- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:970 CRL.A No. 200084 of 2021 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, KALABURAGI BENCH DATED THIS THE 11TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.VISHWAJITH SHETTY CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.200084 OF 2021 (378(Cr.PC)/419(BNSS)) BETWEEN: STATE OF KARNATAKA THROUGH LOKAYUKTA POLICE STATION, REP. BY SPECIAL PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, VIJAYAPURA-586101. …APPELLANT (BY SRI SUBHASH MALLAPUR, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. RAMANAGOUDA S/O HANAMANTRAY NARASALAGI AGE. MAJOR, OCC. GRADE-II SECRETARY OF GRAM PANCHAYAT, HUNSHAL P.B. I/C PDO GRAM PANCHAYAT YALAWAR, R/O. WADAWADAGI, TQ. B.BAGEWADI-586101. 2. LAKKAVVA W/O YALLAPPA ROTTI AGE. MAJOR, OCC. PRESIDENT OF YALAWAR GRAM PANCHAYAT, TQ. B. BAGEWADI, R/O. YALAWAR-586101. 3. YALLAPPA SAYABANNA ROTTI AGE. MAJOR, OCC. AGRICULTURE, R/O. YALAWAR, Digitally signed by SHIVAKUMAR HIREMATH Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:970 CRL.A No. 200084 of 2021 TQ. B. BAGEWADI-586101. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI MAHANTESH PATIL, ADVOCATE FOR R1; SRI SHIVANAND V. PATTANSHETTI, ADVOCATE FOR R2 & R3) THIS CRL.A. IS FILED U/S. 378 (1) AND (3) OF THE CR.P.C PRAYING TO GRANT LEAVE TO THE APPEAL AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT AND ORDER OF CQUITTAL DATED 02.11.2020 IN SPL. CASE NO.04/2015, PASSED BY THE PRINCIPAL SESSIONS JUDGE AND SPL. JUDGE (LOKAYUKTA), VIJAYAPURA, FOR THE OFFENCE U/SEC. 7, 8, 13(1)(d) R/W SEC. 13(2) OF THE PREVENTIO OF CORRUTION ACT 1988; SET ASIDE THE JUDGEMENT AND ORDER OF ACQUITTAL DATED 02.11.2020, IN SPL. CASE NO.04/2015, PASSED BY THE PRINCIPAL SESSIONS JUDGE AND SPL. JUDGE (LOKAYUKTA), VIJAYAPURA. THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.VISHWAJITH SHETTY ORAL JUDGMENT (PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.VISHWAJITH SHETTY) This appeal under Section 378(1) and (3) of Cr.P.C. is filed assailing the judgment and order of acquittal dated 02.11.2020 passed by the Court of Principal Sessions Judge/Special Judge, Vijayapur (for short ‘Trial Court’) in Special Case (Lok) No.4/2015. 2. Heard learned counsel for the parties. - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:970 CRL.A No. 200084 of 2021 3. The respondents herein were charge sheeted by the Lokayukta Police, Vijayapur for the offences punishable under Sections 7, 8, 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as ‘P.C.Act’) and in the said proceedings, the respondents/accused, who had appeared before the Trial Court claimed to be tried. 4. The prosecution in order to substantiate its charges against the respondents/accused, had examined in all ten charge sheet witnesses as PW.1 to PW.10 and got marked 41 documents as Exs.P1 to P41. Nine material objections were marked as MOs.1 to 9. After the evidence of the prosecution was closed, the statement of the respondents/accused under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. was recorded. However, no defence evidence was led on behalf of the accused, but one document was got marked as Ex.D1 in support of their defence. 5. The Trial Court after hearing the arguments addressed on both sides, by the impugned judgment and - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:970 CRL.A No. 200084 of 2021 order dated 02.11.2020, acquitted the respondents/accused of the charge sheeted offences. Being aggrieved by the same, the Lokayukta Police have preferred this appeal. 6. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant – Lokayukta having reiterated the grounds urged in the appeal memorandum submits that the Trial Court has erred in acquitting the respondents/accused when there is sufficient material to show that there was a demand and acceptance of bribe by the accused persons and the same is proved by the prosecution through the evidence of PW.2, who is a shadow witness. The Trial Court has failed to appreciate the evidence of PW.2, which has resulted in passing an erroneous order of acquittal. Accordingly, he prays to allow the appeal. 7. Per contra, learned counsels appearing on behalf of the respondents/accused have argued in support of the impugned judgment and order of acquittal. They submit that the de-facto complainant – PW.1 and other - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:970 CRL.A No. 200084 of 2021 material charge sheet witnesses, except the shadow witness – PW.2 have not supported the case of the prosecution. The trap panchanama– Ex.P23 has not been proved in the present case and therefore, merely on the statement of PW.2 - shadow witness, respondents/accused cannot be convicted for the alleged offences. Accordingly, they pray to dismiss the appeal. 8. It is the case of the prosecution that the de- facto complainant – PW.1 had approached accused Nos.1 and 2 seeking sanction of a pending bill for a sum of Rs.1,84,953/- in respect of the work done by him and for sanctioning the bill amount, accused No.1 had demanded bribe amount of Rs.8,000/- and accused No.2 had demanded a bribe amount of Rs.8,500/-. Since the de- facto complainant was not willing to pay the bribe amount, he had approached the Lokayukta Police and thereafter on the instructions of the police, he had recorded his conversation with accused Nos.1 to 3 in a voice recorder. Thereafter, FIR was registered against the - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:970 CRL.A No. 200084 of 2021 respondents/accused for the aforesaid offences and subsequently, trap was held on 25.02.2014 at about 2.45 p.m. in the house of accused Nos.2 and 3 and they were apprehended red-handed while collecting the bribe amount of Rs.8,500/- from the de-facto complainant. 