- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-K:4036 CRL.A No. 200102 of 2020 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, KALABURAGI BENCH DATED THIS THE 17TH DAY OF JULY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S RACHAIAH CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 200102 OF 2020 (374(Cr.PC)/415(BNSS)) BETWEEN M. RAMESH KUMAR S/O MUNINGAPPA OCC. DEPUTY DIRECTOR, TOURISM DEPARTMENT R/O. H.NO. 110, 1ST CROSS, MUTTAPPA BLOCK GANGANAGAR BADAVANE, BENGALURU – 560 032 ...APPELLANT (BY SRI AVINASH A. UPLAONKAR, ADV.) AND STATE OF KARNATAKA THROUGH LOKAYUKTA POLICE STATION KALABURAGI NOW REPRESENTED BY SPECIAL PUBLIC PROSECUTOR (LOKAYUKTA) HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA KALABURAGI BENCH KALABURAGI …RESPONDENT (BY SRI. SUBHASH MALLAPUR, SPL. SPP FOR LOKAYUKTA/RESPONDENT) THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 374 (2) OF CR.P.C PRAYING THAT THIS HONOURABLE COURT MAY BE PLEASED TO, SET ASIDE THE ORDER OF CONVICTION DATED 23.09.2020 PASSED BY THE PRINCIPAL SESSIONS JUDGE AND SPECIAL JUDGE, AT KALABURAGI, IN S.C. No.22/2015 CONVICTING THE APPELLANT / ACCUSED FOR THE OFFENCES PUNISHABLE U/SEC.7 AND 13(2) R/W SEC.13(1) (d)OF THE PREVENTION OF CORRUPTION ACT 1988. THIS APPEAL HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED FOR JUDGMENT ON 11.03.2025 AT KALABURAGI BENCH, COMING ON FOR ‘PRONOUNCEMENT OF JUDGMENT’, BEFORE THE PRINCIPAL BENCH AT BENGALURU, THROUGH VIDEO CONFERENCING, THIS DAY, THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: Digitally signed by SREEDHARAN BANGALORE SUSHMA LAKSHMI Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-K:4036 CRL.A No. 200102 of 2020 CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S RACHAIAH CAV JUDGMENT (PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S RACHAIAH) 1. This appeal is filed being aggrieved by the judgment of conviction and order on sentence dated 23.09.2020 in Special case No.22/2015 (Lokayukta) on the file of Principal Sessions Judge and Special Judge at Kalaburagi, wherein, the Trial Court held that the accused is found guilty of the offences punishable under Section 7 and 13(2) read with 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (for short ‘P.C. Act’). 2. The ranks of the parties henceforth will be referred to as per their rankings in the Trial Court, for convenience. Factual matrix of the case : 3. It is the case of the prosecution that, one Chandrasekhar S/o Ranganna Naik, who is the complainant, has stated in the complaint that during the year 2012-2013 in Raichur District, the Tourism Department had invited applications from the unemployed SC/ST eligible - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-K:4036 CRL.A No. 200102 of 2020 candidates to purchase tourism taxis with a subsidy of Rs.2,00,000/-. On 19.04.2014, the complainant submitted his application along with required documents in a sealed cover to the Tourism Department, Raichur and got the acknowledgment. Thereafter, the complainant made an enquiry with the accused over the telephone regarding the allotment of vehicles to him. However, he was asked to pay a sum of Rs.15,000/- as illegal gratification for the purpose of doing favour. Being aggrieved by the said demand, the complainant lodged a complaint before the respondent-Lokayukta about the demand of illegal gratification. 4. The respondent - police have registered a case in Crime No.5/2014 for the above said offences. After conducting the investigation, submitted the charge sheet. 5. To prove the case of the prosecution, the prosecution examined 11 witnesses as P.W.1 to P.W.11 and got marked 41 documents as Exs.P1 to P41 and also identified 17 material objects documents as M.O.1 to M.O.17. The Trial Court after appreciating the oral and documentary evidence on record, recorded the conviction - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-K:4036 CRL.A No. 200102 of 2020 of the appellant for the offences stated supra. Being aggrieved by the same, the appellant has approached this Court seeking to set aside the judgment of conviction and order on sentence passed by the Trial Court. 6. Heard Sri.Avinash A.Uploankar, learned counsel for the appellant and Sri.Subhash Mallapur, learned Spl.SPP for the respondent – Lokayukta. 