in making of unfound accusations. But, - 31 - NC: 2025:KHC:17747 CRL.A No. 909 of 2012 in this case, there is no unfounded accusation as per the evidence brought on record. Even on re-appreciation of the evidence placed on record by the prosecution, the learned Special Court had the benefit of seeing the demeanor of the witnesses and it was in a better position to appreciate the evidence. The Appellate Court should not lightly brush aside the appreciation done by the Trial Court except for cogent reasons. It is settled that, it is the duty of the Appellate Court to see, if there is any error in the appreciation of the evidence by the Trial Court, that has to be set right. Therefore, the sustainability of the judgment of the Trial Court depends upon the soundness of the reasons given in support of the finding and conclusion. 43. The learned Trial Court has sentenced the appellant - accused to undergo simple imprisonment for one year and to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/- for the offence under Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act and to undergo simple imprisonment for one year and six months - 32 - NC: 2025:KHC:17747 CRL.A No. 909 of 2012 and to pay a fine of Rs.5000/- for the offence under Section 13(1)(d) read with Section 13 (2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act. This case is registered in the year 2006 almost. It is reaching 2 decades. When the appeal was filed, appellant was aged 48 years and now he must have attained the age of superannuation. In view of the pendency of this case right from 2006 and also the age of the appellant, if the sentence is reduced to 6 months for the offence punishable under Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act and also 6 months for the offence under Section 13(1)(d) read with Section 13 (2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, it would meet the ends of justice. However his period of detention in judicial custody, if any, is to be set off under Section 428 of Cr.P.C. 44. In view of the above discussion, it is apparent that, the prosecution is able to establish the guilt of the accused. The reasons assigned by the learned Trial Court are the sound reasons. I do not find any faulty and - 33 - NC: 2025:KHC:17747 CRL.A No. 909 of 2012 erroneous findings of the Trial Court. I am fully satisfied that the Trial Court has given cogent reasons based upon the reliable evidence placed on record by the prosecution. Even the demand, acceptance and recovery of the illegal gratification is proved with authenticity of trap which can be accepted by the Court. In the absence of any lacunas in the evidence relating to the demand and acceptance of bribe amount by the appellant-accused and recovery of amount from him, it cannot be stated that the accused has been falsely implicated. Therefore, I am of the view that the guilt of the appellant has been established beyond all reasonable doubt. 45. Resultantly, I pass the following: ORDER (i) The Criminal Appeal is allowed-in-part. (ii) The impugned judgment of conviction and order on sentence dated 25.07.2012 passed by the 48th Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge and Special Judge for CBI - 34 - NC: 2025:KHC:17747 CRL.A No. 909 of 2012 Cases, Bengaluru City, is hereby confirmed. (iii) However, there shall be modification of sentence so imposed by the Trial Court i.e., accused shall undergo simple imprisonment for the period of 6 months for the offence punishable under Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act and also simple imprisonment for a period of 6 months for the offence punishable under Section 13(1)(d) read with Section 13 (2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act. Both the sentences shall run concurrently. (iv) The fine amount so imposed on both the offences remains unaltered. (v) The appellant/accused shall surrender before the Trial Court to undergo the sentence within 15 days from today. (vi) The Trial Court shall secure the presence of the accused in accordance with law and commit him to prison. - 35 - NC: 2025:KHC:17747 CRL.A No. 909 of 2012 (vii) Communicate the operative portion of this judgment to the trial Court forthwith by e-mail for compliance. Sd/- (RAMACHANDRA D. HUDDAR) JUDGE SK,AM List No.: 1 Sl No.: 2