- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:13406 CRL.A No. 2141 of 2017 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,AT DHARWAD DATED THIS THE 24TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.NATARAJ CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 2141 OF 2017 (C) BETWEEN: SRI. VASANTH NARAYAN NAIK, S/O LATE NARAYAN NAIK, AGED 46 YEARS, ASSISTANT TEACHER, BANNIKATTA, SIRSI NOW WORKING AS ASSISTANT TEACHER BACHGAON SIRSI TALUK, KARWAR DISTRICT, PIN: 581402 …APPELLANT (BY SRI. GIRISH M.K., DATTATREYA J. NAIK, ADVOCATES) AND: STATE OF KARNATAKA BY LOKAYUKTA POLICE, KARWAR, REPRESENTED BY SPECIAL PROSECUTOR LAKAYUKTHA POLICE BANGALORE-560001 …RESPONDENT (BY SRI. G.I.GACHCHINAMATH, SPECIAL PUBLIC PROSECUTOR) THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 374(2) OF CR.P.C., PRAYING TO CALL FOR RECORDS AND ALLOW THIS APPEAL BY SETTING ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 12.12.2017 PASSED IN Digitally signed by SUMA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:13406 CRL.A No. 2141 of 2017 SPECIAL CASE NO.24/2010 BY THE SPECIAL JUDGE, KARWAR AND ACQUIT THE ACCUSED FOR THE OFFENCES ALLEGED UNDER SECTION 7 AND 13(1)(D) READ WITH SECTION 13(2) OF THE PREVENTION OF CORRUPTION ACT, 1988. THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED FOR JUDGMENT ON 26.05.2025 AND COMING ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT OF JUDGMENT THROUGH VIDEO CONFERENCE THIS DAY, THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:- CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.NATARAJ CAV JUDGMENT (PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.NATARAJ) The accused No.1 in Special Case No.24/2010, on the file of the Special Judge at Uttarakannada, Karwar, is before this Court challenging the judgment dated 12.12.2017, by which, he was convicted for the offences punishable under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (henceforth referred to as 'P.C.Act') and was sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of six months and to pay a fine of Rs.2,000/- and in default to further undergo simple imprisonment for a period of two months for the offence punishable under Section 7 of the P.C.Act. He was also sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of one - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:13406 CRL.A No. 2141 of 2017 year and to pay fine of Rs.5,000/- and in default to undergo further imprisonment for three months for the offences punishable under Section 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of the P.C. Act. 2. (i) The records disclose that the complainant/PW1, furnished information to the Lokayuktha Police, Karwar on 06.05.2009 stating that he was in the business of sale of writing boards to school. He claimed that the accused No.3 who was working in the office of the Block Educational Officer, Sirsi, telephoned him during February 2009 and informed him that there was a need of 40 boards in 30 primary schools for the year 2007-08 and asked him if he was interested in supplying them. The complainant/PW.1 accepted the request and submitted a quotation on 23.02.2009. Accordingly, the accused No.3 had allegedly kept the purchase order and informed complainant to supply the boards. A list of schools where the boards had to be supplied was sent to complainant by email from the office of the Block Education Officer, Sirsi. The complainant claimed that as per the purchase order, each board costed a sum of Rs.12,000/- and he had to supply to 30 schools. He stated that he had - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:13406 CRL.A No. 2141 of 2017 delivered 40 boards to 30 schools during April 2009 and had taken an acknowledgment for having supplied the boards. (ii) He alleged that the Headmasters of all 30 schools had drawn up cheques in the name of Nishel Enterprises and had submitted it to the office of the Block Education Officer. He alleged that the accused Nos.1 and 3, who were working in the office of the Block Education Officer were in possession of the cheques and that complainant contacted them over telephone and asked them to deposit the cheques in his account at Karnataka Bank, Sirsi. He claimed that accordingly the accused Nos.1 and 3 deposited cheques for a sum of Rs.2,16,000/- into his account, but they retained 17 cheques for a sum of Rs.2,64,000/-. He alleged that when he spoke to them over telephone, they laid a demand for a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- and informed him that they would deposit the cheques only after he paid a sum of Rs.1,00,000. He claimed that he had recorded the said conversation and agreed to burn it on a CD. He alleged that on 05.05.2009 in the evening, the accused No.1 called him and demanded a sum of Rs.52,000/- as first installment. However, complainant informed that he would pay a sum of Rs.40,000/- - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:13406 CRL.A No. 2141 of 2017 which the accused No.1 accepted. Later on 06.05.2009, he called up accused No.1 and informed him that he was in Kumta and asked him come to Bhatkal and call him. Accused No.1 informed him that accused No.2 was in Bhatkal and that the cheques were with him. He claimed that after he paid the money, the cheques for Rs.75,000/- would be given to him. He therefore went to Lokayuktha Police Station and lodged a complaint on 06.05.2009. Based on this information, the Lokayuktha Police registered a case in Crime No.1/2009 for offences punishable under Section 13(1)(d) red with Section 13(2) of the P.C. Act. (iii) A pre-trap mahazar was prepared on 06.05.2009 after the complainant handed over 40 notes of Rs.1,000/- denomination each. A trap was thereafter laid on the same day in an ice cream parlour next to the bus stand in Bhatkal town. The accused Nos.1 and 2 were present at the ice cream parlour and they went in and asked about the bribe amount. The complainant handed over the phenolphthalein laced Rs.40,000/- to the accused No.2 who instructed him to hand it over to the accused No.1. The cash was handed over to the accused No.1 and he counted it in both the hands and kept it in the front - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:13406 CRL.A No. 2141 of 2017 pocket of his trouser. The Investigating Officers swooped down on the accused and caught hold of the accused. They retrieved the phenolphthalein-laced notes from the pocket of the accused No.1 and subjected both his hands to test in sodium carbonate solution. The solution turned pink. The accused No.2 produced 16 cheques out of 17 cheques that he was carrying. It was alleged that the accused No.2 did not hand over the cheques to the complainant and thereby committed an offence punishable under Sections 7, 13(1)(d) and 13(2) of P.C. Act. The investigating officer after preparing the relevant mahazars of the witnesses and recording the proceedings of the trap, filed a charge sheet for the offences punishable under Sections 7, 13(1)(d) and Section 13(2) of the P.C. Act. The trial Court took cognizance of the offences and framed charges against the petitioner for the offence punishable