- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:3179 CRL.A No. 100301 of 2019 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 17TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.100301 OF 2019 (A) BETWEEN: THE STATE OF KARNATAKA, BY INSPECTOR OF POLICE, KARNATAKA LOKAYUKTA, POLICE DIVISION, HAVERI. …APPELLANT (BY SRI. G.I.GACHCHINAMATH, ADVOCATE) AND: SRI. S. PRABHAKAR, S/O. S. GANGAPPA, AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS, OCC: ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, PANCHAYAT RAJ ENGINEERING SUB-DIVISION, RANEBENNUR, R/O. TALAKAL, TQ: HUVINAHADAGALI, BALLARI, DIST: BALLARI. …RESPONDENT (BY SRI. S.S.CHALAWADI, ADVOCATE) THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL IS FILED U/S 378 OF CR.P.C., SEEKING TO, CALL FOR RECORDS IN RESPECT OF SPECIAL SVC NO.01/2014 ON THE FILE OF THE II ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, HAVERI (SITTING AT RANEBENNUR) AND SET ASIDE THE IMPUGNED JUDGMENT AND ORDER DATED 25/06/2018 MADE IN SPL. SVC NO.01/2014 PASSED BY THE II ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, HAVERI (SITTING AT RANEBENNUR) AND FURTHER CONVICT THE ACCUSED FOR THE OFFENCE PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTION 7, 13(1)(d) R/W SECTION 13(2) OF PREVENTION OF CORRUPTION ACT, 1988. THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR B K MAHENDRAKUMAR Digitally signed by B K MAHENDRAKUMAR Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA DHARWAD BENCH Date: 2025.02.20 16:40:02 +0530 - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:3179 CRL.A No. 100301 of 2019 ORAL JUDGMENT 1. The Karnataka Lokayukta has challenged the judgment and order dated 25.06.2018, passed in Spl. SVC No.1/2014 by the II Additional District and Sessions Judge, Haveri, sitting at Ranebennur, wherein the accused was acquitted of offenses punishable under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. 2. The prosecution alleged that the accused, while serving as an Assistant Executive Engineer at the Panchayat Raj Engineering Sub-Division, Ranebennur, instructed the complainant to dig 60 bore wells under the drought relief scheme. The accused allegedly demanded a bribe of ₹2,000 per bore well, amounting to ₹1,20,000 in total. Out of this, ₹74,000 was allegedly paid in advance, and the accused prepared and forwarded the bill for 30 bore wells. For the remaining 30, he demanded ₹46,000. Unwilling to pay, the complainant approached the Lokayukta Police, who laid a trap on 24.04.2013. The accused was allegedly caught accepting ₹46,000 in his chamber, and a hand wash test turned pink, indicating the presence of chemical traces. 3. The prosecution examined 15 witnesses (P.W.1 to P.W.15), submitted 95 documents (Exs.P.1 to P.95), and presented 12 material objects (M.Os.1 to 12). The accused submitted Ex.D.1 and Ex.D.2 in his defense. After considering the evidence, the Trial Court held that the prosecution failed to establish the accused’s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, leading to his acquittal. - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:3179 CRL.A No. 100301 of 2019 4. The complainant (P.W.1) filed Ex.P.1, stating that the accused demanded ₹2,000 per bore well, received ₹74,000 in advance, and later demanded ₹46,000. However, during trial, he turned hostile, denying any demand or acceptance of a bribe. Despite extensive cross-examination, nothing incriminating was elicited against the accused. 5. The shadow witness (P.W.2) testified that he accompanied the complainant to the accused’s chamber but was prevented from entering. He stated that the accused shut the door, and five minutes later, the complainant signaled the raiding team. However, he did not confirm that the accused demanded or accepted the bribe, leading to him being declared hostile. His cross-examination also did not yield any substantive evidence against the accused. 6. P.W.3, a panch witness to Ex.P.37 (entrustment mahazar), did not provide any evidence supporting the prosecution’s case. 7. P.W.13, an Investigating Officer, testified regarding the receipt and handling of case records but did not provide direct evidence of the alleged bribery. 8. P.W.14, another Investigating Officer, stated that the accused demanded ₹1,20,000 for 60 bore wells, received ₹74,000 in advance, and withheld the bill for the remaining 30 bore wells due to non-payment of ₹46,000. - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:3179 CRL.A No. 100301 of 2019 9. P.W.15, also an Investigating Officer, testified that the complainant informed him about the bribe demand before lodging the complaint. 10. The testimonies of the Investigating Officers only establish procedural aspects, such as the lodging of the FIR and possession of tainted money. They do not directly prove that the accused demanded or accepted the bribe. With the complainant (P.W.1) and shadow witness (P.W.2) turning hostile, the prosecution failed to substantiate the allegations. No corroborative evidence produced to substantiate the charge against the accused. The Trial Court, considering these aspects, acquitted the accused, which cannot be said to be arbitrary or perverse. 11. The respondent’s learned counsel produced an order passed by the Karnataka State Administrative Tribunal, Belagavi, in Application No.337/2019, dated 01.04.2023. This order indicates that the accused was subjected to departmental inquiry on similar charges, resulting in compulsory retirement. However, the Tribunal set aside the punishment, and this decision has attained finality. 12. In light of the above findings, no illegality is found in the judgment passed by the Trial Court. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed. Sd/- (HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR) JUDGE KMS Ct:vh List No.: 1 Sl No.: 72