- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:27110 CRL.P No. 237 of 2020 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 16TH DAY OF JULY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE J.M.KHAZI CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 237 OF 2020 (482(Cr.PC) / 528(BNSS)) BETWEEN: HEMESHA.S.M S/O MALLAPPA AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS OCC SUB-REGISTRAR KADURU OWN VILLAGE, CHEKKOBHONAHALLI POST, MOLAKALLARU TALUK, CHITHRADURGA DISTRICT-577501 …PETITIONER (BY SRI. PRAVEENKUMAR K S, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. STATE OF KARNATAKA BY LOKAYUKTHA POLICE, CHIKKAMANGALUR, REPRESENTED BY THE STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT BUILDING, BENGALURU-560001 2. SRI. CHANDRASHEKARAPPA S/O HANUMANTHAIAH AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS R/AT BYAGADEHALLI, BIRUR POST, BIRUR HOBLI, Digitally signed by REKHA R Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:27110 CRL.P No. 237 of 2020 KADUR TALUK, CHIKKAMAGALUR DISTRICT-577116. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI.B.B.PATIL, SPL.PP FOR R1; R2 SERVED) THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S.482 CR.P.C BY THE ADVOCATE FOR THE PETITIONER PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER DATED 27.04.2019 PASSED BY THE HONBLE PRL.DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, CHIKKAMAGALURU IN SPL.C.C.NO.36/2019 THEREBY TAKING THE COGNIZANCE FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/S 7,8,13(1)(d) R/W 13(2) OF PREVENTION OF CORRUPTION ACT 1988 AND CONSEQUENTLY QUASH THE ENTIRE PROCEEDINGS THEREON IN SO FAR AS IT RELATES TO THE PRESENT PETITIONER HEREIN ACCUSED NO.1. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR DICTATING ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE J.M.KHAZI ORAL ORDER Petitioner who is arraigned as accused No.1 has filed this petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, with a prayer to quash order dated 27.04.2019 in Spl.C.C.No.36/2019, on the file of Prl. District and Sessions Judge, Chikkamagaluru, taking cognizance for the offences punishable under Sections 7, 8, 13(1)(d) r/w 13(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act. - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:27110 CRL.P No. 237 of 2020 2. In support of the petition, the petitioner has contended that the impugned registration of the criminal case and consequently the entire proceedings are contrary to law, facts and materials available on record and therefore liable to be set aside. As alleged in the complaint on 12.04.2018 or till the date of trap on 24.12.2018, no work was entrusted to the petitioner. No preliminary investigation was conducted before registering the case as per the guidelines of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Lalitha Kumari. As per the trap mahazar, the alleged bribe amount was handed over to one L.S.Satish, but it was recovered from one Ramesh. Since there is no demand and acceptance and recovery from the petitioner, the prosecution against him is not maintainable. 3. One Sendamarai, who is the purchaser of property under sale deed and B.H Ekantharaju, who is beneficiary under the Will have submitted applications on 24.04.2018 at 11.00 a.m. stating that one Seethamma is suffering from ill health and bed ridden has made a request - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:27110 CRL.P No. 237 of 2020 for private attendance for registration of the Will and absolute sale deed on 24.04.2018 to the petitioner who was working as Sub-registrar, Kadur, Chikkamagaluru. Accordingly, 24.04.2018, at 1.30 p.m. petitioner visited the house of Seethamma and registered the said documents. The complainant is not connected to the said transaction. 4. According to the prosecution the entrustment mahazar was drawn on 12.04.2018, but trap could not be laid on that day against the petitioner and another. Again on 23.04.2018, one more entrustment mahazar was drawn. On that day also trap could not be laid. Again on 24.04.2018, third entrustment mahazar was drawn, but petitioner could not be caught red handed and trap was not successful. Such being the case, the proceedings would not survive. The concerned police have not made any attempt arraign CW-4 as co-accused from whom the trap money was recovered. Therefore, continuation of the proceedings against the petitioner would amount to abuse of the - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:27110 CRL.P No. 237 of 2020 process of the Court. In the departmental enquiry accused No.1 is exonerated and hence, the petition. 5. In support of his arguments, learned counsel for petitioner has relied upon the decision in Ashoo Surendranath Tewari Vs. Deputy Superintendent of Police, EOW, CBI and Anr. (Ashoo Surendranath Tewari)1. 