under Sections 7, 13(1)(d) and 13(2) of P.C. Act. The accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. (iv) In support of the charges framed against the accused, the prosecution relied upon the evidence of PW.1 - the complainant, PW.2 - the panch witness to the trap mahazar, - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:13406 CRL.A No. 2141 of 2017 PW.3 - the constable before whom PW.1 disclosed the demand for bribe, PW.4 - who was the headmaster of the school where the boards were supplied by the complainant, PW.5 - the school teacher, PW.6 - the Assistant Executive Engineer who drew the sketch of the spot where the trap was laid, PW.7 - the Head Constable who handed over the FIR to the Court and PW.8 - the Investigating Officer. The prosecution marked Exs.P1 to P59. Material objects were marked as M.Os.1 to 17. The accused No.1 was examined as DW.1 and a witness was examined as DW.2. He marked Exhibits D1 to D4. The Trial Court read over the incriminating evidence against the accused as prescribed under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. However, they denied the evidence. During the course of trial the accused No.3 died and hence the prosecution against him stood abated. 3. Based on the oral and documentary evidence, the Trial Court held that the prosecution had proved the guilt of the accused No.1 and accordingly convicted him for the offences punishable under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of the P.C. Act. It sentenced him accordingly as referred supra. Insofar as accused No.2 is concerned, he was acquitted. - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:13406 CRL.A No. 2141 of 2017 4. Being aggrieved by the aforesaid judgment of conviction and the order of sentence, the accused No.1 is before this Court. 5. The learned counsel for the accused No.1, submitted that there was no demand for bribe, but on the contrary, the State Government had issued a notification dated 17.03.2006 framing byelaws called the Karnataka Gramapanchayat School Development and Monitoring Subcommittee Model Bye-laws 2006. Accordingly, the School Development and Monitoring Committee was constituted for the development of the school. He contends that at the meeting of the school committee, it was agreed that the complainant would pay a sum of Rs.1,000/- per board and accordingly was required to pay Rs.40,000/- for the forty boards supplied. This amount was to be utilized for the development of the school. He contends that suggestions were put to PW.1 in this regard in the course of his cross examination. However, he denied the suggestions. He contends that a perusal of Ex.P47 marked through PW.4 reads as follows: - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:13406 CRL.A No. 2141 of 2017 `¢£ÁAPÀ 02/03/2009 gÀAzÀÄ 2007/08 £Éà ¸Á°£À ºÉƸÀ ±Á¯Á PÀlÖqÀzÀ JgÀqÀÄ PÉÆoÀrAiÀÄ ºÉZÀÄѪÀj PÉÆoÀrAiÀÄ MAzÀÄ PÉÆoÀrUÉ VæÃ£ï ¨ÉÆÃqÀð C¼ÀªÀr¸À®Ä J¸ï.r.JA.¹ ¸À«ÄwAiÀÄ CzsÀåPÀgÁzÀ - ²æà GªÀiÁ£ÀAzÀ « ¨sÀmï CzsÀåPÀëgÀÄ, J¸ï.r.JA.¹ ºÀvÀÛgÀV EªÀgÀÄ ªÀÄÆgÀÄ ¸ÀA¸ÉÞUÀ¼ÀÄ ªÀÄÄAzÉ §gÀĪÀÅzÁV VæÃ£ï ¨ÉÆÃqÀð PÀÄjvÀ ¸À®ºÉUÁgÀgÁzÀ ²æà J.J.ZËzsÀj w½¹zÁÝgÉ JAzÀgÀÄ. DUÀ J.J. ZËzsÀjgÀªÀgÀÄ 1. »ªÀiÁ®AiÀÄ ¸À¥ÁèAiÀÄgïì ºÀħâ½î 2. ªÉʨsÀªÀ EAqÀ¹Öçøï PÀĪÀÄmÁ 3. ¤²¯ï JAlgï¥ÉæöʸÀ¸ï ªÀÄAUÀ¼ÀÆgÀÄ EªÀgÀÄ ªÀÄÄAzÉ §A¢zÀÄÝ, CzÀgÀ ¥Àæw¤¢üUÀ¼ÀÄ ¤ªÉÆäA¢UÉ vÀªÀÄä ¨ÉÆÃqïð£ÀÄß ¥ÀæzÀ²ð¹ ZÀað¹gÀÄvÁÛgÉ. ¤ÃªÀÅ UÀÄtªÀÄlÖ, zÀgÀ, ºÉÆAzÁtÂPÉ DzÀgÉ E¯ÁSÁ ¤AiÀĪÀÄ£ÀĸÁgÀ Rjâ¸À§ºÀÄzÀÄ JAzÀÄ w½¹zÀgÀÄ. DUÀ 03 ¥Àæw¤¢üUÀ¼ÀÄ vÀªÀÄä ªÀiÁzÀj VæÃ£ï ¨ÉÆÃqïð£ÀÄß J¸ï.r.JA.¹ CzsÀåPÀëgÀÄ, PÁAiÀÄðzÀ²ðUÀ½UÉ ¤Ãr vÀªÀÄä ¨ÉÆÃqÀð£À UÀÄtªÀÄlÖ, zÀgÀ, ¨Á½PÉ PÀÄjvÀÄ w½¹zÀgÀÄ. DUÀ J¸ï.r.JA.