- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-K:5099 CRL.A No. 200077 of 2024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, KALABURAGI BENCH DATED THIS THE 28TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S RACHAIAH CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 200077 OF 2024 (374(Cr.PC)/415(BNSS)) BETWEEN JAGADEVAPPA S/O LAGAMANNA BASAGI AGED 61 YEARS, OCCUPATION SECTION OFFICER, GESCOM, HUNASAGI, TALUKA SHORAPUR, DISTRICT YADGIRI (NOW RETIRED), RESIDENCE OF H.NO. 11-1041/101/256, GDA RESIDENTIAL LAYOUT, 6TH MAIN, MSK MILL ROAD, KALABURAGI-585103. ...APPELLANT (BY SRI AVINASH A. UPLAONKAR, ADVOCATE) AND STATE OF KARNATAKA THROUGH LOKAYUKTA Digitally signed by SREEDHARAN BANGALORE SUSHMA LAKSHMI Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-K:5099 CRL.A No. 200077 of 2024 POLICE STATION YADGIRI NOW REPRESENTED BY SPECIAL PUBLIC PROSECUTOR (LOKAYUKTA) HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA KALABURAGI BENCH, KALABURAGI 585 107 …RESPONDENT (BY SRI GOURISH S. KHASHAMPUR, SPL. SPP ) THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 374 (2) OF CR.P.C PRAYING TO CALL FOR RECORDS AND EXAMINE THE RECORDS IN SPL. C (LOKAYUKTA) NO. 12/2013 AND SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT PASSED BY THE LEARNED DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE AT YADGIRI FOR CONVICTING THE APPELLANT BY ITS JUDGMENT DATED 28.02.2024 AND SENTENCING HIM ON 28.02.2024 IN SPL. CASE (LOKAYUKTA) NO.12/2023. THIS APPEAL HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED FOR JUDGMENT ON 04.04.2025, AND COMING ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT OF JUDGMENT THIS DAY, THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S RACHAIAH - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-K:5099 CRL.A No. 200077 of 2024 CAV JUDGMENT (PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S RACHAIAH) 1. This appeal is filed being aggrieved by the judgment of conviction and order on sentence dated 28.02.2024 in Spl. Case (Lokayukta) No.12/2013 on the file of District and Sessions Judge, Yadgiri, wherein, the Trial Court recorded the conviction for the offences punishable under Section 7, 13(1)(d) read with 13(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (for short ‘P.C. Act’). 2. The ranks of the parties henceforth will be referred to as per their rankings in the Trial Court, for convenience. Factual matrix of the case : 3. The case of the prosecution is that the accused being a public servant, on 07.01.2013, demanded a sum of Rs.20,000/- from the complainant with regard to the installation of a new meter to his flour mill by saying that Rs.5,000/- has to be paid for the new meter and Rs.15,000/- has to be paid as illegal gratification. - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-K:5099 CRL.A No. 200077 of 2024 Further, it is stated that the appellant had received Rs.2,000/- on that date as initial payment. According to the complainant, the balance of Rs.18,000/- was to be paid to the accused. The complainant approached the respondent - Lokayukta police and lodges a complaint regarding the demand of illegal gratification. The Lokayukta police secured the shadow and panch witnesses and conducted pre-trap panchanama and directed them to act on their instructions for the purpose of post-trap panchanama. 4. As per the averments of the complaint, on the same day, around 1.30 p.m., the complainant was instructed to act on the instruction of the respondent police. He along with a shadow witness, had been to the house of the accused and stated to have paid illegal gratification of Rs.18,000/-. The said amount was received by the accused and kept on the table. A post-trap panchanama was drawn in the presence of the panch witnesses. The accused was arrested and sent to judicial custody. The Lokayukta Police have conducted the investigation and submitted the charge sheet. - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-K:5099 CRL.A No. 200077 of 2024 5. To prove the case of the prosecution, the prosecutor examined 15 witnesses as P.W.1 to P.W.15 and got marked 59 documents as Ex.P1 to P59 and also identified 14 material objects as M.O.1 to M.O.13. The Trial Court after appreciating the oral and documentary evidence on record, recorded the conviction of the appellant for the offences stated supra. Being aggrieved by the same, the appellant has approached this Court seeking to set aside the judgment of conviction and order on sentence passed by the Trial Court. 6. Heard Sri.Avinash A.Uploankar, learned counsel for the appellant and Sri.Gowrish S.Khashampur, learned Special Public Prosecutor for respondent – Lokayukta. 7. It is the submission of learned counsel for the appellant / accused that the Trial Court has committed an error in arriving at a conclusion that the accused has committed the offences as stated supra, which is baseless and erroneous for the reason that the complainant has turned hostile and not supported the case of the prosecution. - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-K:5099 CRL.A No. 200077 of 2024 8. It is further submitted that though P.W.2 has stated in his evidence that P.W.1 received the amount of Rs.18,000/-, the fact remains that, whether it is for illegal gratification or not is not forthcoming in his evidence. Therefore, mere recovery of the amount would not be sufficient to bring the accused for conviction for the offences stated supra. As such, the learned counsel for the appellant prays to allow the appeal. 