6. On the other hand, Sri.B.B.Patil, learned Special Public Prosecutor representing respondent No.1 Lokayukta submitted that on 12.04.2018, respondent No.2 Chandrashekharappa filed a complaint alleging that his uncle Nanjundappa is having a daughter by name Seethamma, who is aged 50 years. She is a handicap by birth. Since 2 1/2 years, she is also suffering from kidney problem and diabetes. Since her parents are no more, she is taken care of by the complainant and his brother Ekantharaju and getting her treatment at Vishwamanava Nursing Home. Four sites acquired by his uncle 1 (2020) 9 SCC 636 - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:27110 CRL.P No. 237 of 2020 Nanjundappa are transferred in the name of Seethamma. Since her health is deteriorating, she intended to sell one site and transfer two sites in the name of Ekantharaju and one site to the name of complainant. 6.1 In this regard, complainant contacted stamp vendor i.e., accused No.2 Prasanna and enquired about the procedure. The said Prasanna after enquiring with the petitioner conveyed that Rs.40,000/- is to be given to the petitioner in order to visit the house and register the documents. When complainant expressed his inability to pay Rs.40,000/-, again Prasanna met the petitioner and informed complainant that petitioner has agreed to do the work for Rs.20,000/-. Since the complainant was not willing to pay the bribe, he filed the complaint with respondent No.1 Lokayukta Police. The tape recorder conversation clearly indicate the demand for bribe by accused Nos.1 and 2. - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:27110 CRL.P No. 237 of 2020 6.2 When the trap was laid accused No.2 Prasanna directed complainant to give Rs.12,000/- out of Rs.20,000/- to accused No.3 Satish who is data entry operator with a direction to hand over to accused No.1. But in turn accused No.3 handed them to CW-4 Ramesh who is a broker. Before he could hand over it to accused No.1, trap was laid. However, the hand wash of accused No.3 and CW-4 Ramesh is positive for presence of phenolphthalein and tainted notes are also recovered from CW-4 Ramesh. CW-4 Ramesh has given statement under Section 164 of Cr.P.C about receiving Rs.12,000/- from accused No.3 Satish with instruction to give it to accused No.1. In the light of the entire material in the charge sheet, a prima facie case is made out and the allegations are to be proved at trial and prays for dismissal of the petition. 7. In support of his arguments, learned Special Public Prosecutor for respondent No.1 - Lokayukta has relied upon the following decisions: (i) Neeraj Dutta Vs. State (NCT of Delhi) - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:27110 CRL.P No. 237 of 2020 (Neeraj Dutta)2 (ii) Sanju Rajan Nayar Vs. Jayaraj (Sanju Rajan Nayar)3 (iii) Airports Authority of India Vs. Pradip Kumar Banerjee (Airports Authority)4 8. Heard arguments and perused the record. 9. Thus, accused No.1 who was working as Sub- Registrar, Kadur is seeking quashing of charge sheet filed against him for the offences punishable under Sections, 7, 8, 13(1)(d) r/w 13(2) of PC Act, contending that trap could not be laid against him and another and therefore, continuation of the proceedings would amount to abuse of the process of the Court. On the other hand learned Spl.Public Prosecutor representing Lokayukta Police would submit that though the tainted notes did not reach accused No.1, they were received by accused Nos.2 and 3 and accused No.3 had given it to CW-4 Ramesh with an instructions to hand over to accused No.1. The hand wash 2 (2023) 4 SCC 731 3 2024 SCC Online SC 582 4 2025 SCC Online SC 232 - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:27110 CRL.P No. 237 of 2020 of accused Nos.2, 3 and CW-4 is positive for the presence of phenolphthalein. In addition to it there is evidence of complainant and audio recording of the demand made by accused Nos.1 and 2. CW-4 Ramesh has also given statement before the Judicial Magistrate. In the light of the same, a strong prima facie case is made out against all the accused persons including the petitioner and it is not a case for quashing of the criminal proceedings. 10. The material placed in charge sheet clearly indicate that Smt.Seethamma, a cousin of complainant Chandrashekharappa is a handicap. She wanted to sell a site to meet her medical expenses, transfer one site in the name of complainant and two sites in the name of his brother B.H.Ekanatharaju, as they were taking care of her. In that connection Chandrashekharappa met accused No.2 Prasanna who was working as a stamp vendor and through him, also met accused No.1 and they initially demanded Rs.40,000/- to visit the house and complete the registering - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:27110 CRL.P No. 237 of 2020 of the documents and later agreed to receive Rs.20,000/-. In this connection, when complainant met both accused Nos.1 and 2, he recorded their conversation on a micro tape recorder, which clearly establish the demand made by accused No.1 and direction given to hand over the same to accused No.2. 