¹ ¸ÀzÀ¸ÀågÀÄ, PÁAiÀÄðzÀ²ðUÀ¼ÀÄ ªÀÄÆgÀÄ ¥Àæw¤¢üUÀ½UÉ: 1. ¸À¨sÉAiÀÄ ¢£ÀzÀAzÀÄ vÉÆÃj¹zÀ UÀÄtªÀÄlÖzÀ¯Éèà ±Á¯ÉUÀÆ VæÃ£ï ¨ÉÆÃqïð ¤ÃqÀ¨ÉÃPÀÄ. 2. J¯Áè VæÃ£ï ¨ÉÆÃqïðUÀ¼À£ÀÄß ©.E.N PÀbÉÃjAiÀÄ ¸À¨sÁ ¨sÀªÀ£ÀzÀ°èlÄÖ UÀÄtªÀÄlÖ ¥ÀjÃQë¹ ¸ÀjAiÀiÁVzÀÝgÀ PÀÄjvÀÄ J¯Áè J¸ï.r.JA.¹ AiÀĪÀgÀÄ ¸À«Äw M¦àzÀ £ÀAvÀgÀ ±Á¯ÉUÉ ¤ÃqÀ¨ÉÃPÀÄ. 3. PÀ¼ÉzÀ ªÀµÀð VæÃ£ï ¨ÉÆÃqÀð «vÀgÀPÀgÀÄ ¥Àæwà ±Á¯ÉUÉ gÀÆ 1000/- (gÀÆ¥Á¬Ä MAzÀÄ ¸Á«gÀ zÉÃtÂUÉ ¤ÃrzÁÝgÉ. CzÀgÀAvÉ ¤ÃªÀÇ ±Á¯ÉAiÀÄ C©üªÀÈ¢ÞUÉ EzÀPÀÆÌ ºÉaÑ£À zÉÃtÂUÉ ¤ÃqÀĪÀAvÉ PÉýzÀgÀÄ. ¤²¯ï JAlgï¥ÉæöʸÀ¸ï ªÀÄAUÀ¼ÀÆj£À ²æà gÁ§lðgÀªÀgÀÄ F ªÉÄð£À J¯Áè PÀgÁjUÉ M¦àzÀgÀÄ. G½zÀ JgÀqÀÄ ¸ÀA¸ÉÞAiÀĪÀgÀÄ µÀgÀvÀÄÛUÀ½UÉ M¥ÀàzÉà EgÀĪÀÅzÀjAzÀ J¸ï.r.JA.¹AiÀÄ J¯Áè CzsÀåPÀgÀÄ ¤²¯ï JAlgï¥ÉæöʸÀ¸ï - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:13406 CRL.A No. 2141 of 2017 ªÀÄAUÀ¼ÀÆgÀÄ EªÀjUÉ 40 VæÃ£ï ¨ÉÆÃqïðUÀ¼À£ÀÄß ¤ÃqÀ®Ä M¦àUÉ ¤ÃrzÀgÀÄ." 6. (i) The learned counsel for the appellant/accused No.1 submitted that the accused No.1 did not lay demand for any illegal gratification. He submitted that even as per the trap, the money was supposed to be given to the accused No.2 and that on the instructions of the accused No.2, the money was received by the accused No.1. He therefore, contends that the accused No.1 had not placed any demand for any bribe and there was no work pending with the accused No.1 as all the cheques towards payment of PW.1 were drawn up and were in the possession of the accused No.2. He therefore, contends that there was a case made out against the accused No.2 and not against accused No.1. He contends that the Trial Court had acquitted the accused No.2 but had convicted the accused No.1 for an offence, which he did not commit. In support of this, he relied upon the evidence of PW.1, who deposed that the accused No.1 did not share his mobile phone number with him. He then referred to the evidence of PW.2 - the trap mahazar witness, who has stated as follows: - 11 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:13406 CRL.A No. 2141 of 2017 "JgÀqÀ£Éà DgÉÆæ ¦gÁå¢AiÀÄ£ÀÄßzÉÝò¹ gÉÆPÀÌ vÀA¢¢ÝÃgÁ JAzÀgÀÄ. ¦gÁå¢ gÉÆPÀÌ vÀA¢gÀĪÀÅzÁV ºÉý ºÁUÀÆ ZÉPÀÌ£ÀÄß vÀA¢¢ÝÃAiÀiÁ JAzÀÄ PÉýzÀgÀÄ. JgÀqÀ£Éà DgÉÆæ gÀ²w PÉýzÀgÀÄ. ¦gÁå¢ zÀÄqÀØ£ÀÄß PÉÆqÀ®Ä ºÉÆÃzÁUÀ £À£Àß ºÀwÛgÀ ¨ÉÃqÁ ªÀ¸ÀAvÀ ºÀwÛgÀ PÉÆr JAzÀÄ ºÉýzÀgÀÄ. DUÀ ¦gÁå¢ ºÀtªÀ£ÀÄß MAzÀ£Éà DgÉÆæUÉ PÉÆlÖgÀÄ. MAzÀ£Éà DgÉÆæ zÀÄqÀØ£ÀÄß Jt¹ vÀªÀÄä ¥ÁåAn£À JqÀ Q¸ÉAiÀÄ°è ºÁQPÉÆAqÀgÀÄ." (ii) He further referred to the evidence of PW.4, who deposed that the accused No.1 had not laid any demand for illegal gratification. He submitted that when the cheques were prepared by the School Development Monitoring Committee and were in the custody of accused No.2, the accused No.1 who was in no way involved in either issuing a purchase order to the complainant or in processing the cheques for payment or releasing the cheques to the complainant, could not have been convicted for the offences punishable under Section 7 and 13(1)(d) of the P.C. Act. (iii) He next contended that PW.8, who was the investigating officer, deposed as follows:- ªÉÆzÀ®£Éà DgÉÆævÀ ¦gÁå¢AiÀÄ §½ AiÀiÁªÀÅzÉà jÃwAiÀÄ ®AZÀPÁÌV ¨ÉÃrPÉAiÀÄ£ÀÄß EnÖgÀ°®è JAzÀgÉ ¸Àj. - 12 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:13406 CRL.A No. 2141 of 2017 ¦gÁ墬ÄAzÀ ªÉƨÉÊ¯ï ¸Émï£ÀÄß £Á£ÀÄ CªÀiÁ£Àvï ¥Àr¹PÉÆAr®è. CzÀ£ÀÄß ¥ÀqÉzÀÄPÉƼÀî®Ä AiÀiÁªÀÅzÉà jÃwAiÀÄ vÉÆAzÀgÉ EgÀ°®è. ªÉƨÉÊ®£ÀÄß ¥ÀqÉzÀÄPÉÆAqÀÄ CzÀgÀ°ègÀĪÀ zsÀé¤ ¥ÀjÃPÉëAiÀÄ£ÀÄß vÀdÕjAzÀ ªÀiÁr¹zÀÝgÉ E£ÀÆß ºÉaÑ£À ¤RgÀªÁzÀ ªÀgÀ¢AiÀÄ£ÀÄß ¥ÀqÉAiÀÄ®Ä ¸ÁzsÀå«vÀÄÛ JAzÀgÉ ¸Àj. He also deposed as follows:- 31. ZÉPÀÄÌUÀ¼À ªÉÄÃ¯É MAzÀ£Éà DgÉÆævÀ ¸À»UÀ½gÀ°®è JAzÀgÉ ¸Àj. MAzÀ£Éà