7. It is the submission of the learned counsel for the appellant that the impugned judgment and order of conviction passed by the Trial Court is contrary to the law, facts and evidence on record. Hence, the same is liable to be set aside. 8. It is further submitted that when the complainant has turned hostile regarding the demand of legal gratification, recording the conviction in such case cannot be sustained. However, the Trial Court ignored in considering the evidence properly and recorded the conviction, which is liable to be set aside. 9. Per contra, the learned Special Prosecutor for the respondent – Lokayukta vehemently supported the case of the prosecution stating that even though the - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-K:4036 CRL.A No. 200102 of 2020 complainant has turned hostile, the fact remains that, the evidence of other witnesses has to be considered as crucial to the case of the prosecution. 10. It is further submitted that when the complainant himself has turned hostile, the conviction can be held on the basis of other facts and circumstances of the case. As such, the judgment of conviction passed by the Trial court has to be upheld. Making such submissions, learned Special Prosecutor for the respondent prays to dismiss the appeal. 11. Heard the learned counsel for the respective parties and also perused the averments of the complaint and also the evidence of all the witnesses, it is appropriate to refer the findings of the Trial Court in recording the conviction. Before referring the findings, it is relevant at this stage to consider the evidence of P.W.3, who is stated to be the complainant in this case. 12. P.W.3 is the complainant in this case. He has turned hostile and not supported the case of prosecution. Though he has been treated as hostile and conducted - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-K:4036 CRL.A No. 200102 of 2020 cross-examination, nothing has been elicited to support the case of prosecution. 13. It is also relevant to consider the evidence of P.W.1. P.W.1 is stated to be the shadow witness to the incident. He was working as a Second Division Assistant in the office of the Assistant Director, Agriculture Department. According to him, he along with C.Ws.1, 3 and Lokayukta Police went to Kamath Hotel. There, they went to the AC room and sat in the different places. He further stated that he was sitting in a place where he could see the accused and the complainant. He further stated that the accused was present in the said hotel. However, he did not notice or hear what had happened or what was spoken in the said hotel. When the evidence of these two witnesses is not sufficient to hold that the accused had demanded the amount as illegal gratification, the conviction ought not to have been recorded. 14. It is a settled principle of law that mere recovery of the tainted amount from the accused is not sufficient to hold guilty of the accused, unless, the prosecution establishes the demand of illegal gratification, which is sine-qua-non - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-K:4036 CRL.A No. 200102 of 2020 to attract the ingredients of Sections 7 and 13(1) (d) of P.C Act. 15. In the present case, as the material witnesses have turned hostile, even assuming that other witnesses and the circumstances are said to be proved in respect of recovery of the amount, that itself is not sufficient to hold the accused guilty. Therefore, I am of the considered opinion that the findings of the Trial Court in recording the conviction is liable to be set aside. 16. Hence, I proceed to pass the following: ORDER i) The criminal appeal is allowed. ii) The judgment of conviction and order on sentence dated 23.09.2020 passed in Special Case No.22/2015 (Lokayukta) by the Principal Sessions Judge and Special Judge at Kalaburagi, is set aside. iii) The accused is acquitted for the offences punishable under Sections 7 and 13(2) read - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-K:4036 CRL.A No. 200102 of 2020 with 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. iv) Bail bonds executed if any, stands cancelled. SD/- (S RACHAIAH) JUDGE UN List No.: 19 Sl No.: 2