- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:3422 CRL.A No. 100205 of 2023 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 19TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 100205 OF 2023 (C) BETWEEN: 1. RAMESH S/O NEELAPPA DAVALAGI AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS, OCC. SURVEYOR O/O ADLR URBAN PROPERTY OWNERSHIP RECORDS SECTION MINI VIDHANA SOUDHA HUBBALLI, R/O DESHPANDE BUILDING YALLAKI SHETTAR COLONY DHARWAD 580 004. …APPELLANT (BY SRI. JAGADISH PATIL, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA THROUGH PI, ACB POLICE STATION R/BY ITS STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA BENCH AT: DHARWAD …RESPONDENT (BY SRI. SRINIVAS B NAIK, ADVOCATE) THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 374(2) OF CR.P.C. SEEKING TO CALL FOR RECORDS BY ALLOWING THIS APPEAL AND SETTING ASIDE THE JUDGMENT OF CONVICTION AND ORDER OF SENTENCE PASSED BY III ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS, (SPL. JUDGE FOR KLA/ACB AND CBI CASES) DHARWAD IN SPL. ACB C.C. NO. 02/2020 BY HIS JUDGMENT OF CONVICTION AND ORDER OF SENTENCE DATED 25/04/2023 FOR OFFENCES PUNISHABLE U/S 7 OF P.C. ACT, 1988 AND ACQUIT THE APPELLANT. Digitally signed by R HEMALATHA Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:3422 CRL.A No. 100205 of 2023 THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR HEARING, THIS DAY, THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR ORAL ORDER This appeal under Section 374(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr.P.C.) is filed by the appellant/accused challenging the judgment of conviction and order of sentence, whereby the accused has been convicted for the offence punishable under Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (PC Act), and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of three years and to pay a fine of Rs.10,000/-. 2. The case of the prosecution is that a complaint was lodged by PW-6 alleging that the appellant/accused, a surveyor in the office of the ADLR, Hubballi, had demanded illegal gratification of Rs. 4,000/- to Rs. 5,000/- for surveying his landed property measuring 1 acre and 38 guntas. As the complainant was not inclined to pay the bribe, he lodged a complaint with the ACB Police, Dharwad. On 27.03.2018, the complainant recorded a conversation with the accused on his mobile phone, in which a bribe demand was allegedly made. On 28.03.2018, - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:3422 CRL.A No. 100205 of 2023 the accused was trapped while receiving Rs. 4,000/- from the complainant. 3. After investigation, a charge sheet was filed against the accused for the offences punishable under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) read with 13(2) of the PC Act. 4. To prove its case, the prosecution examined 12 witnesses (PW-1 to PW-12), marked documents as Exhibits P-1 to P-32, and material objects as MO-1 to MO- 19. After framing the points for consideration and appreciating the evidence on record, the Trial Court passed the impugned judgment of conviction and sentence. 5. The learned counsel for the appellant contended that PW-6, the complainant, made substantial improvements during his cross-examination regarding the cost of transporting the surveying machine. There were also discrepancies and contradictions in his statements. It was submitted that the demand for a bribe was not made directly by the accused but through Nagraj, and that the recorded conversation was also not between the complainant and the accused. PW-3, who assisted in surveying the land, did not support the prosecution. It was argued that the Trial Court erroneously relied upon the - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:3422 CRL.A No. 100205 of 2023 testimony of shadow witnesses to convict the accused, and therefore, the judgment is liable to be set aside. 6. In response, the learned counsel for the respondent- Lokayukta submitted that the allegations made by PW-6 were corroborated by the testimonies of PW-2, PW-5, and PW-11, along with sufficient oral and documentary evidence. Hence, the Trial Court’s order of conviction and sentence was legally justified. 7. After hearing the arguments of both sides and upon perusal of the trial court records, the point that arises for consideration is: Whether the prosecution has established the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubt, and whether the impugned judgment of conviction and sentence passed by the Trial Court is legally sustainable? 8. As per Section 7 of the PC Act, the essential ingredients to constitute an offence are: (i) The person accepting or attempting to obtain gratification must be a public servant; and - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:3422 CRL.A No. 100205 of 2023 (ii) The gratification must be for himself and must be a motive or reward for doing or forbearing to do any official act or for showing or forbearing to show, in the exercise of his official function, favour or disfavour to any person. 