- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:26172 CRL.A No. 578 of 2012 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 15TH DAY OF JULY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE M G UMA CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 578 OF 2012 (C) BETWEEN: SRIDHARA RAIKAR, S/O RAMAPPA AGED ABOUT 68 YEARS RETIRED GOVERNMENT SERVANT, R/O. BASAVANAGUDI 3RD CROSS, SHIMOGA. … APPELLANT (BY SRI. C.H. JADHAV, SR. ADVOCATE SRI. CHETAN JADHAV, ADVOCATE) AND: THE STATE BY LOKAYUKTA POLICE REP. BY ITS SPECIAL PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT BUILDINGS, BANGALORE - 560 001 ... RESPONDENT (BY SRI. B. LETHIF, ADVOCATE) THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL IS FILED U/S.374(2) CR.P.C PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND ORDER OF CONVICTION AND SENTENCE DATED:21.5.12 PASSED BY THE SPECIAL JUDGE, SHIMOGA IN SPL.(P.C.)CASE NO.1/2000-CONVICTING THE APPELLANT/ACCUSED FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/SS.7 AND 13(1)(D)R/W SEC.13(2) OF THE PREVENTION OF CORRUPTION ACT, 1988. THE APPELLANT/ACCUSED IS SENTENCED TO UNDERGO SI FOR A PERIOD OF SIX MONTHS AND TO PAY A FINE OF RS.2,000/- FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/S.7 OF THE PREVENTION OF CORRUPTION ACT 1988 AND IN DEFAULT TO; PAY THE AMOUNT TO UNDERGO FURTHER SI FOR THREE MONTHS. THE APPELLANT/ACCUSED IS SENTENCED TO UNDERGO SI FOR A PERIOD OF ONE YEAR AND TO PAY A FINE OF Digitally signed by SWAPNA V Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:26172 CRL.A No. 578 of 2012 RS.2,000/-FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/S.13(1)(D) R/W 13(2) OF PREVENTION OF CORRUPTION ACT 1988 AND IN DEFAULT TO PAY THE FINE AMOUNT, TO UNDERGO SI FOR A PERIOD OF THREE MONTHS. BOTH THE SENTENCES SHALL RUN CONCURRENTLY. THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED FOR JUDGMENT ON 09.07.2025 COMING ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT OF ORDERS THIS DAY, THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:- CORAM: HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE M G UMA CAV JUDGMENT The appellant being the accused in Special (P.C.) Case No. 1 of 2000 on the file of the learned Special Judge at Shivamogga, is impugning the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 21.05.2012, convicting him for the offences punishable under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) r/w 13(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act of 1988 (for short, 'the P.C Act'), sentencing to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of six months and to pay fine of Rs.2,000/- for the offence punishable under Section 7 of PC Act, and to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of one year and to pay fine of Rs.2,000/- for the offence punishable under Section 13(1)(d) r/w 13(2) of the P.C. Act, with default sentences. 2. Brief facts of the case as made out by the prosecution are that, the accused was the public servant working as a - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:26172 CRL.A No. 578 of 2012 Revenue Inspector at Holalur, I Hobli of Shivamogga. The informant-PW.6 approached the accused in connection with the application submitted by Smt.Subhadramma-the sister-in-law of PW.6, seeking change of katha in her name in respect of properties that were owned by her late husband. The accused demanded illegal gratification of Rs.1,000/- to do the official favour and after bargaining, it was scaled down to Rs.600/-, out of which, the complainant paid Rs.100/- on 19.11.1999. The accused insisted for payment of balance amount of Rs.500/-. Since the informant was not interested in paying the illegal gratification, he lodged the first information as per Ex.P9 with Lokayukta Police. On the basis of same, the Police registered the FIR for the above said offences. The Lokayukta Police summoned the other two public servants, prepared pre- trap panchanama as per Ex.P1, entrusted the currency notes smeared with phenolphthalein powder-(MO.9) to the informant, and asked him to meet the accused. The Investigation Officer also directed the shadow witness-PW.1 to accompany PW.6 and to observe the conduct of the accused. The pancha witness- PW.2 was asked to accompany the Investigating Officer and to wait outside the office for the signal to be given by the - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:26172 CRL.A No. 578 of 2012 complainant in case the accused demands and accepts the illegal gratification. 3. It is the contention of the prosecution that, the accused demanded and accepted the bribe money and kept it in his pant pocket. The complainant gave signal to the Investigating Officer, upon which the I.O along with pancha rushed to the spot and trapped him. Subsequently, they asked the accused to wash his hands in the sodium carbonate solution, collected the samples, asked the accused to produce the tainted amount, seized MO.9 produced by the accused from his pant pocket, obtained his explanation for being in possession of the tainted amount, seized the case file, got the sanction order as per Exhibit P10, and after completing the investigation, filed the charge sheet against the accused. 