- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:25205 CRL.A No. 1020 of 2013 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 10TH DAY OF JULY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE M G UMA CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 1020 OF 2013 (C) BETWEEN: SRI. PRABHUDEV, S/O GANGAPPA, AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS, P.C.NO.4931, YASHVANTHAPURA POLICE STATION, YASHVANTHAPURA BANGALORE, R/AT NO.63/49, 8TH CROSS JAI MARUTHI NAGAR, BANGALORE - 96 …APPELLANT (BY SRI. S.G. BHAGAVAN, ADVOCATE) AND: STATE BY POLICE INSPECTOR LOKAYUKTHA, BANGALORE REPRESENTED BY STATE SPECIAL PUBLIC PROSECUTOR FOR LOKAYUKTHA CASE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA HIGH COURT COMPLEX BANGALORE …RESPONDENT (BY SRI. B.S. PRASAD, ADVOCATE) THIS CRL.A. IS FILED U/S. 374(2) CR.P.C PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED:30.09.2013 PASSED BY THE SPECIAL JUDGE, PREVENTION OF CORRUPTION ACT, BANGALORE URBAN DISTRICT, BANGALORE CITY IN SPL.C.C.NO.40/2010 - CONVICTING THE APPELLANT/ACCUSED FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/S 7 AND 13(1)(D) P/U/S 13(2) OF PREVENTION OF CORRUPTION ACT, 1988 AND ETC., Digitally signed by SWAPNA V Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:25205 CRL.A No. 1020 of 2013 THIS CRL.A., COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE M G UMA ORAL JUDGMENT The appellant being the sole accused in Special CC.No.40/2010 on the file of the learned Special Judge, Bangalore Urban District, Bangalore City, is impugning the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 30.09.2013 convicting him for the offence punishable under Section 7, 13(1)(d) R/w Section 13(2) the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (for short 'the PC Act'), and sentencing him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of 6 1/2 months and pay a fine of Rs.250/- for the offence punishable under Section 7 of the PC Act, to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of 13 months and pay a fine of Rs.500/- for the offence punishable under Section 13(1)(d) R/w Section 13(2) of the PC Act, with default sentence. 2. Brief facts of the case of the prosecution is that, the accused was working as police constable in Yeshwanthapura police station, Bengaluru and he is a public servant. It is the further contention of the prosecution that the complainant - - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:25205 CRL.A No. 1020 of 2013 PW1 had filed the complaint with Yeshwanthapura police station registered in Cr.No.265/2008. Warrant was issued to apprehend the accused in the said case, which was entrusted to the accused, who is the police constable. In that regard, the complainant - PW1 had met accused No.1 and requested to execute the warrant, for which, he demanded bribe of Rs.2,000/-. Since the complainant was not willing to pay any bribe, he filed the first information as per Ex.P1. The FIR came to be registered as per Ex.P24. Pre trap panchanama as per Ex.P11 was conducted. The currency notes, which were smeared with phenolphthalein powder were entrusted to PW1 by the Investigating Officer, in the presence of shadow witness PW2 and pancha witness PW5. Investigating Officer directed the complainant and shadow witness to go and meet the accused. It is the further contention of the prosecution that accordingly, the complainant along with shadow witness went and met the accused in the police station on 06.10.2008 at 4.20 pm. The accused asked the complainant as to whether he has brought what he had demanded. Thereafter, the complainant tendered the tainted currency notes and the same was accepted by the accused and kept under the keyboard of - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:25205 CRL.A No. 1020 of 2013 the computer. Immediately, the complainant gave signal to the Investigating Officer. The Investigating Officer came to the spot with PW5-pancha witness, hand wash of the accused was taken in Sodium Carbonate solution, which turned into pink colour. Samples were collected and were sent for chemical examination. Later the chemical examiner issued the report as per Ex.P26, according to which, both the right and left hand tested positive for the presence of phenolphthalein. 3. It is the further contention of the prosecution that, the tainted amount, which was kept under the keyboard of the computer was recovered under the trap panchanama, which are as per MO9. The accused offered the explanation as per Ex.P22, totally denying the incident. The Investigating Officer completed the investigation, obtained sanction from the sanctioning authority - PW3 and filed the final report. 