11. Trap could not be laid on 12.04.2018, 23.04.2018. However, on 24.04.2018 when the bribe amount was to be handed over, accused No.3 Satish came and on the directions of accused No.2, out of the tainted notes, complainant hand over Rs.12,000/- to accused No.3 Satish and accused No.2 Prasanna directed him to hand over the said notes to accused No.1. However, the investigation reveal that accused No.1 instead of collecting the bribe amount directed accused No.3 Satish to hand over the same to CW-4 Ramesh, who was a broker in the said office. - 11 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:27110 CRL.P No. 237 of 2020 12. It is pertinent to note that after complainant handed over Rs.12,000/- to accused No.3 Satish, who was working as the computer operator, he went into the chamber of accused No.1 and prepared all the documents for the sale in favour of Sendamarai, Will in respect of two sites in favour of Ekantharaju and one site in favour of complainant and took out prints and he together with accused No.1 went to Byadagehalli where Seethamma was staying and completed the formality of registration. 13. The conversation recorded in the voice recorder clearly establish that accused No.2 Satish got Rs.12,000/- handed over to accused No.3 Satish. During the trap mahazar, the hand wash as well as the pant pocket wash of accused No.3 Satish and the hand wash of CW-4 Ramesh gave positive result of presence of phenolphthalein. The said notes were recovered from CW-4 Ramesh. They and the remaining Rs.8,000/- notes available with the complainant tallied with the details of the notes produced - 12 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:27110 CRL.P No. 237 of 2020 by him at the pre-trap mahazar. Accused No.3 Satish during his statement has stated that he collected the said amount to be handed over to accused No.1. 14. The investigating officer has got the statement of CW-4 Ramesh recorded before the Judicial Magistrate under Section 164 of Cr.P.C, wherein he has stated that the said notes were handed over to him by accused No.3 Satish with instructions to hand over the same to accused No.1. The charge sheet clearly establish the fact of demand for Rs.20,000/- made by accused No.1 and accused No.2 and out of the said amount, on the instructions of accused No.2 Prasanna, complainant handed over Rs.12,000/- to accused No.3 Satish and he in turn handed them over to CW-4 Ramesh. In the light of prima facie material placed in the charge sheet to proceed against accused Nos.1 to 3, it is not the case for quashing the criminal proceedings against petitioner/accused No.1. - 13 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:27110 CRL.P No. 237 of 2020 15. In trap cases, invariably currency notes would be used as bait money. Since everyone would be possessing some currency, in order to prevent the accused from claiming that the currency notes tendered as bait money belongs to him, the serial number of the notes would be noted in the mahazar. As a supporting evidence, the tainted notes would be smeared with phenolphthalein powder and the hands and the shirt or pant pocket or portion of the purse, which come in contact with such notes, on washing with sodium carbonate would give pink colour indicating the fact that the said person has received the bait money. Tendering of bait money and its recovery would be a piece of evidence, that would be led by prosecution to prove the allegations against the accused, in addition to the testimony of complainant, shadow witness, the second witness to the entrustment mahazar and also the investigating officer who would follow the complainant and shadow witness and would be present immediately after the accused or any of his accomplice would receive - 14 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:27110 CRL.P No. 237 of 2020 such notes and recover them and immediately record the statement of such person that may be given by way of their explanation. 