4. The Special Court took cognizance of the offence and summoned the accused. The accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. The prosecution has examined PWs.1 to 8, got marked Exhibits P1 to 16, identified MOs.1 to 11 in support of its contention. The accused has denied all the incriminating materials available on record in his statement recorded under - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:26172 CRL.A No. 578 of 2012 Section 313 of Cr.PC, but has not led any evidence in support of his defence. He got marked Exhibits D1 to D5 during cross examination of PW6. The Special Court initially acquitted the accused by passing the judgment dated 31.12.2008. The same was challenged by preferring the appeal by the Lokayukta Police in Criminal Appeal No. 364 of 2009. The said appeal came to be allowed by the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court vide judgment dated 07.03.2012 and the matter was remanded to the Trial Court for proper appreciation of the materials on record. Upon remanding the matter, the Trial Court once again re-appreciated the oral and documentary evidence and proceeded to pass the impugned judgment, convicting and sentencing the accused as stated above. Being aggrieved by the same, the accused is before this Court. 5. Heard Sri.C.H.Jadhav learned Senior Advocate for Sri Chetan Jadhav, learned counsel for the appellant and Sri. Lethif B., learned Additional SPP for respondent No.1-State. Perused the materials including the Trial Court records. - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:26172 CRL.A No. 578 of 2012 6. In light of the rival contentions urged by learned Counsel for both parties, the point that would arise for my consideration is as under: "Whether the appellant has made out any grounds to interfere with the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed by the Trial Court?" My answer to the above point is in 'Negative' for the following: REASONS 7. It is the contention of the prosecution that the accused was the public servant working as a Revenue Inspector at Shivamogga. This fact is admitted by the accused. It is the further contention of the prosecution that one Smt.Subhadramma, who is the sister-in-law of PW6 had filed an application seeking change of katha in her name in the revenue records pertaining to her land bearing Sy.No.56/2 measuring 2.05 acres situated at Aladahally Village, Shivamogga Taluk, which was standing in her late husband's name. PW6-the brother-in-law of the applicant Subhadramma had met the accused and requested him to change the katha at - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:26172 CRL.A No. 578 of 2012 the earliest. It is the further contention of the prosecution that, even though the application for change of katha was submitted by the applicant, on 25.08.1999 with the Tahsildar PW4, the change of katha was not effected even till 12.12.1999. Therefore, PW6 had again approached the accused to enquire about change of Katha as PW4 had forwarded the file to the accused for his report. On 12.11.1999 when the informant met the accused, the accused demanded ₹.1,000/- and after bargaining, it was reduced to ₹.600/-. On the very same day the accused received ₹.100/- as illegal gratification and insisted for payment of balance amount of ₹.500/-. It is thereafter that the informant filed the first information on 19.11.1999 with the Lokayukta police. 8. Learned senior advocate for the appellant contended that there is inordinate delay in filing the first information, and the same is not explained by the complainant. The demand made by the accused was on 12.11.1999 as stated by the informant in the first information. He took a week's time to arrange the amount of ₹.500/- and to produce the same before the Investigating Officer. Unlike in any other criminal case - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:26172 CRL.A No. 578 of 2012 where the offence was already committed, in the present case there was only a demand by the accused and this delay of 1 week is not fatal to the case of the prosecution as there is nothing to embezzle by gaining time in filing the first information. 9. Admittedly, Smt.Subhadramma had filed the application seeking change of katha in respect of the agricultural land in her name. It is also admitted that the accused was the Revenue Inspector. It is further admitted that the application submitted by Smt.Subhadramma was forwarded by the Tahsildar - PW.4 to the accused on 15.09.1999. From the materials on record it could be gathered that the application was forwarded by the accused to the Village Accountant, calling upon him to submit a report on 16.10.1999. In the meantime, the accused demanded illegal gratification from the informant and the report from the Village Accountant was received only on 22.11.1999. It is not in dispute that the accused being the Revenue Inspector was required to receive the report from the Village Accountant. In light of these undisputed facts, it could be safely