- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:1305 CRL.A No. 100036 of 2016 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 23RD DAY OF JANUARY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 100036 OF 2016 (C) BETWEEN: HANUMANTAPPA S/O. VITTAPPA KALAPPANAVAR AGE ABOUT 55 YEARS, OCC: SERVICE, ASSISTANT PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, R/O: SAVANUR, DISTRICT: HAVERI, PRESENTLY R/O: NEAR HEAD POST OFFICE, M.G. ROAD, RANEBENNUR. …APPELLANT (BY SRI. JAGADISH PATIL, ADVOCATE) AND: STATE OF KARNATAKA BY STATE SPECIAL PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH AT DHARWAD, THROUGH LOKAYUKTA POLICE, HAVERI. …RESPONDENT (BY SRI. G.I. GACHCHINAMATH, STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR) THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL IS FILED U/S 374(2) OF CR.P.C. SEEKING TO, CALL FOR THE RECORDS PERTAINING TO CASE BEARING SPECIAL (LOKAYUKTA) CASE NO.1/2010 ON THE FILE OF PRL. DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE AND SPECIAL JUDGE HAVERI AND TO PASS A JUDGMENT OF ACQUITTAL FROM THE CHARGES LEVELED U/SES 7, 13(1)(d) R/W 13(2) OF PREVENTION OF CORRUPTION ACT, FRAMED AGAINST THE APPELLANT BY SETTING ASIDE THE JUDGMENT OF CONVICTION AND ORDER OF SENTENCE PASSED ON 23/12/2015 BY THE PRL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE AND SPECIAL JUDGE HAVERI IN SPECIAL (LOKAYUKAT) CASE NO.1/2010. THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR Digitally signed by B K MAHENDRAKUMAR Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA DHARWAD BENCH Date: 2025.01.28 15:16:04 +0530 - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:1305 CRL.A No. 100036 of 2016 ORAL JUDGMENT This appeal under Section 374(2) of Cr.PC is filed by the accused. The appellant has been convicted for the offences punishable under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, by the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 23.12.2015 passed in Special (Lokayukta) Case No. 1/2010 by the learned Principal District and Sessions Judge, Haveri. 2. The prosecution’s case is that while the accused was working as an Assistant Public Prosecutor in connection with a case in C.C. No. 291/2008, he demanded a gratification amount of Rs.1,000/- for effectively conducting the trial. The complainant, unwilling to pay the gratification amount, approached the Lokayukta Police, who provided him with a voice recorder to capture the accused’s alleged demand. The conversation was recorded, in which the accused purportedly demanded Rs.1,000/- for conducting the trial effectively. 3. After registering an FIR, the Lokayukta Police conducted a trap operation during which the accused was caught red-handed accepting Rs.1,000/- in the presence of a shadow witness. The investigating officer prepared a spot mahazar, sent the tainted notes for examination, and tested the accused’s hands with a chemical solution, which turned pink, indicating contact with the tainted notes. - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:1305 CRL.A No. 100036 of 2016 4. To substantiate its case, the prosecution examined PWs.1 to 9, produced documents marked as Exs. P1 to P30, and submitted material objects marked as MOs.1 to 13. 5. The learned District and Sessions Judge, after evaluating the evidence, held that the prosecution had proved the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubt and passed the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence. 6. Sri Jagadish Patil, learned counsel for the appellant- accused, argued that there was no evidence to establish that the accused had demanded Rs.1,000/- as gratification. He contended that mere acceptance of money does not constitute an offence under Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, as both demand and acceptance are essential elements to prove the offence. 7. He further argued that although it was alleged that the conversation between the accused and the complainant was recorded, the prosecution failed to produce the transcription or the voice recorder. This omission, he submitted, indicates that the prosecution failed to prove the accused’s demand for gratification, rendering the conviction unsustainable in law. 8. In response, Sri G.I. Gachchinamath, learned Special Public Prosecutor for the respondent-Lokayukta, contended that while the complainant (PW.1) turned hostile, PW.2, the shadow witness, supported the prosecution’s case. He submitted that the demand and acceptance of gratification were documented in - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:1305 CRL.A No. 100036 of 2016 Ex.P.29, and the trial court had correctly appreciated the evidence to convict the accused. 9. After considering the arguments, the sole point for consideration is whether the prosecution has established the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt, and whether the judgment of conviction and sentence passed by the trial court is legally sustainable. 10. A perusal of Ex.P.1 (complaint) reveals that the complainant alleged that the accused demanded Rs.1,000/- as gratification for conducting the trial effectively. The complainant, unwilling to pay the amount, approached the Lokayukta Police, leading to the registration of the FIR and the subsequent trap on 03.06.2009, during which the accused was caught allegedly accepting the tainted money in the presence of PW.1 (complainant) and PW.2 (shadow witness). 11. PW.1, the complainant, turned hostile and did not substantiate the allegation that the accused demanded and accepted the tainted money for effectively conducting the trial. 12. PW.2, the shadow witness, supported the prosecution’s case to the extent that the accused accepted Rs.1,000/- from the complainant. However, PW.2 did not state in his evidence that the acceptance of money was in furtherance of any prior demand for gratification. 13. While the prosecution established that the accused accepted tainted money from PW.1, it failed to prove the demand - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:1305 CRL.A No. 100036 of 2016 for gratification. Although the prosecution alleged that the conversation between the accused and PW.1 was recorded before the registration of the FIR, it neither produced a transcription of the conversation nor the voice recorder allegedly used to record it. 14. Therefore, it is evident that there is no material on record to establish that the acceptance of the tainted money by the accused was in furtherance of any prior demand for illegal gratification. It is well-settled law, as consistently held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court and various High Courts, that both demand and acceptance of gratification are essential ingredients that must be established by the prosecution beyond reasonable doubt to constitute an offence punishable under Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. Mere proof of acceptance of money by the accused is insufficient to sustain a conviction unless the prosecution conclusively demonstrates that such acceptance was preceded by a demand for gratification made by the accused. 15. In the instant case, the prosecution has failed to discharge its burden of proving the essential ingredient of demand for gratification. The complainant (PW.1), who was expected to be the primary witness to prove the demand, has turned hostile and did not support the prosecution’s case. Although PW.2, the shadow witness, has deposed regarding the acceptance of the tainted money by the accused, his testimony does not establish that the said acceptance was in response to a prior demand for gratification made by the accused. - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:1305 CRL.A No. 100036 of 2016 16. Furthermore, while the prosecution alleged that the accused demanded gratification during a conversation recorded prior to the registration of the FIR, neither the transcription of the said conversation nor the recording device has been produced as evidence. This significant lapse casts serious doubt on the prosecution’s claim and undermines its case. Accordingly, I pass the following: ORDER i) Criminal appeal is allowed. ii) The impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 23.15.2015 passed by the Principal District and Sessions Judge and Special Judge, Haveri in Special(Lokayukta) Case No.1/2010 is hereby set aside, and the accused is acquitted of the aforesaid offences. iii) The bail bond, if any, stands cancelled. Sd/- (HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR) JUDGE HR Ct:vh List No.: 1 Sl No.: 35