16. Hitherto it is noticed that the Government officials more particularly, those who are habitually indulged in taking bribe, more particularly, police officers are very cautious. They are suspicious of the movement of the complainant, especially when he is accompanied by another person. They don't receive the bribe money directly and instruct some other person to receive it. They also check the person of the complainant or others who enter their chambers to prevent them from wearing any electronic gadgets to rule out possibility of recording their conversation or video recording. They are even taking precaution not to make calls over regular phone and make calls through watsapp to prevent recording of their conversation making demand for bribe. In the light of the same, the prosecution may not be able to prove the fact of - 15 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:27110 CRL.P No. 237 of 2020 accused or his accomplice receiving the tainted notes. However, it will not prevent the prosecution to lead other evidence, including the testimony of the complainant that there was demand made by the accused to carry out the work entrusted to him, based on which a conviction could be imposed. Therefore, mere fact that the bait money has not actually reached the hands of accused No.1 would not be a ground for seeking of the criminal proceedings. 17. In fact in Neeraj Dutta, at para 88 and 90, the Hon'ble Supreme Court discussed in detail, how the evidence in a trap case is to be appreciated, under different circumstances. More particularly para Nos.88 and 90 reads as under; "88. What emerges from the aforesaid discussion is summarised as under. 88.1. (a) Proof of demand and acceptance of illegal gratification by a public servant as a fact in issue by the prosecution is a sine qua non in order to establish the guilt of the accused public servant under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d)(i) and (il) of the Act. - 16 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:27110 CRL.P No. 237 of 2020 88.2. (b) In order to bring home the guilt of the accused, the prosecution has to first prove the demand of illegal gratification and the subsequent acceptance as a matter of fact. This fact in issue can be proved either by direct evidence which can be in the nature of oral evidence or documentary evidence. 88.3. (c) Further, the fact in issue, namely, the proof of demand and acceptance of illegal gratification can also be proved by circumstantial evidence in the absence of direct oral and documentary evidence. 88.4. (d) In order to prove the fact in issue, namely, the demand and acceptance of illegal gratification by the public servant, the following aspects have to be borne in mind: (i) if there is an offer to pay by the bribe-giver without there being any demand from the public servant and the latter simply accepts the offer and receives the illegal gratification, it is a case of acceptance as per Section 7 of the Act. In such a case, there need not be a prior demand by the public servant. (ii) On the other hand, if the public servant makes a demand and the bribe-giver accepts the demand and tenders the demanded gratification which in turn is received by the public servant, it is a case of obtainment. In the case of obtainment, the prior demand for illegal gratification emanates - 17 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:27110 CRL.P No. 237 of 2020 from the public servant. This is an offence under Sections 13(1)(d)(i) and (ii) of the Act. (iii) In both cases of (i) and (ii) above, the offer by the bribe-giver and the demand by the public servant respectively have to be proved by the prosecution as a fact in issue. In other words, mere acceptance or receipt of an illegal gratification without anything more would not make it an offence under Section 7 or Sections 13(1)(d)(i) and (ii), respectively of the Act. Therefore, under Section 7 of the Act, in order to bring home the offence, there must be an offer which emanates from the bribe-giver which is accepted by the public servant which would make it an offence. Similarly, a prior demand by the public servant when accepted by the bribe-giver and in turn there is a payment made which is received by the public servant, would be an offence of obtainment under Sections 13(1)(d)(i) and (ii) of the Act. 88.5. (e) The presumption of fact with regard to the demand and acceptance or obtainment of an illegal gratification may be made by a court of law by way of an inference only when the foundational facts have been proved by relevant oral and documentary evidence and not in the absence thereof. On the basis of the material on record, the court has the discretion to raise a presumption of fact while considering whether the fact of demand has been proved by the accused and in the absence of rebuttal presumption stands. - 18 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:27110 CRL.P No. 237 of 2020 88.6. (f) In the event the complainant turns "hostile", or has died or is unavailable to let in his evidence during trial, demand of illegal gratification can be proved by letting in the evidence of any other witness who can again let in evidence, either orally or by documentary evidence or the prosecution can prove the case by circumstantial evidence. The trial does not abate nor does it result in an order of acquittal of the accused public servant. 