9. Per contra, the learned Special Prosecutor for Lokayukta vehemently submitted that even though the complainant has turned hostile, the fact remains that, the shadow witness has supported the case of the prosecution. The shadow witness is nothing but a replica of the complainant. Therefore, his evidence cannot be ignored. Moreover, all other witnesses have supported the case of the prosecution regarding the demand of illegal gratification for the purpose of installing the electric meter. Therefore, the conviction recorded by the appellant has to be upheld and the appeal has to be dismissed. - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-K:5099 CRL.A No. 200077 of 2024 10. Having heard the learned counsel for the respective parties and also perused the findings of the Trial Court in recording the conviction. The Trial Court while recording the conviction, assigned the reason that there is a demand and acceptance of illegal gratification by the accused, even though the complainant has turned hostile. The shadow witness has stated that he was present when the accused demanded the illegal gratification for the purpose of installing the electric meter in the floor mill of the complainant. Further, the Trial Court opined that there was pendency of work which was to be completed by the accused and recovery was effected in the presence of the witnesses from the house of the accused. Now it is appropriate at this stage to re-appreciate the evidence of all the witnesses. 11. On 07.01.2013, Smt.Lalitha Bai who is the wife of the complainant, had written a letter to the GESCOM, Hunsagi stating that the electric meter was burnt and it has to be replaced. Thereafter, the accused approached the complainant and conducted inspection and found that the complainant was tampering the electric meter and he - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-K:5099 CRL.A No. 200077 of 2024 was illegally taking the electric supply for which the accused had instructed the complainant that Rs.1,50,000/- fine to be paid. The complainant requested to reduce the amount. Further, the complainant was instructed to pay Rs.20,000/- as illegal gratification for the purpose of set off of the amount. 12. P.W.1 is the complainant, he has turned hostile and not supported the case of the prosecution. 13. P.W.2 supported the case of the prosecution being a shadow witness. He has stated that P.W.1 and himself had been to the house of the accused. The accused, in fact, asked the complainant whether he had brought the amount or not. P.W.1 stated that he brought the amount. Further, P.W.1 was instructed that the amount to be kept on the table. Accordingly, the amount was kept on the table. After the incident, P.W.1 gave a signal to the respondent police. The respondent police in turn came and trap was conducted on the accused and an amount of Rs.18,000/- was seized in his presence. - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-K:5099 CRL.A No. 200077 of 2024 14. P.W.3 who was working as Second Division Assistant, Yadgiri in the Department of Health and Family Welfare. He supported the case of the prosecution in respect of the seizure of the amount. According to him, the amount of Rs.18,000/- was counted and kept in the pant pocket of the accused. 15. P.W.4 was working as Assistant Engineer and in charge AEE of Surapur. He supported the case of the prosecution and produced certain documents relating to the pendency of work before the accused. 16. P.W.5 has turned hostile. 17. P.W.6 - Superintendent of Engineer stated to have given a report stating that he had supplied the details of the accused to the concerned Lokayukta police. 18. P.W.7 - Senior Assistant, KPTCL, Yadgiri stated that he had seen the accused was trapped and arrested by the Lokayukta Police and thereafter he was not aware of the actual incident. 19. P.W.8 was working as an Assistant Engineer, PWD, Kalaburagi. He is stated to have prepared the sketch of the place where the incident stated to have taken place. - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-K:5099 CRL.A No. 200077 of 2024 20. P.W.9 was working as PDO, Vajjala Gram Panchayat, Surapura Taluk. He submitted the report stating that the complainant was running a flour in his jurisdiction. 21. P.W.10 was working as Director, KPTCL stated to have sanctioned the amount. 22. P.W.11 stated to be the Assistant Director of Public Health Department, Bengaluru. After examining the sealed articles, he had given a report as per Ex.P53. 23. P.W.12 was jeep driver stated to have taken four to five members in his vehicle to Yadgiri, Hunasagi, however, he does not know anything about further incident. 24. P.W.13 was working as watchman at UKP Camp, Hunasagi turned hostile. 25. P.W.14 - Lalithabai is the wife of P.W.1, has not supported the case of the prosecution. 26. Having considered the evidence of all the witnesses stated supra, the material witnesses of the case are P.Ws.2 and 3 and other police witnesses. The prosecution though heavily relied on the evidence of P.W.2, the fact remains that, when the complainant himself turned hostile, the question of conviction would - 11 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-K:5099 CRL.A No. 200077 of 2024 not arise. Assuming that the shadow witness supported the case of the prosecution in respect of the amount received, that does not indicate that the said amount was received as illegal gratification. 27. The Hon'ble Supreme Court, time and again, has reiterated that mere recovery of the amount without proving the demand of illegal gratification by the prosecution would not constitute an offence under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) of the P.C Act. In order to sustain the conviction, the prosecution has to prove the demand and acceptance of illegal gratification, which is sine-qua-non. 28. In the present case, the prosecution has failed to prove the demand, which is most significant. Therefore, the impugned judgment passed by the Trial Court is not only erroneous but also illegal. Hence, the same is unsustainable under the law. 29. In the light of the observation made above, I proceed to pass the following: ORDER i) The criminal appeal is allowed. - 12 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-K:5099 CRL.A No. 200077 of 2024 ii) The judgment of conviction and order on sentence dated 28.02.2024 passed in Special Case (Lokayukta) No.12/2013 by the District and Sessions Judge, Yadgiri, is set aside. iii) The accused is acquitted for the offences punishable under Sections 7, 13(1)(d) read with 13(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 iv) Bail bonds executed if any, stands cancelled. Sd/- (S RACHAIAH) JUDGE UN List No.: 19 Sl No.: 1