4. Learned Special Judge took cognizance of the offence and summoned the accused. The accused appeared before the Trial Court, pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. The prosecution examined PWs.1 to 5, got marked Exs.P1 to 27 and identified MOs1 to 10 in support of its contention. - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:25205 CRL.A No. 1020 of 2013 The accused denied all the incriminating materials available on record but has not led any evidence in support of his defence. The Trial Court after taking into consideration all these materials available on record, came to the conclusion that the prosecution is successful in proving the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt for the offence punishable under Sections 7, 13(1)(d) R/w Section 13(2) of the PC Act. Accordingly, the Trial Court convicted and sentenced him as stated above. Being aggrieved by the same, the accused is before this Court. 5. Heard Sri. Bhagavan, learned counsel for the appellant and Sri. B.S.Prasad, learned counsel for the respondent. Perused the materials including the Trial Court records. 6. In view of the rival contentions urged by learned counsel for both the parties, the points that would arise for my consideration is: “Whether the appellant-accused has made out a case to interfere with the - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:25205 CRL.A No. 1020 of 2013 impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed by the Trial Court? My answer to the above point is 'in the negative' for the following: REASONS 7. The case of the prosecution as discussed above is with regard to the demand and acceptance of illegal gratification by the accused, to show the official favour, as he was working as police constable in Yeshwanthapura police station and the complainant herein had filed a complaint in Cr.No.265/2008 and execution of the warrant against the accused in the said case was entrusted to the accused herein. 8. PW1 - the complainant deposed before the Court about the registration of Cr.No.265/2008, issuance of the warrant against the accused in the said case, and stated that he had met the accused, requested to execute the warrant and at that time, he had demanded illegal gratification of Rs.2,000/-. He also states that he had filed the first information as per Ex.P1, the pre-trap panchanama as per Ex.P11 in the presence of shadow and pancha witness, currency notes as per MO9 were entrusted to him after smearing with - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:25205 CRL.A No. 1020 of 2013 phenolphthalein powder, with a direction to go and meet the accused along with the shadow witness. Witness further states that, when he met the accused along with the shadow witness, the accused again demanded as to whether he had brought what he had demanded and when he tendered the tainted currency notes, the accused received and kept it under the keyboard. The witness further deposes about the procedure adopted during trap and drawing of mahazar as per Ex.P19. The witness was cross-examined at length by the learned counsel for the accused, but nothing has been elicited from him to disbelieve his version. The version of the complainant - PW1, regarding demand and acceptance and recovery of the tainted amount from the accused remained unchallenged. 9. PW2 is the shadow witness, who fully supported the case of the prosecution and corroborated the version of PW1 with regard to the demand, acceptance and recovery of the tainted amount. PW3 is the sanctioning authority, who deposed that, the Investigating Officer has sent all the material records for his perusal. After being satisfied with the commission of the offence, he accorded sanction as per Ex.P23. PW4 is the - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:25205 CRL.A No. 1020 of 2013 Investigating Officer and he spoke about the procedure adopted. PW5 is the pancha witness, who has also fully supported the case of the prosecution. Even though all the prosecution witnesses were cross-examined by the learned counsel for the accused, nothing has been elicited from them to disbelieve the version of the prosecution. 10. From the materials on record, it is clear that the prosecution is successful in proving the demand and acceptance of illegal gratification by the accused, who is the public servant, working as police constable and it is also proved that the official work pertaining to the complainant was pending with the accused, as the case papers pertaining to the complainant was produced as per Ex.P18. Hence, I am satisfied that the accused being the public servant demanded and accepted illegal gratification of Rs.2,000/- from PW1 to show the official favour of executing warrant, which was entrusted to him. When the prosecution is successful in proving the demand and acceptance of the illegal gratification by the accused, presumption