88.7. (g) Insofar as Section 7 of the Act is concerned, on the proof of the facts in issue, Section 20 mandates the court to raise a presumption that the illegal gratification was for the purpose of a motive or reward as mentioned in the said Section. The said presumption has to be raised by the court as a legal presumption or a presumption in law. Of course, the said presumption is also subject to rebuttal. Section 20 does not apply to Sections 13(1)(d)(i) and (ii) of the Act. 88.8. (h) We clarify that the presumption in law under Section 20 of the Act is distinct from presumption of fact referred to above in sub-para 88.5(e), above, as the former is a mandatory presumption while the latter is discretionary in nature. 89. In view of the aforesaid discussion and conclusions, we find that there is no conflict in the three-Judge Bench decisions of this Court in B. Jayaraj and P. Satyanarayana Murthy with the three- Judge Bench decision in M. Narsinga Rao, with regard - 19 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:27110 CRL.P No. 237 of 2020 to the nature and quality of proof necessary to sustain a conviction for the offences under Sections 7 or 13(1)(d)(i) and (ii) of the Act, when the direct evidence of the complainant or "primary evidence" of the complainant is unavailable owing to his death or any other reason. The f position of law when a complainant or prosecution witness turns "hostile" is also discussed and the observations made above would accordingly apply in light of Section 154 of the Evidence Act. In view of the aforesaid discussion, we hold that there is no conflict between the judgments in the aforesaid three cases. 90. Accordingly, the question referred for consideration of this Constitution Bench is answered as under: In the absence of evidence of the complainant (direct/primary, oral/documentary evidence) it is permissible to draw an inferential deduction of culpability/guilt of a public servant under Section 7 and Section 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of the Act based on other evidence adduced by the prosecution." 18. So far as the contention of the petitioner/accused No.1 that in the departmental enquiry, he has been exonerated and reliance on Ashoo Surendranath Tewari, perusal of the enquiry report - 20 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:27110 CRL.P No. 237 of 2020 clearly indicate that all the material evidence which is part of the charge sheet is not led in the enquiry and only two witnesses are examined and they have not been cross- examined extensively. In the absence of the same, a farce of an enquiry was conducted and therefore, the petitioner/accused No.1 is not entitled for the benefit of the said decision. 19. In fact in Sanju Rajan Nayar, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that the evidence sought to be adduced in the criminal case is not the same which weighed with the disciplinary authority in exonerating the accused and the High Court failed to take the said fact into consideration before quashing the criminal proceedings and set aside the order of the High Court, restored the FIR and consequent proceedings to take its logical end. Despite the fact that the accused was exonerated in the departmental proceedings, in the charge sheet there is sufficient material - 21 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:27110 CRL.P No. 237 of 2020 to proceed against him and he cannot claim benefit of his exoneration in the departmental enquiry. 20. In Airports Authority, at para-28, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that even in case of demand and acceptance of illegal gratification, the Courts are empowered to record conviction where the decoy turn hostile and prosecution case is based purely on the evidence of trap laying officer and trap witnesses. 21. Thus, from the above discussion, this Court is of the considered opinion that there are no justifiable grounds to quash the criminal proceedings against petitioner/accused No.1. 22. In the result, petition fails and accordingly the following: - 22 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:27110 CRL.P No. 237 of 2020 ORDER (i) Petition filed by the petitioner/accused No.1 under Section 482 Cr.P.C is hereby rejected. (ii) The Registry is directed to send a copy of this order to the trial Court through e-mail. Sd/- (J.M.KHAZI) JUDGE RR List No.: 1 Sl No.: 49