concluded that the official work pertaining to the - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:26172 CRL.A No. 578 of 2012 sister-in-law of the informant, was pending with the accused as he was required to receive the report from the Village Accountant and forward the same to the Tahsildar with his recommendation. Therefore, the contention of the learned Senior Advocate for the appellant that no official work was pending with the accused since he had already forwarded the letter to the Village Accountant calling upon his report, cannot be accepted. Receiving of the report from the Village Accountant and recommending change of Katha to the Tahsildar was the official work which was pending with the accused as on the date of demand as well as on the date of trap. 10. To prove the demand and acceptance of illegal gratification, the prosecution has examined PW.1-the shadow witness, who is a public servant working as SDA in the Department of College Education, Shivamogga, Regional Office, Shivamogga. He stated that he was summoned to attend the Lokayukta office. Accordingly, he came there. He was introduced to PW6, who produced 10 currency notes of ₹.50/- each. PW2, Ponnappa was also in the Lokayukta office. He - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:26172 CRL.A No. 578 of 2012 noted the number of currency notes. Thereafter, phenolphthalein powder was smeared on the notes. PW2 was asked to count the currency notes and thereafter his hands were washed in sodium carbonate solution, which changed its colour. The samples were collected. The phenolphthalein powder smeared with currency notes were entrusted to the informant with a direction to go and meet the accused and if he demands the illegal gratification, to pay the entrusted amount. PW1 further stated that he accompanied the informant and gone to the office of the accused. He states that he was standing at a distance from the informant who met the accused. But he could hear the conversation between the complainant and the accused. Accused demanded the illegal gratification. The complainant took out the entrusted amount and gave the same to the accused. The accused received the same with his right hand, counted with his left hand and kept it in the left pant pocket. Immediately, the informant came out of the office and gave signal to the Inspector, who came to the spot along with PW2. - 11 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:26172 CRL.A No. 578 of 2012 11. The witness stated that the Investigating Officer asked the accused to produce the tainted amount, and on producing the same, his hands were washed. On the basis of this evidence, it is contended by the learned counsel for the accused that it was quite natural that the hand wash had changed its colour as he was asked to produce the tainted amount which was smeared with the phenolphthalein powder. To that extent, the evidence of PW1 may not be helpful the case of prosecution. 12. It is pertinent to note that during cross examination of the witness by the learned counsel for the accused, the witness has stated that he had given the statement before the Lokayukta police that he was standing about 15 feet away from the informant. There was rush in the office, due to which he was not able to hear the conversation between the accused and the informant, and he had not seen the complainant paying the tainted amount to the accused. The hand wash of accused had not changed its colour and even the accused had not demanded any amount. He further states that, the complainant himself had forcibly thrust the amount in the pant pocket of the - 12 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:26172 CRL.A No. 578 of 2012 accused. Even though such evidence was elicited during cross- examination, no statement of the witness was tendered to him to mark the contradictions. 13. It is also pertinent to note that the witness-PW1 during cross examination denied the suggestions that, even though the accused had not demanded any amount, he is deposing falsely against him, no mahazar was drawn in his presence and that he had signed both the mahazar in the office of Lokayukta. It is pertinent to note that the learned counsel for the accused has elicited some evidence which is quite contrary to the deposition made by the witness. Of course, the Prosecutor who was representing the Lokayukta Police should have been diligent to seek explanation by the witness about his evidence in paragraph 10 of the deposition. However, no such attempt was made by the Prosecutor for the reason best known to him. 14. PW2 is the pancha witness to the pre-trap mahazar. He has fully supported the case of the prosecution regarding the procedure adopted by the Investigating Officer in entrusting the amount to the informant, the informant and PW1 meeting - 13 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:26172 CRL.A No. 578 of 2012 the accused, the informant giving signal to the Investigating Officer, and he along with the Investigating Officer visiting the office of the accused. This witness specifically states about washing of the hands of the accused, collecting the samples, and thereafter the accused producing the tainted amount from his pant pocket, giving explanation by him and drawing of trap panchanama. Even though this witness was cross examined at length, nothing has been elicited from him to disbelieve his version. 