- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:2100 CRL.A No. 100333 of 2016 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 3RD DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 100333 OF 2016 (C) BETWEEN: HONNAPPA J. HANAVAL S/O JADIYAPPA NAGAPPA HANAVAL, AGE: 30 YEARS, OCC: VILLAGE ACCOUNTANT, R/O: HANAVALI VILLAGE, TQ: GANGAVATI, DIST: KOPPAL. … APPELLANT (BY SRI. R.H. ANGADI, ADVOCATE) AND: THE STATE OF KARNATAKA, (R/BY LOKAYUKTA POLICE, HOSAPETE) R/BY ITS SPP, LOKAYUKTA, HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH, DHARWAD. … RESPONDENT (BY SRI. G.I. GACHCHINAMATH, SPP) THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 374 (2) OF CR.P.C., PRAYING TO ALLOW THE APPEAL AND SET ASIDE THE IMPUGNED JUDGMENT AND ORDER OF CONVICTION OFFENCE PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTION 713 (1)(D) AND 13(2) OF P.C. ACT DATED 28.10.2016, IN SPECIAL CASE NO.1 OF 2011, PASSED BY THE LEARNED III ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BALLARI (SITTING AT HOSAPETE) AND CONSEQUENTLY THE APPELLANT/ACCUSED BE ACQUITTED IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY. THIS APPEAL IS COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR B K MAHENDRAKUMAR Digitally signed by B K MAHENDRAKUMAR Location: High Court of Karnataka, Dharwad Bench Date: 2025.02.06 11:20:50 +0530 - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:2100 CRL.A No. 100333 of 2016 ORAL JUDGMENT 1. This appeal under Section 374(2) of the Cr.PC is filed by the accused, who has been convicted for the offence punishable under Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as the “Act, 1988”) and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for a period of three years and to pay a fine, as per the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 28.10.2016, passed in Special Case No.1/2011 by the learned III Additional District and Sessions Judge, Ballari (sitting at Hosapete). 2. The prosecution’s case is that the family members of CW18, CW12, CW20, CW21, and CW22 had entered into a partition in respect of land bearing Sy.No.398 A/1 of Bukkasagar, measuring 1.60 acres, and, following the partition, intended to mutate their names in the revenue records as per the terms of the partition. The accused allegedly demanded a sum of Rs.9,000/- to process the mutation in favor of the complainant. As the complainant was unwilling to pay the bribe, he approached the Lokayukta Inspector, Hospete, after obtaining a loan from PW1. 3. The Lokayukta Inspector, after dispatching the FIR and complaint to the Court through CW34, summoned the panchas and his office staff and thereafter conducted an entrustment panchanama. The complainant, accompanied by a shadow witness, proceeded to the office of the accused. After allegedly paying the bribe, the complainant signaled the raiding team with a handkerchief. The accused, upon seeing the raiding team, fled - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:2100 CRL.A No. 100333 of 2016 from his chamber and ran towards Hosapete bus stand, remaining absconding till 23.04.2009. The accused was arrested on 24.04.2009, his voluntary statement and explanation were recorded, and based on his voluntary statement, a sum of Rs.3,000/- was recovered from his residence through a panchanama. 4. To substantiate its case, the prosecution examined PWs.1 to 19, produced documentary evidence marked as Exs.P1 to P41, and presented material objects marked as MOs.1 to 10. The learned Sessions Judge, after framing points for consideration and appreciating the evidence on record, passed the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence. 5. The learned counsel for the appellant submitted that there is no substantive evidence of the appellant either demanding or accepting the gratification amount. Furthermore, the tainted money was not recovered from him. Therefore, in the absence of essential elements constituting an offence under Section 7 of the Act, 1988, the conviction is not legally sustainable. 6. In response, the learned counsel for the Lokayukta argued that the evidence of the shadow witness – PW8 clearly establishes that the appellant demanded and accepted the gratification amount of Rs.9,000/-, and in the absence of any perversity or illegality, the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence does not warrant interference. - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:2100 CRL.A No. 100333 of 2016 7. After considering the arguments of the learned counsel for both parties and perusing the trial court records, the only point for determination is whether the prosecution has established the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubt and whether the judgment of conviction and order of sentence is legally sustainable. 8. The complainant died during the pendency of the trial, and therefore, his son was examined as PW12. In his examination- in-chief, he supported the prosecution’s case; however, he was not a witness to the trap or the demand and acceptance of the gratification amount. 