DgÉÆævÀ CzÀPÉÌ ¸ÀA§AzsÀ¥ÀlÖ ªÀåQÛAiÀiÁVgÀ°®è ªÀÄvÀÄÛ ZÉPï E±ÀÄå ªÀiÁqÀĪÀAvÀºÀ C¢üPÁgÀªÀ£ÀÄß ºÉÆA¢gÀ°®è JAzÀgÉ ¸Àj. 33. ªÉÆzÀ®£Éà DgÉÆævÀ ©EN gÀªÀgÀ PÀbÉÃjAiÀÄ°è AiÀiÁªÀvÀÆÛ PÉ®¸À ªÀiÁr®è JAzÀgÉ ¸Àj. DvÀ£À£ÀÄß §¤ßWÀlÖ ±Á¯É¬ÄAzÀ ¸ÁPÀëgÀvÁ «¨sÁUÀPÉÌ §zÀ¯Á¬Ä¹zÀÝgÀÄ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ£ÀAvÀgÀ 18.04.2009 gÀAzÀÄ ¥ÀÄ£ÀB ¸ÁPÀëgÀvÁ «¨sÁUÀ¢AzÀ §¤ßWÀlÖ ±Á¯ÉUÉ ªÀUÁð¬Ä¹zÀÝgÉ£ÀÄߪÀ ¸ÀAUÀw £À£ÀUÉ vÀ¤SÉAiÀÄ°è w½zÀÄ §A¢vÀÄ. ªÉÆzÀ®£Éà DgÉÆævÀ §¤ßWÀlÖ ±Á¯ÉUÉ ¥ÀÆgÉʹzÀÝ ¨ÉÆÃqÀÄðUÀ¼À£ÀÄß C¼ÀªÀr¸À°®è J£ÀÄߪÀÅzÀ£ÀÄß ±Á¯Á©üªÀÈ¢Þ PÀ«ÄnAiÀÄ UÀªÀÄ£ÀPÉÌ vÀA¢zÀÝgÀÄ J£ÀÄߪÀÅzÁUÀ° ¨ÉÃgÉ ±Á¯ÉUÀ½UÉ ¸ÀA§A¢ü¹zÀ PÀ«ÄnUÀ¼À UÀªÀÄ£ÀPÀÆÌ vÀgÀĪÀ ¸ÀA§AzsÀ ¥ÀæAiÀÄvÀß ªÀiÁrzÀÝ£ÀÄ J£ÀÄߪÀÅzÀÄ ¸ÀjAiÀÄ®è. J¯Áè ±Á¯Á©üªÀÈ¢ÞAiÀÄ PÀ«ÄnAiÀĪÀgÀÄ ¦gÁå¢AiÀÄ «gÀÄzÀÞ wgÀÄV ©¢ÝzÀÝgÀÄ J£ÀÄߪÀ ¸ÀAUÀw £À£ÀUÉ vÀ¤SÉAiÀÄ°è w½zÀÄ §A¢vÀÄÛ JAzÀÄ ¸ÀÆa¸ÀĪÀÅzÀÄ ¸ÀjAiÀÄ®è. ¨ÉÆÃqÀÄðUÀ¼À£ÀÄß C¼ÀªÀr¸ÀĪÀ «ZÁgÀzÀ°è ªÉÆzÀ®£Éà DgÉÆævÀ «ªÁzÀªÀ£ÀÄßAlÄ ªÀiÁrzÀ£ÉAzÀÄ ¦gÁå¢UÉ DvÀ£À ªÉÄÃ¯É ¹nÖvÀÄÛ J£ÀÄߪÀÅzÀÄ ¸ÀjAiÀÄ®è. He further deposed as follows:- - 13 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:13406 CRL.A No. 2141 of 2017 35. ªÉÆzÀ®£Éà DgÉÆævÀ ®AZÀ ¨ÉÃrzÀ zsÀé¤ E®è. DzÀgÉ ºÀt PÉýzÀ §UÉÎ gÉÃPÁqïð DVzÉ. ªÉÆzÀ®£Éà DgÉÆævÀ vÀ£ÀUÁV ®AZÀ PÉýzÀÄÝ J°èAiÀÄÆ E®è JAzÀgÉ ¸Àj. DvÀ vÀ£ÀUÁVAiÉÄà ºÀt ¥ÀqÉzÀÄPÉÆArzÀÝ£ÀÄ J£ÀÄߪÀ «ZÁgÀ PÉù£À°è ¥Àæ¸ÁÛ¥ÀªÁV®è JAzÀgÉ ¸Àj. Further, he deposed as follows:- 37. ±Á¯ÉUÀ½UÉ Væãï¨ÉÆÃqïð C¼ÀªÀr¸ÀĪÀ «ZÁgÀzÀ°è JgÀqÀ£Éà DgÉÆævÀ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ ±Á¯ÉAiÀÄ ²PÀëPÀgÀÄ ºÁUÀÆ ±Á¯Á©üªÀÈ¢Þ PÀ«ÄnAiÀÄ ¸ÀzÀ¸ÀågÀ ¸À¨sÉ £ÀqÉ¢vÀÄÛ J£ÀÄߪÀ «ZÁgÀ £À£ÀUÉ vÀ¤SÉAiÀÄ°è w½zÀÄ §A¢vÀÄÛ. D ¸À¨sÉ ¢£ÁAPÀ 10.02.2009 gÀAzÀÄ £ÀqÉ¢vÀÄÛ. D zÁR¯ÉAiÀÄ£ÀÄß ¤.¦.46 JAzÀÄ UÀÄgÀÄw¹zÁÝgÉ. JgÀqÀ£Éà DgÉÆævÀgÀ CzsÀåPÀëvÉAiÀÄ°è D ¸À¨sÉ £ÀqÉ¢vÀÄÛ JAzÀgÉ ¸Àj. D ¸À¨sÉAiÀÄ°è UÉÆAzÀ®ªÀÅAmÁV E¯ÁSÉAiÀÄ ¥ÁvÀæªÉãÀÆ E®è JAvÀ®Æ ±Á¯Á©üªÀÈ¢Þ PÀ«ÄnAiÀĪÀgÉà wêÀiÁð£À PÉÊUÉÆAqÀÄ Væãï¨ÉÆÃqïðUÀ¼À£ÀÄß ¥ÀqÉzÀÄPÉÆAqÀÄ CªÀÅUÀ¼À£ÀÄß C¼ÀªÀr¹ ¸ÀgÀ§gÁdÄ ªÀiÁrzÀªÀjUÉ ºÀt ¥ÁªÀw ªÀiÁqÀ¨ÉÃPÉAzÀÄ wêÀiÁð£ÀªÁVvÀÄÛ JAzÀgÉ ¸Àj. F wêÀiÁð£À¢AzÁV JgÀqÀ£Éà DgÉÆævÀ ºÁUÀÆ EvÀgÀgÀÄ ¸À¨sɬÄAzÀ ¤UÀð«Ä¹zÀÝgÀÄ JAzÀgÉ ¸Àj. 38. F ¸À¨sÉAiÀÄ°è JgÀqÀ£Éà DgÉÆævÀ ¨sÁUÀªÀ»¹gÀĪÀ §UÉÎ G¯ÉèÃR«®è JAzÀgÉ ¸Àj. F ¸À¨sÉAiÀÄ°è ªÀÄÆgÀÄ d£À UÀÄwÛUÉzÁgÀgÀÄ ¨sÁUÀªÀ»¹gÀĪÀ §UÉÎ G¯ÉèÃR«zÉ JAzÀgÉ ¸Àj. D ¸À¨sÉAiÀÄ ¤zsÁðgÀzÀ°è ¨ÉÆÃqÀÄðUÀ¼À£ÀÄß ¸À¥ÁèAiÀiï ªÀiÁrzÀ £ÀAvÀgÀzÀ°è J¸ïrJªÀiï¹AiÀÄ CzsÀåPÀëgÀÄ CªÀÅUÀ¼À UÀÄtªÀÄlÖªÀ£ÀÄß SÁvÀj - 14 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:13406 CRL.A No. 2141 of 2017 ¥Àr¹PÉÆAqÀ £ÀAvÀgÀ CªÀÅUÀ¼À£ÀÄß C¼ÀªÀr¸À¨ÉÃPÀÄ J£ÀÄߪÀ wêÀiÁð£ÀªÁVvÀÄÛ JAzÀgÉ ¸Àj. »AzÉ ¥ÀæwAiÉÆAzÀÄ ¨ÉÆÃrðUÉ gÀÆ.1000 gÀAvÉ ±Á¯ÉUÉ zÉÃtÂUÉ PÉÆnÖzÀÝgÀÆ vÁ£ÀÄ E£ÀÄß ºÉaÑ£À zÉÃtÂUÉAiÀÄ£ÀÄß PÉÆqÀ®Ä ¦gÁå¢ M¦àPÉÆArzÀÝ£ÀÄ J£ÀÄߪÀ §UÉÎ ¤.¦.47 gÀ°è zÁR°¹zÁÝgÉ JAzÀgÉ ¸Àj. (iv) He therefore, submitted that the investigating officer was aware that the complainant had agreed to pay Rs.40,000/- as donation for the school development. He contends that it is this Rs.40,000/- ,which the complainant wanted to avoid paying and therefore, he lodged a false complaint that the accused had laid a demand for illegal gratification for releasing the cheques. (v) At any rate, he contends that the evidence of the investigating officer clearly established that the complainant/PW.1 was not truthful and there was a doubt regarding the purpose for which the complainant had paid Rs.40,000/-. He therefore, contends that when accused No.2, who was the one who had asked the complainant to handover the money to the accused No.1, was acquitted of the offence, the appellant/accused No.1 could not have been singled out only on - 15 