15. PW.3-the Assistant Engineer, who drawn the sketch as per Ex.P3, is only a formal witness. PW.4 is the Tahsildar, who deposed that the accused was working as Revenue Inspector during 1999 at Haladur Hobli and Smt.Subhadramma had filed an application on 25.08.1999 seeking change of katha in respect of Sy.No.56/2 after the death of her husband. The witness has stated that after opening the file, he had forwarded the application to the accused on 15.09.1999, and the same was returned by the accused only on 22.11.1999. He also states that Lokayukta Inspector had sought for few documents which he has provided as per Exhibits P4 to 8. During cross- - 14 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:26172 CRL.A No. 578 of 2012 examination, it is elicited from the witness that accused being the Revenue Inspector, after receiving the file from the Tahsildar had forwarded the same to the Village Accountant, seeking his report. 16. It is elicited during cross examination that on 19.11.1999 as on the date of trap, the application submitted by Subhadramma was not with the accused. The witness specifically states during cross-examination that the accused had forwarded the application of Subhadramma to the Village Accountant on 16.10.1999. By referring to this evidence of the witness, learned Senior Advocate for the appellant contended that even according to PW4, the file was not with the accused as on the date of trap, and under such circumstances, no official work was pending with the accused. But as observed above, the file was forwarded to the Village Accountant calling upon him to submit his report to the accused for the purpose of onward forwarding to PW9, with the recommendation by the accused. 17. PW5 is the Second Division Assistant, who identified the application submitted through the complainant as per - 15 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:26172 CRL.A No. 578 of 2012 Ex.P4. He states that the said application was forwarded to the accused on 15.09.1999 and the same was again received in the office of Tahsildar on 22.11.1999. The evidence of this witness was never disputed during cross examination. Hence, it cannot be held that no official work was pending with the accused as on the date of incident. 18. PW.6 is the informant who deposed regarding submitting of the application for change of katha to the Tahsildar on 25.08.1999. He identified the Revenue Inspector as the accused before the Court and states that he had met the accused and requested for change of katha. The accused demanded illegal gratification of ₹.1,000/-. After bargain, he agreed to receive ₹.600/- and received ₹.100/- on the same day. He also insisted for payment of balance amount of ₹.500/- This witness speaks about lodging of the first information as per Exhibit P9, drawing of pre-trap panchanama, the procedure that was adopted, entrustment of currency notes smeared with phenolphthalein powder and instructions that are given to him by the Investigating Officer. - 16 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:26172 CRL.A No. 578 of 2012 19. The witness also states that, on the same day he along with the shadow witness went and met the accused at about 04.00 p.m. in his office. The witness stated that the shadow witness was with him. He greeted the accused and asked for change of katha. But the accused demanded the amount. He tendered the tainted amount entrusted to him. The accused received it. After counting the same, kept it in his left pant pocket and immediately thereafter he has given signal to the Investigating Officer who came to the spot along with the pancha witness. 20. The witness has specifically stated that the Investigating Officer after introducing himself to the accused washed both the hands of the accused in the solution which changed its colour. Thereafter, when the Investigating Officer asked the accused to produce the tainted amount, he produced it from his left pant pocket. Ponnappa-the pancha witness verified the currency notes and confirmed that they were the same currency notes which were entrusted to the informant at the time of pre-trap panchanama. The currency notes were seized. The pant worn by the accused was also taken, portion - 17 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:26172 CRL.A No. 578 of 2012 of the left pocket was washed in the solution which has turned into pink colour. The sample and the pant were seized. When the Investigating Officer enquired the accused as to how he came in possession of the tainted amount, he gave explanation that the complainant thrust the amount in his pant pocket forcibly. Thus, the witness has fully supported the case of the prosecution. 