9. In order to prove its charges against the respondents/accused, the prosecution has examined the de-facto complainant as PW.1. PW.1 has completely turned hostile to the case of the prosecution. He has disputed his complaint itself at Ex.P1. He also has not spoken of any demand and acceptance of bribe by the respondents/accused as alleged by the prosecution. 10. PW.2 is the shadow witness, who had accompanied PW.1 on the date of trap. This witness has supported the case of the prosecution. PW.3 is the friend of PW.1, who also had accompanied PW.1 and PW.2 on the date of trap, but this witness has turned hostile to the case of the prosecution. PW.4 is the contractor, in whose favour, road repair work was awarded by the panchayat - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:970 CRL.A No. 200084 of 2021 and on his behalf, PW.1 had done the work. This witness has also turned hostile to the case of the prosecution. PW.5 is the secretary of the Gram Panchayat of which accused No.1 was the Panchayat Development Officer and accused No.2 was the President. This witness has refused to identify the voice of accused Nos.1 to 3, which was recorded by PW.1 in a voice recorder. Even this witness has been treated as a hostile witness. PW.6 is the Junior Engineer, who was supervising the work awarded to PW.4 - Contractor. Even this witness has not supported the case of the prosecution. PW.7 is the Junior Engineer, who has prepared the sketch of the spot as per Ex.P30 and PW.8 and PW.9 are the competent authorities, who have issued the sanction orders to prosecute the respondents/accused. PW.10 is the Investigating Officer, who has completed the investigation and filed charge sheet. 11. It is trite that mere recovery of bribe amount is not sufficient to convict the accused for the charge - 8 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:970 CRL.A No. 200084 of 2021 sheeted offences. Demand and acceptance of the bribe amount is required to be proved by the prosecution and only thereafter a presumption under Section 20 of the P.C.Act can be raised against the accused. The law in this regard is laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of B. Jayaraj vs. State of Andhra Pradesh1 and subsequently the Constitutional Bench of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Neeraj Dutta v. State (NCT of Delhi)2 after referring to all its earlier judgments on the question of demand and acceptance of bribe amount and also the presumption that is available against the accused under Section 20 of the P.C.Act, in paragraph No.88 has observed as follows: “88.1. (a) Proof of demand and acceptance of illegal gratification by a public servant as a fact in issue by the prosecution is a sine qua non in order to establish the guilt of the accused public servant under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d)(i) and (ii) of the Act. 1 (2014) 13 SCC 55 2 (2023) 4 SCC 731 - 9 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:970 CRL.A No. 200084 of 2021 88.2. (b) In order to bring home the guilt of the accused, the prosecution has to first prove the demand of illegal gratification and the subsequent acceptance as a matter of fact. This fact in issue can be proved either by direct evidence which can be in the nature of oral evidence or documentary evidence. 88.3. (c) Further, the fact in issue, namely, the proof of demand and acceptance of illegal gratification can also be proved by circumstantial evidence in the absence of direct oral and documentary evidence. 88.4. (d) In order to prove the fact in issue, namely, the demand and acceptance of illegal gratification by the public servant, the following aspects have to be borne in mind: (i) if there is an offer to pay by the bribe- giver without there being any demand from the public servant and the latter simply accepts the offer and receives the illegal gratification, it is a case of acceptance as per Section 7 of the Act. In such a case, there need not be a prior demand by the public servant. - 10 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:970 CRL.A No. 200084 of 2021 (ii) On the other hand, if the public servant makes a demand and the bribe-giver accepts the demand and tenders the demanded gratification which in turn is received by the public servant, it is a case of obtainment. In the case of obtainment, the prior demand for illegal gratification emanates from the public servant. This is an offence under Sections 13(1)(d)(i) and (ii) of the Act. (iii) In both cases of (i) and (ii) above, the offer by the bribe-giver and the demand by the public servant respectively have to be proved by the prosecution as a fact in issue. In other words, mere acceptance or receipt of an illegal gratification without anything more would not make it an offence under Section 7 or Sections 13(1)(d)(i) and (ii), respectively of the