- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:1066 CRL.A No. 2693 of 2013 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. 2693 OF 2013 (C) BETWEEN: LATE D. MUNIYAPPA S/O. HANUMANTHAPPA, SINCE DECEASED BY HIS LRS., SMT. NIVEDITHA, W/O. D. MUNIYAPPA, AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS, OCC: HOUSE WORK, DOOR NO.149, WARD NO.2, DASARKERI, SIDIGINMOL, BALLARI. (CAUSE TITLE AMENDED AS PER VIDE ORDER DATED 03.03.2022) … APPELLANT (BY SRI. ASHOK R. KALYANASHETTY, ADVOCATE) AND: THE KANRATAKA LOKAYUKTA, BY ITS LOKAYUKTA POLICE, BALLARI, M.S. BUILDING, BENGALURU-560 001, THROUGH STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, A.G. OFFICE, HIGH COURT PREMISES, DHARWAD-01. … RESPONDENT (BY SRI. ANIL KALE, SPL. PP) THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL IS FILED U/S 374(2) OF CR.P.C. PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT OF CONVICTION AND ORDER OF SENTENCE DATED 28/31.05.2013 PASSED BY THE PRL. DISTRICT & SESSIONS JUDGE AND SPL. JUDGE, BELLARY, IN SPECIAL CASE NO.57/1998 AND ACQUIT HIM OF ALL THE CHARGES IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY. THIS APPEAL IS COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING, 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 - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:1066 CRL.A No. 2693 of 2013 ORAL JUDGMENT The deceased appellant was convicted for offences punishable under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d), read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. 2. The prosecution’s case is that the accused, who was serving as a Sub-Inspector of Police at Hospete Rural Police Station, while discharging his duties as a public servant on 19.01.1998, demanded an illegal gratification of Rs.2,000/- from C.W.1, the complainant, who was working as a Police Constable. The complainant had approached the accused seeking his assistance in forwarding a representation in the form of an appeal memorandum to the Superintendent of Police, Ballari, requesting a modification of certain service-related matters. The accused allegedly demanded Rs.2,000/- as a bribe in exchange for making a favorable recommendation. 3. Out of the demanded amount, the complainant initially paid Rs.1,500/- to the accused. However, when the accused insisted that the complainant pay the remaining balance of Rs.500/-, the complainant, unwilling to make any further payment, approached the Lokayukta Police and lodged a complaint. Based on the complaint, the Lokayukta Police registered an FIR against the accused for the aforementioned offences and arranged a trap to catch him in the act of accepting the illegal gratification. During the trap, the accused was allegedly caught receiving Rs.500/- from the complainant. Following standard procedure, the accused’s - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:1066 CRL.A No. 2693 of 2013 hands were dipped into a chemical solution, which subsequently turned pink, confirming the presence of tainted money. 4. To prove its case, the prosecution examined eight witnesses (P.Ws.1 to 8), produced documentary evidence marked as Exs.P.1 to P.23, and exhibited material objects labeled as M.O.Nos.1 to 10. 5. After considering the evidence on record, the trial court observed: 6. The prosecution has established the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubt” and accordingly passed the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence. 7. Sri Ashok R. Kalyanshetty, learned counsel representing the legal representatives of the deceased appellant, argued that the alleged tainted money received by the accused from P.W.3 was not a bribe but rather a repayment of a loan borrowed by P.W.6. He contended that the accused had provided a satisfactory explanation for receiving the money, but the trial court failed to properly consider this defense and erroneously convicted the accused. 8. Furthermore, he submitted that the testimony of P.W.4, the shadow witness, failed to establish beyond reasonable doubt that the accused had demanded the gratification amount from the complainant at the time of the trap. - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:1066 CRL.A No. 2693 of 2013 9. In response, the learned counsel for the respondent, Lokayukta, argued that the testimony of P.W.3 (the complainant), P.W.4 (the shadow witness), and P.W.8 (the Investigating Officer), along with the explanation provided by the accused, clearly established that the accused had demanded and accepted the gratification amount of Rs.500/-. He further contended that the trial court had correctly evaluated the evidence in its proper perspective and rightly passed the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence, which did not warrant any interference. 10. Upon careful consideration of the arguments advanced by both parties and a thorough examination of the trial court records, the primary issue that arises for determination is: “Whether the prosecution has established the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubt, and whether the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed by the trial court is legally sustainable?” 