21. During cross examination, nothing has been elicited from him to disbelieve his version. It is suggested to the witness that he had earlier approached the accused and insisted for change of katha in respect of his property, the same was denied by the witness. The witness asserted during cross-examination that the shadow witness was with him in the chamber of the accused and the accused after demanding the illegal gratification received the amount. It is only thereafter he came out of the chamber of the accused and gave signal to the Investigating Officer. It is suggested to the witness that he had forcibly thrust the tainted amount in the pant pocket of the accused which is categorically denied by the witness. It is also suggested that the Investigating Officer initially demanded the - 18 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:26172 CRL.A No. 578 of 2012 accused to produce the tainted amount and when he produced the same from the pant pocket, later his hands were washed in the solution. The witness categorically denied this suggestion. 22. The statement of PW6 recorded by the Karnataka State Vigilance Commission on 29.11.2001 is produced and tendered to the witness to mark portions of the same as Exhibits D1 to D5. As per Exhibits D1 to D5, the witness has stated that himself along with Ponnappa went to the office of D.G.O. He also stated that initially, Lokayukta Police washed the hands of DGO and later asked him to produce the amount. It is also elicited from the witness in the statement that there was a civil suit that was pending in respect of his land, and the Assistant Commissioner had remitted the case regarding change of katha to the Tahsildar in view of the Court order. But this evidence given by the witness is in respect of a different land belonging to him. He admits that he had approached the accused and insisted for change of katha. None of these statements of the witnesses marked as Exhibits D1 to D5 would enure to the benefit of the accused to contend that there is - 19 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:26172 CRL.A No. 578 of 2012 inconsistency or contradiction in the evidence deposed before this Court. 23. PW7 is the Investigating Officer, who filed the charge sheet. PW8 is the Lokayukta police who registered the FIR, conducted pre-trap and trap panchanama, got the explanation from the accused as narrated in the trap panchanama, collected the documents pertaining to the case, forwarded the samples collected to the FSL and obtained the report as per Ex.P16. On searching cross examination, the witness has not given any fatal admission, but he withstood the cross examination. 24. It is pertinent to note that as per the explanation tendered by the accused at the initial stage, i.e., at the time of drawing trap panchanama Ex.P2, he has stated that the sister- in-law of the informant by name Smt.Subhadramma had given an application in the office of the Tahsildar at Shivamogga and the said application was forwarded to him again on 15.09.1999. Since he was on election duty, he had not attended the same. About 8 or 10 days earlier to the trap, he forwarded the application to the Village Accountant with a direction to visit the - 20 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:26172 CRL.A No. 578 of 2012 village, hold an enquiry and forward a report. The accused further stated that the case file was thus with the Village Accountant as on the date of trap. However, he had made the entries regarding forwarding the case file to the Village Accountant, in his office book. He also states that he never demanded any amount from the complainant but on the date of trap, the complainant forcibly thrust ₹.500/- and he has received the same. If at all the accused had not demanded any amount, there was no reason as to why he accepted the same. Moreover, all along it is the evidence of the prosecution witnesses that the tainted money was found in the pant pocket of the accused. It is hard to believe that the complainant could forcibly thrust the currency notes in the pant pocket of the accused while he was sitting in the office. There is also no explanation as to how both his hand wash turned into pink colour and reported positive for the presence of phenolphthalein in it, if he had never received it with his hands. 25. It is also pertinent to note that when the accused was examined under Section 313 of Cr.PC, he denied all the incriminating materials available on record and has given his - 21 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:26172 CRL.A No. 578 of 2012 written version as found in the Trial Court records. As per this version, he received the file from the Tahsildar on 15.09.1999, and forwarded the same to the Village Accountant only on 16.10.1999. As he was on election duty, the file was sent back by the Village Accountant only on 21.11.1999 and he returned it to the Tahsildar on 22.11.1999 i.e. after the trap. 26. It is also stated in the statement that O.S.No.319 of 1992 was filed by the informant which was decreed in his favour in respect of Sy.No.60/2 measuring 4 acres situated at Haladahalli. The informant had submitted an application to the Tahsildar for change of katha. The said decree was challenged in R.A.34 of 1999 and there was an order to maintain status- quo by both the parties. In spite of that, the complainant insisted the accused to change the katha, and since the accused was not ready to do it, contravening the order of the Appellate Court to maintain status-quo, the complainant had developed ill-will and filed the false complaint. 