- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:1057 CRL.A No. 100021 of 2016 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 21ST DAY OF JANUARY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 100021 OF 2016 (C) BETWEEN: 1. NEELAKANTH SANGAPPA YARAGUDDI SINCE DECEASED BY LR.s 1(A). SMT. MAHADEVI W/O. LATE NEELAKANTH YARAGUDDI AGE.50 YEARS, OCC. HOUSEWIFE. 1(B). SMT. JYOTI W/O.SURESH AKKI AGE. 26 YEARS, OCC. HOUSEWIFE. 1(C). SHWETA D/O. LATE NEELAKANTH YARAGUDDI AGE. 24 YEARS, OCC. NIL. 1(D). SAVITRI D/O. LATE NEELAKANTH YARAGUDDI AGE. 22 YEARS, OCC. NIL. 1(E). SANGAMESH S/O. LATE NEELAKANTH YARAGUDDI AGE. 17 YEARS, OCC. STUDENT, ALL ARE R/O. HOLIHOSURU VILLAGE, NESARAGI HOBALI, BAILHONGAL TALUK, DIST. BELAGAVI-591112. …APPELLANTS (BY SRI. GANAPATI M. BHAT AND SRI. S.B.DEYANNAVAR, ADVOCATES) AND: STATE BY INSPECTOR OF POLICE KARNATAKA LOKAYUKTA, BELAGAVI, REP BY SPL. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR FOR LOKAYUKTA, HIGH COURT BENCH, DHARWAD. …RESPONDENT (BY SRI. G.I. GACHCHINAMATH, STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR) B K MAHENDRAKUMAR Digitally signed by B K MAHENDRAKUMAR Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA DHARWAD BENCH Date: 2025.02.04 17:31:40 +0530 - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:1057 CRL.A No. 100021 of 2016 THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL IS FILED U/SEC 374(2) OF CR.P.C. R/W SEC.27 OF P.C. ACT, PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE IMPUGNED JUDGMENT OF CONVICTION AND ORDER OF SENTENCE, DATED 21/12/2015 PASSED IN SPL. CASE NO.76/2012 REGISTERED FOR THE OFFENCE PUNISHABLE U/SEC.7, 8, 13(1)(d) R/W SEC.13(2) OF PC ACT 1988 AND SEC.34 OF IPC ARISING OUT OF LOKAYUKTA P.S. CRIME NO.3/2011, BY IV ADDL. DIST. & SESSIONS JUDGE AND SPECIAL JUDGE (P.C.A), BELAGAVI, BY ALLOWING THIS APPEAL AND CONSEQUENTLY ACQUIT THE APPELLANT/ACCUSED NO.2 FROM THE CHARGES LEVELED AGAINST HIM. THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNER: CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR ORAL JUDGMENT 1. This appeal under Section 374(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr.P.C.) is filed by Accused No.2 (Civil Head Constable), who has been convicted for offences punishable under Sections 7, 8, and 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (PC Act), and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for a period of one year. 2. The case of the prosecution is as follows: PW.2- complainant lodged a First Information Report (FIR) with the Lokayukta police, alleging that a boundary dispute had arisen between him and the adjacent landowner, and that the adjacent landowner had filed a complaint against the complainant herein against alleged destruction of sugarcane crops standing on the encroachments made on the lands belonging to the complainant. The complainant was summoned to the police station by Accused No.1 - the Police Sub-Inspector, who had allegedly demanded - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:1057 CRL.A No. 100021 of 2016 Rs.50,000/- for the damages and an additional Rs.10,000/- to close the complaint. After negotiations, the demand was reduced to Rs.5,000/-. 3. Subsequently, CW.4, a relative of the complainant, informed him that Accused No.2 had visited his house and conveyed a demand to pay Rs.5,000/-. The complainant visited the police station, where Accused No.1 reiterated the demand. The complainant, unwilling to pay the bribe, approached the Lokayukta police and lodged a complaint. A trap was conducted, during which Accused No.2 was caught red-handed accepting the gratification amount of Rs.5,000/-. During the trap, Accused No.2’s hands were dipped into a chemical solution, which turned pink, confirming the acceptance of the money. 4. The prosecution examined 13 witnesses as PW.1 to PW.13 and marked documents as Ex.P1 to Ex.P45 (a), along with material objects as MO1 to MO11. The accused did not present any defense evidence, but a rough sketch was marked as Ex.D1. The Sessions Court acquitted Accused Nos.1 and 3, finding insufficient evidence against them, but however, convicted Accused No.2 for the offences charged. 5. The learned counsel for the appellant/Accused No.2 argued that the entire allegation of demanding gratification in the FIR is against Accused No.1, and there is no material evidence to prove that Accused No.2 independently demanded the illegal - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:1057 CRL.A No. 100021 of 2016 gratification. The learned counsel further contended that Accused No.2 was not the competent authority to register or close the complaint, as such authority vested solely with Accused No.1. The appellant explained, as per Ex.P27, that the tainted money was received on the instructions of Accused No.1. The trial court, having acquitted Accused No.1 for lack of evidence, erred in convicting Accused No.2, as the demand and acceptance of gratification is a sine qua non for constituting the offence. 