11. It is undisputed that, as of the date of the trap, the accused was serving as a Police Sub-Inspector, and the complainant was a Police Constable working under his authority. The complainant had submitted a memorandum to the accused, requesting that it be forwarded to the Superintendent of Police, Ballari, for favorable consideration regarding Leave Without Pay for a period of ten days, from 08.11.1997 to 17.11.1997. In this context, the accused is alleged to have demanded a gratification amount of Rs.2,000/-, out of which Rs.1,500/- was purportedly paid within the police station. However, the prosecution has failed to - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:1066 CRL.A No. 2693 of 2013 present substantial evidence to establish that, following the accused’s alleged demand, the complainant indeed paid Rs.1,500/- as a bribe. 12. During the trap operation, P.W.4, the shadow witness, accompanied P.W.3 (the complainant). However, at the moment when the accused purportedly accepted the tainted money, P.W.4 was standing outside the accused’s office chamber. In his testimony, P.W.4 categorically stated that he did not hear the accused demand a gratification amount of Rs.500/- from the complainant. He only confirmed that he had seen the accused receiving a cover containing Rs.500/-. 13. P.W.3, the complainant, supported the prosecution’s case in his examination-in-chief. However, during cross- examination, he admitted that financial transactions involving loans frequently took place among police personnel within the police station. He further acknowledged that there was an existing loan transaction between the accused and P.W.6. Despite this admission, he denied that the tainted money received by the accused was related to such a transaction. 14. The testimony of the shadow witness plays a crucial role in establishing the demand and acceptance of illegal gratification. The shadow witness is usually an independent official or person who accompanies the complainant and observes the trap proceedings to ensure fairness and transparency. - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:1066 CRL.A No. 2693 of 2013 15. P.W.6, Satyanarayana, in his examination-in-chief, stated that he had borrowed a sum of Rs.500/- from the accused on 01.01.1998 and had repaid it on 05.01.1998. However, during cross-examination, he admitted that he had subsequently borrowed another sum of Rs.500/- from the accused on 10.01.1998. He further asserted that the tainted money received by the accused at the time of the trap was, in fact, the repayment of this loan. As a result, P.W.6 was declared a hostile witness and was subjected to cross-examination. However, nothing was elicited during cross- examination to discredit his statement that the tainted money was received as a loan repayment and not as a bribe. 16. Furthermore, while the tainted money received by the accused was seized in the presence of two panch witnesses (P.Ws.4 and 5), the prosecution failed to submit any evidence showing that the cover containing the tainted money was sent to the Forensic Science Laboratory (FSL) for examination. Although the accused’s hands were dipped into a chemical solution, turning pink, the prosecution did not place on record any material evidence confirming that the tainted money was forensically analyzed. 17. The Forensic Science Laboratory submitted a report marked as Ex.P.22, which stated that the presence of sodium and carbonate ions was detected. However, the author of the report was not examined as a witness, thereby rendering the FSL report inconclusive and devoid of evidentiary value. 18. In light of the above, the prosecution has failed to conclusively establish that, pursuant to the alleged demand, the - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:1066 CRL.A No. 2693 of 2013 accused received Rs.1,500/- as a bribe and that the Rs.500/- received at the time of the trap was related to an illegal gratification. On the contrary, the explanation offered by the accused, corroborated by the testimony of P.W.6, clearly indicates that the tainted money was received as a repayment of a loan and not as a bribe. The testimony of PW-3 alone cannot establish the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt , when the Shadow Winters has categorically admitted he did not hear or see the accused demanding gratification at the time of trap No corroborative evidence is produced to substantiate that the accused had demanded bribe prior to trap. 19. The trial court, in disregarding these crucial aspects of the case, committed a grave error in passing the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence. As a result, the conviction and sentence imposed upon the accused are not legally sustainable. ORDER i) The appeal is allowed. ii) impugned judgment dated 28.05.2013 and the order of sentence dated 31.05.2013 passed by the Principal District and Sessions Judge and Special Judge, Ballari, in Special Case.No.57/1998 is hereby set aside. - 8 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:1066 CRL.A No. 2693 of 2013 iii) Deceased-appellant/accused is acquitted of the offences alleged against him. iv) Bail bonds, if any, stand cancelled. Sd/- (HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR) JUDGE AC CT:BCK LIST NO.: 1 SL NO.: 54