27. It is pertinent to note that for the first time, the accused has taken such a defence while filing this statement after recording the statement under Section 313 of Cr.PC. It is - 22 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:26172 CRL.A No. 578 of 2012 pertinent to note that in this statement, the witness never admits that the accused had tendered or given ₹.500/- and he received it as he admitted initially in his explanation given to the Investigating Officer while drawing the trap panchanama. When there is serious contradiction in the explanation offered by the accused, none of these explanation could be accepted as probable. It is also pertinent to note that there is no cross examination of the informant in the line of the defence raised in the statement submitted by the accused. In the absence of any supporting materials, I am of the opinion that such explanations are liable to be rejected. 28. On perusal of the oral and documentary evidence placed before the Court, I am of the opinion that the prosecution is successful in proving the guilt of the accused for the offences punishable under Sections 7, 3(1)(d) r/w 13(2) of the P.C. Act. 29. Learned Senior Advocate for the appellant produced a memo along with documents which suggest that departmental enquiry was initiated against the accused. An Enquiry Officer was appointed, who exonerated the accused of - 23 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:26172 CRL.A No. 578 of 2012 the charges of demanding and accepting the illegal gratification, and committing misconduct and the said report was accepted by the Under Secretary to the Government. Relying on these documents, learned Senior Advocate contended that when the accused is exonerated in the departmental inquiry, where the degree of proof is much lesser, the accused is to be acquitted in the present criminal case where the degree of proof is much higher, as the prosecution is required to prove the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt. 30. He places reliance on the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in P.S. Rajya v. State of Bihar1. In the said case, a petition under Section 482 of Cr.PC, seeking quashing of the FIR and the complaint was filed on the ground that the accused is already exonerated in the departmental proceedings. The Court found that the case made out by the accused therein falls under the guidelines laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in 'State of Haryana and Ors VS CH. Bjahan Lal and Ors'2 for quashing the FIR. 1 1996 9 SCC 1 2 1992 SCC (SUPP) 1 335 - 24 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:26172 CRL.A No. 578 of 2012 31. Learned counsel for the accused contends that, in paragraph 17 of the P S Rajya (supra), the Hon'ble Apex Court held that, the standard of proof required to establish the guilt in a criminal case is far higher than the standard of proof required to establish the guilt of the accused in the departmental proceeding. It is further held that, if it is found that, the charge and documents relied on by the department in the departmental proceedings are one and the same as that of the criminal proceedings, and if the accused is exonerated in the departmental enquiry for the charge leveled against him, then further criminal proceedings may be unwarranted due to the high standard of proof required in criminal proceedings as compared to departmental proceedings. Hence, he prays that the accused is entitled for quashing of the criminal proceedings. 32. Learned counsel also places relies on the decision of Hon'ble Apex Court in Ashoo Surendarnath Tewari v. Deputy Superintendent of Police, EOW, CBI3, wherein the Hon'ble Apex Court referring to its earlier decision in 3 2020 9 SCC 636 - 25 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:26172 CRL.A No. 578 of 2012 Radheshyam Kejriwal v. State of West Bengal4, held in paragraph 39 as under: "39. In our opinion, therefore, the yardstick would be to judge as to whether the allegation in the adjudication proceedings as well as the proceeding for prosecution is identical and the exoneration of the person concerned in the adjudication proceedings is on merits. In case it is found on merit that there is no contravention of the provisions of the Act in the adjudication proceedings, the trial of the person concerned shall be an abuse of the process of the Court.” 33. Learned counsel for the respondent places reliance on the decision of the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in Shekhar v. State of Karnataka5, wherein, it is held that once the Criminal Court has held the trial and has given its finding on the charges levelled against the accused, the benefit of exoneration in the departmental proceeding cannot be availed by the accused. It is also held that the report of the departmental inquiry cannot bind the Criminal Court in any manner. 