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:13406 CRL.A No. 2141 of 2017 account of he receiving the money on the instruction of accused No.2. (vi) He contends that Ex.P43(a) is a transcript of telephone conversation between the complainant and accused No.3. He contended that even in the conversation between the complainant and accused No.3, there was no demand for any illegal gratification. He contends that whatever demand that was made was towards the donation that the complainant was supposed to give as agreed before the School Development Monitoring Committee. He therefore, contends that the Trial Court without taking into consideration the evidence, had blindly proceeded to convict the accused No.1 on the ground that he was the one who had received the cash as his hands tainted with phenolphthalein powder and the sodium carbonate solution turned pink when his hands were immersed in it. He therefore, contends that the impugned judgment of conviction is not just and fair and the appellant/accused No.1 was entitled to the benefit of doubt. (vii) In support of his contentions, he relied upon the following judgments: - 16 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:13406 CRL.A No. 2141 of 2017 (i) Neeraj Dutta vs. State [AIR 2023 SC 330] (ii) K. Shanthamma vs. State of Telangana [(2022) 4 SCC 574] (iii) N. Vijayakumar vs. State of Tamil Nadu [(2021) 3 SCC 687] (iv) P. Satyanarayan Murthy vs. District Inspector of Police and another [(2015) 10 SCC 152) (v) B. Jayaraj vs. State of Andhra Pradesh [(2014) 13 SCC 555] (vi) Criminal Petition No.101560/2023 (Sri. Shrikant vs. State of Karnataka) (vii) Criminal Appeal No.1588/2002 (State vs. K.M. Gangadhar) (viii) Criminal Appeal No.79/2002 (State of Karnataka vs. M. Gopalakrishnaiah and others) (ix) Criminal Appeal No.212/2009 (Sri. T.P. Basavaraju vs. Central Bureau of Investigation) (viii) He submitted that the appellant/accused No.1 was an Assistant Teacher with no role in the transaction but was made a scapegoat. He contends that when the bribe was allegedly demanded by the accused No.2 as per the statement of the complainant and when accused No.2 was acquitted, the prosecution failed to establish an independent motive or quid pro quo for the appellant to demand or accept bribe personally. He - 17 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:13406 CRL.A No. 2141 of 2017 referred to the judgments in Neeraj Dutta [(2023) 4 SCC 731], K. Shanthamma [(2022) 4 SCC 574], P. Satyanarayan Murthy [(2015) 10 SCC 152] and B. Jayaraj [(2014) 13 SCC 55], referred supra. 7. Per contra, the learned counsel for the respondent submitted that the appellant/accused No.1 was the link between the accused No.2 and the complainant. He contends that it was the accused No.1, who laid a demand for the bribe for processing the cheques for payment to the complainant. He contends that this is evident from the telephone conversation between the complainant and the appellant/accused No.1. He contends that if this was a genuine payment payable by the complainant to the School Development Monitoring Committee there was no need for the accused to meet the complainant in an ice cream parlour in faraway Bhatkal Town. He contends that the presence of the accused No.1 was also not warranted, if he had no role to pay in the crime. He further contends that the offence in question being blue collar crime, cannot be dealt with sympathetically and the accused No.1 cannot be allowed to take advantage of technical lapses. He contends that the prosecution has proved that the - 18 