6. The learned counsel for the respondent/ Lokayukta argued that Accused No.2 demanded gratification through CW4 and admitted to receiving the tainted money, as reflected in Ex.P27. The respondent contended that the testimonies of PW.2 (the complainant) and PW.4 corroborate the prosecution’s case, establishing that Accused No.2 accepted the gratification amount. Accordingly, the trial court’s conviction of Accused No.2 was based on substantial evidence and does not warrant interference. 7. The issue that arises for consideration is whether the judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed against Accused No.2 by the trial Court below is sustainable in law. 8. The complaint - PW.2 specifically alleges in the complaint that the demand for gratification was made by Accused No.1(Police Sub-Inspector). The complaint and evidence on record do not indicate that Accused No.2 demanded any gratification, independently of Accused No.1. The only allegation against - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:1057 CRL.A No. 100021 of 2016 Accused No.2 is that he visited CW.4’s house to convey the demand made by Accused No.1. 9. During the trap, Accused No.2 was caught accepting the tainted money, but he provided an explanation (Ex.P27) that the money was received on the instructions of Accused No.1. The same is corroborated by the testimony of the complainant (PW2), thereby confirming that the demand for gratification was made solely by Accused No.1. 10. The trial court acquitted Accused No.1 on the ground of lack of evidence proving the demand or receipt of gratification. However, it erroneously convicted the petitioner-Accused No.2 despite the absence of evidence to prove that he had independently made a demand for illegal gratification. It is now settled law enunciated in the decision rendered by the Constitution Bench in the case of Neeraj Dutta [2022] 5 SCR 104, that mere acceptance of gratification without proof of demand does not constitute an offence of obtainment under Section 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. 11. As regards conviction for the offence of acceptance of illegal gratification under Section 7 of the Act, the Court below has failed to take into consideration the fact that the petitioner-Accused No. 2 had stated that that graft was received on instructions of the Accused No.1 and that the same is corroborated by the testimony of the complainant (PW2) to the effect that the petitioner-Accused - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:1057 CRL.A No. 100021 of 2016 No. 2 had not solicited any illegal gratification, but that had only conveyed the demand for gratification to the complainant, as raised by the Accused No.1 (PSI). Thus, for all practical purposes, the graft was offered by the complainant to the acquitted Accused No. 1 and that the Accused No.2 (Head Civil Constable), who is a junior police official in the hierarchy of ranking to the Accused No.1, could neither possibly be charged for improper or dishonest discharge of duties actually falling in the realm of the authority exercisable by the senior police official of the rank of Police Sub-Inspector i.e. Accused No. 1, nor could have caused an improper or dishonest discharge of duties by a police official senior in hierarchy of ranking to the Accused No.2. 12. As regards the conviction of an offence of under Section 8 of the Act, a bare perusal of language of employed therein reveals the wide and expansive purport of the Section to sweep in its ambit any aider and abettor of the offence of bribing a public servant, so as to induce a public servant to perform improperly any public duty or reward a public servant for the improper performance of public duty. 12.1. The explanation thereto further clarifies that “it shall be immaterial whether the person to whom an undue advantage is given or promised to be given is the same person as the person who is to perform, or has performed, the public duty concerned, and, it shall also be immaterial whether such undue advantage is given or promised to be given by the person directly or through a third party”. - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:1057 CRL.A No. 100021 of 2016 13. Although the conviction of the petitioner-Accused No.2 appears to be fortified upon a cursory reading of the provisions contained in Section 8 of the Act, and the explanation appended thereto, the conviction is misplaced and based on incorrect interpretation of the law. Seth & Capoor’s Prevention of Corruption Act, 4th Edn. (Reprint), 2007, says at page no. 439: “The gist of the offence consists in receiving a gratification in order to influence a public servant “by corrupt or illegal