9. For the sake of brevity following relevant Statements are recorded as under: ● PW-3, who was working with the accused temporarily, deposed that he assisted the accused in measuring the complainant’s land but turned hostile. ● PW-1/ Shadow witness, a surveyor in the survey office, deposed that he was present at the time of the raid. He identified the voice recording between the accused and the complainant played on a laptop, in which the accused allegedly demanded Rs. 500/- for a peon and Rs. 4,000/- to Rs. 5,000/- for himself. However, PW-6 testified that he first met Nagraj after being dissatisfied with the survey. Two days later, Nagraj allegedly informed him of the accused’s bribe demand, and the money was handed over to Nagraj, who in turn gave it to the accused. - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:3422 CRL.A No. 100205 of 2023 ● PW-6/ Complainant had partly turned hostile, admitting that he handed the cash to Nagraj, who then forcibly placed the money in the accused’s pocket. He also denied the contents of the statement recorded by the police and stated that the voice recordings were not made by him. He further testified that Nagraj and the panch witnesses were standing 8–10 feet from the office door and that the accused had refused to accept the money. ● PW-2/ Shadow witness, an official in the Land Revenue Department, deposed that the complainant applied on 05.04.2016 to fix the boundaries of his land. The accused scheduled visits on 21.02.2018 and 27.03.2018, with boundaries ultimately fixed on 28.03.2018. ● PW-7, a mahazar witness for the pre-trap and trap panchanama, identified relevant documents. PW-8, a chemical examiner, corroborated PW-6 and PW-7, stating that the accused’s hands and shirt turned pink when dipped in chemical solution. - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:3422 CRL.A No. 100205 of 2023 10. It is pertinent to note that PW-6/ Complainant admitted he did not personally hand the money to the accused and that Nagraj forcibly placed the cash in the accused’s pocket. PW-6 also denied having signed any documents before the police. The voice recording conversation between the accused and complainant was not recorded by PW-6- Complainant. The Shadow witnesses and other witnesses though supported the prosecution, but their testimony lacked corroboration through circumstantial evidence. There were also discrepancies regarding the alleged bribe demand. 11. This Court, in Crl.A No.100154/2017 (dated 30.01.2025), addressed a similar issue, holding that the court cannot convict an accused solely based on shadow witness testimony when the complainant does not support the prosecution’s case. The Court held as under: “When the complainant does not support the prosecution’s case, the court cannot solely rely on the testimony of a shadow witness to convict the accused. The shadow witness’s testimony must be corroborated by material particulars, including a clear bribe demand from the accused.” 12. Similarly, in State of Karnataka v. Nageshkumar B. Mandivala (Crl.A No.100062/2014), the coordinate bench held that even if panch and shadow witnesses support the case, their statements cannot substitute for direct evidence from the complainant. Demand and - 8 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:3422 CRL.A No. 100205 of 2023 acceptance are sine qua non for conviction under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) of the PC Act. 13. In Manohar Dundappa Kabbur & Ors. v. State of Karnataka [2024 Cr.R 253 (Kant)], the Court set aside the conviction based on the decision in Neeraj Dutta v. State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi) [2023 SCC OnLine SC 280], where the Hon’ble Apex Court held: “When relying on circumstantial evidence to prove the demand for gratification, the prosecution must establish every circumstance leading to the conclusion of guilt. Such facts must support only one hypothesis: that a bribe was demanded.” 14. In State of Karnataka v. Moula Hussain & Ors. [2024 Cr.R 566 (Kant)], relying on N. Vijayakumar v. State of Tamil Nadu [(2021) 3 SCC 687], the Court held that mere possession or recovery of tainted money is insufficient to constitute an offence under the PC Act without proof of demand. Even the presumption under Section 20 of the Act arises only after the demand and acceptance of illegal gratification are proved. 15. In Soundarajan v. State, [2023 SCC OnLine SC 424], the Hon’ble Supreme Court reiterated that for conviction under Section 7 of the PC Act, proof of both - 9 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:3422 CRL.A No. 100205 of 2023 demand and acceptance of gratification is mandatory. 16. In light of the above legal principles, it is settled law that to attract Section 7 of the PC Act, the prosecution must prove both the demand for and the acceptance of illegal gratification. Even when relying on circumstantial evidence, each circumstance must lead to the conclusion that the accused made a bribe demand and accepted it for the performance of official duties. 17. In the present case, the prosecution has failed to prove the guilt of the accused beyond a reasonable doubt. The complainant’s testimony lacked consistency and corroboration, and key circumstances were not established. The discrepancies in witness statements create doubt regarding the prosecution’s version. In view of the foregoing discussion, the conviction of the appellant is not legally sustainable, and the impugned judgment is liable to be set aside. Accordingly, I pass the following ORDER; (i) Criminal Appeal is allowed. - 10 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:3422 CRL.A No. 100205 of 2023 (ii) The Judgment of Conviction and order of sentence dated 25.04.2023 passed by the Learned III Addl District and Sessions Judge and Spl. Judge (P.C.A), Belagavi in Spl. ACB C.C No. 02/2020 against the appellants for the offences punishable under Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, is hereby set aside. Sd/- (HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR) JUDGE BKM List No.: 1 Sl No.: 154