under Section 20 of the PC Act arises and the burden shifts on the accused to rebut the presumption. - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:25205 CRL.A No. 1020 of 2013 11. The accused has not rebutted the presumption either during the cross-examination of the prosecution witnesses, by entering into the witness box or by examining any other witnesses. Under such circumstances, I am of the opinion that the prosecution is successful in proving the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt. 12. Learned counsel for the appellant contended that Ex.P1 is the complaint submitted to the Police Inspector of Lokayukta and it does not satisfy the requirement of Section 9 R/w Rule 2 and 4 the Karnataka Lokayukta Rules. It is pertinent to note that Section 9 of the Karnataka Lokayukta Rules refers to the complaint and the investigation by Lokayukta or Uplokayukta. Admittedly, in the present case, Ex.P1 was not submitted to either Lokayukta or Uplokayukta. But it is submitted to police inspector of Lokayukta police station. 13. The words 'Lokayukta' or 'Uplokayukta' are defined under Sections 9 and 14 of the Karnataka Lokayukta Act. When no complaint was filed either before Lokayukta or Uplokayukta as referred to under Section 9 of the Act, said provision is not applicable to the facts of the present case. - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:25205 CRL.A No. 1020 of 2013 14. Ex.P1 - complaint was filed with the Lokayuktha police. They investigated into the matter, under the provisions of Prevention of Corruption Act, which is a self contained enactment, where the authority is vested with the special judge appointed under Chapter II of the PC Act to deal with the matter. No authority is vested either under Lokayukta or Uplokayukta under the provisions of Prevention of Corruption Act. Hence, the contention taken by the learned counsel for the appellant cannot be accepted. 15. The second contention raised by the learned counsel for the appellant is that, PW3 never referred to receipt of the draft charge sheet for according sanction as per Ex.P23. He places reliance on the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in CBI Vs. Ashok Kumar Aggarwal1 to contend that admission of draft charge sheet was mandatory for the sanctioning authority to satisfy himself before according sanction. I have gone through the evidence of PW3 - the Sanctioning authority and PW4 - the Investigating Officer. These witnesses have stated that all material documents were sent by the 1 2014 AIR SCW 472 - 11 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:25205 CRL.A No. 1020 of 2013 Investigating Officer to the sanctioning authority for perusal, and the sanctioning authority after being satisfied with those materials, accorded sanction. Even though, both these witnesses were cross-examined at length, learned counsel for the accused never disputed regarding receipt of all the relevant documents by the sanctioning authority. The accused had never raised the contention that any of the documents which are part of charge sheet were not produced before the sanctioning authority. Under such circumstances, even this contention taken by the learned counsel for the appellant is liable to be rejected and accordingly, it is rejected. 16. Lastly, learned counsel for the appellant contended that the case of the prosecution refers to a cassette, said to have containing the conversation between the complainant and the accused. The same has not been produced before the Trial Court and therefore, the prosecution is not successful in proving the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt. On perusal of the Trial Court records, it is clear that the said cassette is referred to as mini cassette and identified as MO7, prosecution witnesses have spoken to about MO7 in their - 12 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:25205 CRL.A No. 1020 of 2013 evidence but absolutely, there is no cross-examination to them to reject the said material object. Under such circumstances, I do not find any merits in the contention raised by the learned counsel for the appellant. 17. I have gone through the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed by the Trial Court. It has taken into consideration the oral and documentary evidence placed before it in a proper perspective and proceeded to pass the impugned order. I do not find any reason to interfere with the same. Accordingly, I answer the above point in the negative and proceed to pass the following. ORDER The appeal is dismissed. Registry to send back the Trial Court records along with copy of this judgment for information and needful action, i.e., to issue conviction warrant, if not already issued. Sd/- (M G UMA) JUDGE BH: CT:VS List No.: 1 Sl No.: 20