means”. Ordinarily, such will be the case where the public servant concerned employs an intermediary as his tout or bribe-agent. But, where he is no more than a conduit-pipe between the giver and the receiver of the bribe, conveying what he receives, retaining nothing for himself, the section is inapplicable, for then he receives nothing “for indicating by corrupt or illegal means”, the public servant, which is the gist of the crime…The section requires that the payment must be in promise of the inducement and the inducement must be by “corrupt or illegal means”. If then a person induces a public servant without a gratification, he commits no offence under this section, though if the means he employs be “corrupt”, he may be guilty of abetment of an offence under the last section, and if the means be employed “illegal”, he may conceivably be guilty of some other offence depending upon the nature of illegality practiced.” (emphasis supplied) - 8 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:1057 CRL.A No. 100021 of 2016 14. Therefore, when the complaint contains specific allegations of a demand for an illegal gratification of INR 5,000/- raised by the Accused No.1 solely, and the testimony of complainant (PW2) corroborates the statement of the Accused No.2 that he had only conveyed the illegal demand for graft raised by an official above his rank in hierarchy at the residence of CW.4, and that the graft of the precisely said amount was received by the Accused No. 2 at the time of the trap, it could not be presumed that the Accused No.2 could have, in future, retained any part of the said amount for himself. Therefore, where the Accused No.2 retained, in essence nothing for himself, he cannot be said to have induced a public servant by corrupt or illegal means. Furthermore, it is not the case of the prosecution that the said illegal gratification paid to the Accused No. 2 was to induce the Accused No. 1, to perform improperly a public duty and therefore, Section 8 read with Explanation thereunder is not applicable to the facts of the case, warranting a conviction under Section 8. Therefore, the petitioner cannot be said to have committed an offence of abetment under Section 8 of the Act, when the alleged offences under Section 7 and Section 13 of the Act, have itself been proven herein, to be non-existent. 15. When the prosecution alleges that the demand was made by Accused No.1, and in furtherance of that demand, the Accused No.2 accepted the gratification, conviction of the Accused No.2 cannot be sustained when the Accused No.1—the person who allegedly demanded gratification—has been acquitted - 9 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:1057 CRL.A No. 100021 of 2016 due to insufficient evidence. This is especially true when the prosecution has accepted the acquittal of Accused No.1, and the said acquittal has attained finality. At the risk of repetition, it is apposite to observe at this stage that, the factual matrix of the case at hand reveals that allegations of demand for illegal gratification in the complaint are levelled against the acquitted-Accused No. 1 - the Police Sub-Inspector, who in the hierarchy of ranking is an official superior than the petitioner-Accused No. 2 - Civil Head Constable, and that the only role attributed to the Accused No. 2, is receipt of the graft on behalf of the Accused No. 1. 16. If there is insufficient evidence against Accused No.1 to establish that he demanded gratification, it necessarily follows that the conviction of Accused No.2 for accepting the gratification in furtherance of such alleged demand is unsustainable. 17. Accused No.2 had no authority either to register or close the complaint against the complainant, as the authority to register or close the complaint vested solely with Accused No.1. Accused No.2 was a constable working under the authority and instructions of Accused No.1. 18. In light of the above, the trial court’s judgment convicting Accused No.2 and sentencing him to imprisonment is not sustainable in law. The explanation provided by Accused No.2, supported by the evidence on record, establishes that he acted on the instructions of Accused No.1, who has already been acquitted. - 10 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:1057 CRL.A No. 100021 of 2016 Accordingly, I proceed to pass the following: ORDER a) The appeal is allowed. b) The impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 21.12.2015 passed in Spl. Case No.76/2012 on the file of IV Addl. District and Sessions Judge & Special Judge (PCA), Belagavi, insofar it relates to appellant/accused No.2, is hereby set-aside. c) The appellant is acquitted of the offence alleged against him. d) Bail bond, if any, stands cancelled. Sd/- (HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR) JUDGE JTR Ct:vh List No.: 1 Sl No.: 56