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:13406 CRL.A No. 2141 of 2017 complainant was entrusted with the work of supplying 40 school boards to 30 schools. The prosecution also proved beyond doubt that the complainant was entitled to Rs.12,000/- per board and that portion of the value of these boards were paid by the accused by depositing cheques for a sum of Rs.2,16,000/-. He contends that the telephone conversation established that the cheques for the balance amount was prepared and would be handed over to the complainant if a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- is paid as bribe. He contends that the prosecution also proved that the complainant had offered to pay Rs.40,000/- instead of Rs.1,00,000/- and accused No.1 agreed to receive. He contends that the receipt of Rs.40,000/- is proved beyond doubt by the trap held on 06.09.2005 and the evidence of PW.2. Therefore, he contends that the Trial Court was justified in convicting the accused No.1 for the offences. He also submits that the sentence awarded by the Trial Court is just and proper and does not warrant interference. 8. After considering the contentions of the learned counsel for accused No.1 and the learned counsel for the respondent, the following point arises for my consideration: - 19 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:13406 CRL.A No. 2141 of 2017 "Whether there was sufficient evidence to convict accused No.1 for the offence punishable under Sections 7, 13(1)(d) read with 13(2) of P.C. Act, 1988 and whether accused No.1 was entitled to the benefit of doubt?" 9. I have considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the appellant/accused No.1 as well as the learned counsel for the respondent. I have also perused the records of the Trial Court and its judgment. 10. The appellant/accused No.1 was an Assistant School teacher working at Government Higher Primary School, Hebbatti village, Sirsi. The accused No.1 was in no way involved in either placing the order with the complainant for supply of school boards to 30 schools. He was also not in any way involved in processing the payment for the school board supplied. The cheques that were seized from the custody of accused No.2 did not bear the signature of accused No.1. The investigating officer PW.8 did not seize any documents to establish that at the relevant point of time, the accused No.1 was entrusted with any work relating to the complainant or that the accused No.1 was instrumental in drawing up the cheques payable to the - 20 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:13406 CRL.A No. 2141 of 2017 complainant. There is also nothing to show that the accused No.1 had made a demand for bribe to release the cheques. The cheques were admittedly in the custody of accused No.2. 11. At the time of trap, the complainant tried to handover the cash to the accused No.2, who instructed the complainant to hand it over to the accused No.1. The accused No.1 received the money on the instructions of accused No.2 and placed it in his pocket. It is therefore, evident that the accused No.1 did not make any demand for bribe or collect it. It is no doubt true that the incriminating currency notes were seized from the possession of accused No.1 and after immersing the hands of the accused No.1 in sodium carbonate solution, it turned pink. Therefore, though this is a clinching evidence to show that the money was recovered from the possession of accuse No.1, this is not sufficient to prove that the accused No.1 had laid a demand for bribe. There is also no evidence to establish that