9. On the date of the trap ie., 07.01.2009 , it is alleged that the complainant entered the chambers of the accused and, after waiting for 5 to 10 minutes, came out. Thereafter, a conversation took place between the accused and the complainant regarding the mutation of names. The accused allegedly demanded Rs.9,000/-, and when the complainant did not refuse the demand, he handed over the tainted money to the accused. After handing over the amount, the complainant came out and signaled the raiding team. On seeing the raiding team, the Accused is alleged to have fled from the spot and ran towards the bus stand, and it is admitted that he was arrested only on 23.04.2009. Subsequently, on 24.04.2009, the complainant, along with the Lokayukta staff, visited the residence of the accused. At that time, the accused was not present in the house. Upon searching, a sum of Rs.3,000/-, which was allegedly part of the tainted money, was recovered which was placed behind a Photo. The panchanama at - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:2100 CRL.A No. 100333 of 2016 Ex.P26 records the recovery of this amount from the accused’s residence. PW8 – shadow witness was declared partly hostile. While he initially supported the prosecution’s case in his examination-in-chief, during cross-examination, he denied that the accused gave his voluntary statement before the Investigating Officer at the Lokayukta Office. 10. The evidence of the shadow witness is crucial in this case. Since the complainant died during trial, there is no other corroborative evidence to establish that the accused demanded and accepted the bribe. Although the shadow witness supported the prosecution’s case in his examination-in-chief, he categorically denied in cross-examination that he had given any prior statement regarding the accused’s demand for a bribe at the time of drawing the trap panchanama. 11. The Revenue Inspector (PW9) stated that no attendance register was maintained in the office since the accused, being a Village Accountant, was working on field duty . 12. The prosecution has not produced any material evidence to substantiate that the accused remained absconding after the trap. No explanation has been offered for the delay in securing the accused’s presence, considering that he allegedly fled the scene on 07.01.2009, but was arrested only on 23.04.2009. Furthermore, the tainted money was not recovered from the accused at the time of the trap. - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:2100 CRL.A No. 100333 of 2016 13. The Criminal Procedure Code (Cr.PC) provisions apply to search and seizure conducted in an investigation under the Prevention of Corruption Act. Therefore, the Investigating Officer was required to obtain a warrant from the jurisdictional Magistrate before conducting a search of the accused’s house, as per Section 100 of the Cr.PC. 14. In this case, the search was conducted in the absence of the accused, as admitted by PW8 in his examination-in-chief. Therefore, the recovery of part of the tainted money stands vitiated for non-compliance with the mandatory provisions of Section 100 of the Cr.PC. The prosecution also lacked the Phenolphthalein test report to establish that the accused had received the tainted money, since it is alleged that the Accused fled from the spot on seeing the raiding team. Therefore, a serious doubt arises regarding the authenticity of the recovery of the part of the tainted money from the house of the Accused. 15. The Revenue Inspector (PW9) further admitted that on receiving an application for mutation, it is forwarded to the Tahsildar, who issues a thirty-day notice inviting objections. The responsibility of serving the notice lies with the Village Accountant (accused herein). Thereafter, the application of the complainant had been forwarded by the Revenue Inspector to the Tahsildar for necessary action, and there was no pending work with the accused at the time of the complaint. 16. A careful perusal of PW9’s evidence indicates that as of the date of the complaint, no official work was pending with the - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:2100 CRL.A No. 100333 of 2016 accused. Although PW8 – shadow witness stated that the accused fled on seeing the raiding team, there is no substantive evidence to establish that the accused demanded and accepted the bribe. 17. In Neeraj Dutta v. State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi), (2022 SCC OnLine SC 1724), the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that demand and acceptance of gratification is a sine qua non for an offence under Section 7A of the Act, 1988. 18. Accordingly, in the absence of any conclusive evidence of demand and acceptance of gratification, and with the recovery of the tainted money being legally unsustainable, the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence cannot be upheld. Accordingly, I pass the following: ORDER i) The appeal is allowed. ii) The impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 28.10.2016 passed in Spl.Case No.1/2011 by the learned III Addl. District and Sessions Judge, Ballari (sitting at Hosapete), is hereby set aside, and the accused is acquitted of the aforesaid offence. ii) iii) The bail bond, if any, stands discharged. Sd/- (HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR) JUDGE BKM/CT:BCK