4 2011 3 SCC 581 5 Crl.A.No. 200286 of 2023 - 26 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:26172 CRL.A No. 578 of 2012 34. He also places reliance on the decision of this Court in Sridhar Raikar v. State of Karnataka6, where the Co- ordinate bench of this Court refused to quash the criminal proceedings registered against the accused based on the order exonerating the accused in the departmental proceedings, on the ground that all the material witnesses cited in the charge sheet were not examined before the Enquiring Authority. 35. If the decisions relied on by both the parties are taken into consideration, in the decisions relied on by the learned Senior Advocate for the appellant, they were for quashing of the criminal proceedings before commencement of trial in the Criminal Court. But in the decisions relied on by the learned counsel for the respondent in Shekhar (supra) and Sridhar Raikar (supra), the Court has categorically held that once the Criminal Court holds the trial and given its findings on the charges levelled against the accused, the accused is not entitled for the benefit of exoneration in the departmental proceeding. 6 Crl.A.No.1114 of 2004 - 27 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:26172 CRL.A No. 578 of 2012 36. It is pertinent to note that as per the additional documents produced before the Court at the time of argument, the accused was exonerated in the departmental inquiry as per order dated 04.06.2003. The charge was framed by the Trial Court only on 09.01.2004. But even then the accused had not chosen to produce the entire papers pertaining to the departmental enquiry before the Trial Court seeking his discharge. 37. The impugned judgment was passed by the Trial Court on 21.05.2012. But the accused has not chosen to produce the relevant documents and the order exonerating him in the departmental enquiry before the Trial Court for the reason best known to him. Moreover, the entire papers pertaining to the departmental enquiry, such as, the statements of the witnesses recorded by the enquiry officer are not produced even before this court. Further, as per the report of the enquiry officer, only four witness were examined. The other prosecution witnesses were not examined before the Enquiry Officer and the documents now relied on by the prosecution were not produced before him. Moreover, since - 28 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:26172 CRL.A No. 578 of 2012 now the accused is convicted by the Trial Court on the basis of materials on record, I am of the opinion that the accused is not entitled for the benefit of his exoneration in the departmental enquiry. 38. The discussions held above discloses that the evidence regarding demand, acceptance, recovery of the tainted amount and pendency of the official work with the accused are consistent. Hence, I am of the opinion that the prosecution is successful in proving the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt, and the accused is liable for conviction. 39. I have gone through the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed by the Trial Court. It has taken into consideration the materials on record and arrived at a right conclusion. Even though, initially the Trial Court had acquitted the accused as per its judgment dated 31.12.2008, the same was set aside by the co-ordinate Bench of this Court in Crl.A.No.264/2009 vide order dated 07.03.2012 and remanded the matter to Trial Court for proper appreciation of the materials on record. It is thereafter, the Trial Court - 29 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:26172 CRL.A No. 578 of 2012 considered the materials on record in proper perspective and arrived at a right conclusion. I do not find any reason to interfere with the same. 40. Learned Senior Advocate for the appellant, alternatively sought for showing leniency in favour of the accused in sentencing him on the ground that the incident had occurred about 25 years back and now he is aged 80 years suffering with several ailments. The Trial Court has sentenced the accused to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of six months and to pay fine of Rs.2,000/- for the offence punishable under Section 7 of the P.C. Act, and to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of one year and to pay fine of Rs.2,000/- for the offence punishable under Section 13(1)(d) r/w. 13(2) of the P.C. Act. Thus it has shown maximum leniency in sentencing the accused by imposing the minimum sentence as provided under law. Therefore, I am of the opinion that the appeal is liable to be dismissed. 41. Accordingly, I answer the above point in the negative and proceed to pass the following: - 30 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:26172 CRL.A No. 578 of 2012 ORDER Appeal is dismissed. Registry to send back the Trial Court records along with copy of this judgment, and to secure the presence of the accused to issue conviction warrant, if not already issued. Sd/- (M G UMA) JUDGE MKM CT:VS