any work was either done by the accused No.1 or was pending before him concerning the complainant. This therefore, generates doubts about the veracity of the allegations of the complainant that the accused No.1 had demanded bribe. - 21 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:13406 CRL.A No. 2141 of 2017 12. This apart, PW.8 - investigating officer, spoke about the meeting of the School Development Monitoring Committee, where the complainant and other suppliers were present. He also spoke about the complainant offering to pay Rs.1,000/- as donation for each board supplied. Unfortunately, the investigating officer has not seized any material in this regard and no attempt was made to procure the evidence of School Development Monitoring Committee members. Therefore, the evidence of PW.1/complainant is doubtful and cannot be taken on its face value. 13. It is also to be noted that the accused No.1 had allegedly demanded Rs.1,00,000/- as bribe and expected the complainant to pay Rs.52,000/-, but the complainant claimed that he did not have that much money and offered to pay Rs.40,000/-. It is relevant to note that by that time, cheques for Rs.2,16,000/- were already deposited into his account. The complainant did not pay any bribe to any of the accused at the time of depositing Rs.2,16,000/-. If the accused had demanded Rs.1,00,000/- against the release of remaining cheques, the allegation that complainant offered to pay Rs.40,000/- as bribe - 22 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:13406 CRL.A No. 2141 of 2017 makes the whole case doubtful as there was no mention as to when the complainant would pay the balance Rs.60,000/-. The fact that PW.8 had deposed that the complainant had agreed to pay Rs.1,000/- for school development committee as donation and that corresponded with the amount that was seized from the possession of accused No.1, gives an impression that the amount was not to be treated as bribe but was supposedly the amount that the complainant had agreed to pay as donation. Therefore, the accused No.1 was entitled to the benefit of doubt. The Trial Court instead of considering the case from this perspective, had held cursorily that the prosecution proved the guilt of the accused No.1 beyond doubt. In doing so, the Trial Court merely extracted the evidence of PW.1 to PW.8 and the evidence of DW.1 and DW.2 in its judgment and jumped to the conclusion that the prosecution had proved the guilt of accused No.1. Therefore, the impugned judgment and the order of sentence being without proper application of mind to the facts and circumstances of the case deserves to be interfered with. Hence, the point for consideration is answered accordingly. 14. In view of the above, the following order is passed: - 23 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:13406 CRL.A No. 2141 of 2017 ORDER (i) This criminal appeal is allowed. (ii) The impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 12.12.2017 passed by the Principal District and Sessions Judge, Uttara Kannada, Karwar in Special Case No.24/2010 is set aside in so far as appellant/accused No.1 is concerned. (iii) The appellant/accused No.1 is acquitted of the offences punishable under Sections 7, 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and he is set free. (iv) Any personal or surety bonds furnished by the appellant/accused No.1 shall stand discharged. (v) Office is directed to forward a copy of this judgment to the Trial Court for information and necessary action. Sd/- (R.NATARAJ) JUDGE HJ/PMR List No.: 19 Sl No.: 1