Act. Therefore, under Section 7 of the Act, in order to bring home the offence, there must be an offer which emanates from the bribe-giver which is accepted by the public servant which would make it an offence. Similarly, a prior demand by the public servant when accepted by the bribe- giver and in turn there is a payment made which is received by the public servant, would be an - 11 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:970 CRL.A No. 200084 of 2021 offence of obtainment under Sections 13(1)(d)(i) and (ii) of the Act. 88.5. (e) The presumption of fact with regard to the demand and acceptance or obtainment of an illegal gratification may be made by a court of law by way of an inference only when the foundational facts have been proved by relevant oral and documentary evidence and not in the absence thereof. On the basis of the material on record, the court has the discretion to raise a presumption of fact while considering whether the fact of demand has been proved by the prosecution or not. Of course, a presumption of fact is subject to rebuttal by the accused and in the absence of rebuttal presumption stands. 88.6. (f) In the event the complainant turns “hostile”, or has died or is unavailable to let in his evidence during trial, demand of illegal gratification can be proved by letting in the evidence of any other witness who can again let in evidence, either orally or by documentary evidence or the prosecution can prove the case by circumstantial evidence. The trial does not abate nor does it result in an order of acquittal of the accused public servant. - 12 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:970 CRL.A No. 200084 of 2021 88.7. (g) Insofar as Section 7 of the Act is concerned, on the proof of the facts in issue, Section 20 mandates the court to raise a presumption that the illegal gratification was for the purpose of a motive or reward as mentioned in the said Section. The said presumption has to be raised by the court as a legal presumption or a presumption in law. Of course, the said presumption is also subject to rebuttal. Section 20 does not apply to Sections 13(1)(d)(i) and (ii) of the Act. 88.8. (h) We clarify that the presumption in law under Section 20 of the Act is distinct from presumption of fact referred to above in sub- para 88.5(e), above, as the former is a mandatory presumption while the latter is discretionary in nature.” 12. In the present case, the allegation against accused Nos.1 and 2, who are public servants is that they had made a demand for payment of bribe to sanction the check amount for the work done by PW.1 and therefore, the prosecution is primarily required to prove the demand for payment of bribe and in the case on hand, prosecution - 13 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:970 CRL.A No. 200084 of 2021 has failed to prove the same. PW.1, who is the de-facto complainant has turned hostile to the case of the prosecution and the alleged conversation of PW.1 with the respondents/accused Nos.1 to 3 is also not proved by the prosecution and PW.5, who was examined by the prosecution to prove the voice of the respondents/accused in the conversation recorded, has also not supported the case of the prosecution. Ex.P23 is the trap panchanama under which the Investigating Officer had seized the bribe amount, which was allegedly accepted by accused No.3 on behalf of accused No.2, but the prosecution has also failed to prove Ex.P23 in accordance with law. The panch witness to Ex.P23 has not been examined in the present case by the prosecution. Therefore, the trap panchanama was not proved by the prosecution. Though PW.2 has supported the case of the prosecution, based on his sole testimony, which lacks any corroboration when the prosecution has failed to prove the trap pancharama in accordance with law, it is unsafe to convict the respondents/accused for the charge sheeted offences. - 14 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:970 CRL.A No. 200084 of 2021 13. The Trial Court having appreciated this aspect of the matter vide impugned judgment and order, has acquitted the respondents/accused of the charge sheeted offences. In addition to the same, after appreciating the oral and documentary evidence available on record, the Trial Court has also recorded a finding that no work relating to the complainant was pending before the respondents/accused as on the date of registration of FIR against them. It is trite that a judgment and order of acquittal cannot be interfered in appeal, unless the Appellate Court finds that the impugned judgment and order of acquittal is perverse in nature and the same has been passed without properly appreciating the oral and documentary evidence placed before it. 14. In the case on hand, I am of the opinion that the learned Trial Court after appreciating the oral and documentary evidence placed before it has rightly acquitted the respondents/accused Nos.1 to 3 for the charge sheeted offences and therefore, no interference is - 15 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:970 CRL.A No. 200084 of 2021 called for by this Court as against the impugned judgment and order of acquittal. Accordingly, the following order is passed: ORDER The criminal appeal is dismissed. Sd/- (S.VISHWAJITH SHETTY) JUDGE SRT List No.: 1 Sl No.: 47 CT-PK