- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:516 CRL.A No. 100208 of 2019 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 13TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 100208 OF 2019 (A) BETWEEN: THE STATE OF KARNATAKA, LOKAYUKTHA POLICE, POLICE INSPECTOR, KARNATAKA LOKAYUKTA, POLICE STATION, KARWAR, REPRESENTED BY SPECIAL PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD. … APPELLANT (BY SRI. SANTOSH B. MALAGOUDAR, SPP) AND: SHAMBU GANAPATI HEDGE, OCC: FIRST DIVISION CLERK, TAHASILDAR OFFICE, BHATKAL, DIST: UTTAR KANNADA. …RESPONDENT (BY SRI. MALLIKARJUN S. HIREMATH, ADVOCATE) THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL IS FILED U/S 378 (1) AND (3) OF CR.P.C., PRAYING TO I) GRANT LEAVE TO APPEAL, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND ORDER OF ACQUITTAL IN SPL. CASE NO.11/2012 DATED 02/04/2018 PASSED BY THE COURT OF THE SPECIAL JUDGE, UTTAR KANNADA, KARWAR. II) SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND ORDER OF ACQUITTAL IN SPL. CASE NO.11/2012 DATED 02/04/2018 PASSED BY THE COURT OF THE SPECIAL JUDGE, UTTAR KANNADA, KARWAR. III) CONSEQUENTLY CONVICT AND SENTENCE THE RESPONDENT/ACCUSED FOR THE OFFENCES P/U/S 7 AND 13(1)(D) R/W SEC. 13(2) OF THE PREVENTION OF CORRUPTION ACT, 1988. Digitally signed by B K MAHENDRAKUMAR Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA DHARWAD BENCH Date: 2025.01.16 09:49:43 +0530 - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:516 CRL.A No. 100208 of 2019 THIS APPEAL IS COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR ORAL JUDGMENT The appellant, Karnataka Lokayukta, challenges the judgment of acquittal dated 02.04.2018, passed in Special Case No. 11/2012 by the Special Judge, Uttara Kannada, Karwar, whereby the accused was acquitted of the offences punishable under Sections 7, 13(1)(d), and 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. 2. The case of the prosecution is that on 13.09.2011, the complainant approached the Tahsildar of Bhatkal with an application for permitting his grandmother to sell a property that was granted to her by the Government, subject to certain conditions. The accused, working as a First Division Assistant, demanded a sum of Rs. 2,000/- for issuing a ‘No Objection Certificate’ (NOC). After negotiations, the bribe amount was reduced to Rs. 1,500/-, out of which Rs. 600/- was paid to the accused. Since the complainant was unwilling to pay the remaining bribe amount, he approached the Karnataka Lokayukta. The police provided the complainant with a voice recorder to record the conversation. The complainant recorded the conversation, and subsequently, a trap was laid. During the trap, the accused was caught red-handed accepting Rs. 900/-. The hands of the accused were dipped into a solution, which turned pink in color. - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:516 CRL.A No. 100208 of 2019 3. To establish the guilt of the accused, the prosecution examined P.W.1 to P.W.4, exhibited documents as Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.34, and marked material objects as M.O.1 to M.O.15. 4. The Trial Court, after appreciating the evidence on record, held that the prosecution failed to establish that the accused had demanded the gratification amount of Rs. 1,500/-, and that at the time of the demand, there was no pending work related to the issuance of the NOC. The accused was acquitted of the offences alleged against him. Taking exception to this, the Karnataka Lokayukta is now before this Court. 5. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant and the learned counsel for the respondent/accused. 6. To prove its case, the prosecution examined P.W.1 to P.W.4. P.W.1 is the shadow witness who accompanied the complainant during the trap. In his evidence, P.W.1 stated that the accused accepted the gratification amount of Rs. 900/-, but he did not mention the accused demanding the gratification amount of Rs. 900/- at the time of the trap. P.W.2 is the complainant. Although he supported the prosecution’s case, there were several contradictions in his statement, particularly concerning the demand and acceptance of the bribe. The findings of the Trial Court on the evidence of P.W.2 and the Investigating Officer, as stated in paragraphs 18 and 19, is summarised as follows: “In paragraphs 18 and 19, the Trial Court found several inconsistencies and contradictions in the prosecution’s evidence. It noted that there was no evidence to show that the accused had - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:516 CRL.A No. 100208 of 2019 pending work related to the complainant on the day of the alleged trap. P.W.4 admitted that the “No Objection Certificate” was issued on 19/09/2011, and various endorsements had been made, including the accused’s signature, which contradicted the claim that the accused was handling the complainant’s file at the time. There were discrepancies regarding the complainant’s and police’s movement during the trap, the clarity of the recorded conversation, and the handling of the bribe money. Additionally, the prosecution failed to examine key individuals, such as Rama Mastappa Naik, despite recording his statement. The Trial Court concluded that without consistent evidence to show the accused’s involvement or that the file was pending with him, the prosecution’s case could not be proven beyond reasonable doubt, leading to the acquittal of the accused”. 7. The Tahasildar had issued a ‘No Objection Certificate’ (NOC) to the complainant, granting permission for his grandmother to alienate the land, as per the endorsement dated 19.09.2011. However, the complaint was filed by the complainant on 03.11.2011, well after the NOC had been issued. Taking this into consideration, the Trial Court rightly observed that the prosecution had failed to prove that the accused had demanded and accepted a bribe from the complainant. Additionally, the trial court noted that as of the date of the alleged demand, there was no pending work related to the complainant’s file. Given these circumstances, the Trial Court found no grounds to convict the accused, and accordingly, it passed a judgment of acquittal. - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:516 CRL.A No. 100208 of 2019 In light of these findings and the absence of any material to contradict the Trial Court’s conclusions, I do not find any grounds to interfere with the acquittal. Therefore, the appeal is dismissed. Sd/- (HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR) JUDGE KMS CT:BCK List No.: 3 Sl No.: 3