- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:13249 CRL.A No. 1130 of 2013 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 4TH DAY OF MARCH, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.G.S. KAMAL CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 1130 OF 2013 (A-) BETWEEN: 1. STATE OF KARNATAKA THROUGH LOKAYUKTA POLICE CHAMARAJANAGAR CHAMARAJANAGAR DISTRICT …APPELLANT (BY SRI.B.S.PRASAD, SPL.P.P., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. S JAYAKUMAR S/O SIDDAIAH, AGED 41 YEARS II GRADE SURVEYOR, TALUK OFFICE SURVEY DIVISION, GUNDLUPET TALUK CHAMARAJANAGAR DISTRICT …RESPONDENT (BY MS. LENITA MATHAIS, ADVOCATE FOR SRI. P PRITHVI KIRAN SETTY, ADVOCATE) THIS CRL.A. IS FILED U/S.378(1) AND (3) CR.P.C BY THE SPL.P.P. FOR THE STATE PRAYING TO GRANT LEAVE TO APPEAL AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT OF ACQUITTAL DATED 17.6.2013 PASSED BY THE DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, CHAMARAJANAGAR DIST. IN SPL. CASE NO.158/2009 - ACQUITTING THE RESPONDENT/ACCUSED FOR THE OFFENCE Digitally signed by SHARADAVANI B Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:13249 CRL.A No. 1130 of 2013 P/U/S 7, 13(1)(d)(ii) R/W SEC.13(2) OF THE PREVENTION OF CORRUPTION ACT, 1988. THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR FURTHER HEARING, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.G.S. KAMAL ORAL JUDGMENT This appeal is by the State represented by Lokayukta Police, being aggrieved by the judgment and order dated 17.06.2013 passed in Special Case no.158/2009 on the file of the District and Sessions Judge at Chamarajanagar, by which the Trial Court had acquitted the respondent - accused for the offences punishable under Sections 7, 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 ('Act', for brevity). 2. Brief facts of the case of the prosecution are that the complainant, P.W.1, namely, A.V.Channiyappan had apparently approached the respondent - accused, who was a Taluk Surveyor, then working in the Survey Department in the Office of the Tahsildar, Gundlupet, requesting him to have his land measuring 3 acres 28 guntas bearing Sy.No.23/2 situated - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:13249 CRL.A No. 1130 of 2013 at Managalli village, Gundlupete Taluk, surveyed and to have the encroachment by the neighbours removed enabling him to have the ingress and aggress and to carry his agricultural produce. That the accused went on postponing the same. Finally the accused had informed him that it was difficult to have the land surveyed as the neighbours would create galata and had instructed the complainant to seek police help. Accordingly, complainant had given a complaint to Gundlupet police and had taken the police protection for the purpose of surveying the land. Though the police had come near the land, the accused did not measure the land and expressed his inability to do same. The accused had asked the complainant to approach the Civil Court assuring that he would furnish a sketch copy. 3. That on 28.02.2008 complainant went to the office of the accused and requested him to furnish a survey sketch to which he demanded a sum of Rs.2,000/-, the complainant informed the accused that he would bring cash on the next day and would give it to him. That on the very same day evening, he went to Lokayukta office, Chamarajanagar, where Lokayukta - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:13249 CRL.A No. 1130 of 2013 Police Inspector - P.W.4 (C.W.18) was present, on complainant explaining the event that transpired between him and accused, P.W.4 - Police Inspector, asked him to come to office on the next day with the cash of Rs.2,000/-, that on confirmation of the demand for bribe made by the accused, on the following day on 29.02.2008 at about 7.15 a.m., the complainant went to the office of Lokayuktha police, Chamarajanagar, and lodged a written complaint through a person. 4. P.W.4 secured one Lingaraju - P.W.2 and one Marimuthu-P.W.3 to the office of Lokayuktha. That the complainant had handed over cash of Rs.2,000/- of denomination of Rs.500/- notes to P.W.4-Police Inspector. P.W.4 introduced P.Ws.2 and 3 to the complainant that they would be accompanying him to Gundlupet. Thereafter P.W.4 gave the said notes to P.Ws.2 and 3 and dictated currency notes number and P.W.2 recorded the said numbers. Some powder was smeared on the said notes and thereafter P.W.2 kept the said currency notes in the shirt pocket of the complainant and told him not to touch the said currency notes and to go to the accused office and if the accused demands - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:13249 CRL.A No. 1130 of 2013 payment of the bribe to hand over the said amount. He was further instructed if the accused accepted the bribe amount to give a signal by wiping his hair. 5. That about 9.15 a.m., complainant along with P.Ws.2 to 4 and his other staff went in a jeep to Gundlupet, complainant along with P.W.3, as instructed, went inside the office of accused at about 10.30 to 10.45 a.m., there were many persons standing near the accused, as such complainant waited for 10-15 minutes, so that the said persons would go away. Before entering the office complainant had switched on the voice recorder. After all the persons moved away, he asked the accused whether the sketch copy was ready, accused told that he would prepare sketch copy and asked him if he had brought the bribe amount to which he responded in positive and then he handed over the said cash to the accused taking out from his shirt pocket, accused counted the same and kept the same in the right side pocket of his pants. When the complainant asked for the sketch copy, he was informed to come after some time. Thereafter, complainant and P.W.3 went near the place, where P.W.4 and others were waiting - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:13249 CRL.A No. 1130 of 2013 outside and he gave a signal by wiping his hair. Thereafter P.W.4 and his staff and P.W.2 came to the office of the accused, complainant and P.W.3 took the police and showed the accused and told them of he receiving the bribe amount. Accused, on questioning by P.W.8, admitted to have received the cash from the complainant. P.W.4 secured two glasses of water and a solution was prepared by putting powder and both the hands of the accused were dipped into the said solution, which turned into pink colour. The accused thereafter removed the cash from his pants pocket and produced before the Police. On comparison, the number of the notes were the same as was prepared earlier, the police prepared the mahazar and the complainant handed over the voice recorder of the police. 6. Based on the above, a chargesheet was filed, trial was conducted, prosecution examined 7 witnesses as P.Ws.1 to 7 and got marked 18 documents as Exs.P-1 to P-18. One B.R.Umesh Kumar has been examined as D.W.1 on behalf of defence and 24 documents have been marked as Exs.D-1 to D- 24; 9 material objects have been marked as M.Os.1 to 9. - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:13249 CRL.A No. 1130 of 2013 7. The Trial Court on appreciation of evidence, has framed the following points for consideration and answered points no.1 and 2 in the negative and consequently passed the impugned judgment and order acquitting the accused of the aforesaid offences: 1. Whether the prosecution has obtained valid sanction for prosecuting the accused, for the offences alleged against him, as required? 2. Whether the prosecution proves beyond all reasonable doubt that the accused being a public servant, working as Grade II Surveyor in the Survey Section of Taluk Offices, at Gundlupet, Chamarajanagar District, on 29.02.2008, at 12 noon, he demanded and accepted illegal gratification of A.V.Chinniappan for doing an official act i.e., for issuing the sketch copy of the way leading to S.No.23/2 of Managalli village, belonging to the complainant; and the accused, being a public servant, committed criminal misconduct by making such demand and accepting pecuniary advantage for himself in the form of illegal gratification or bribe, as a motive for doing an official act, other than legal remuneration and thereby, he committed the offences punishable under Sections 7, 13(1)(d) r/w. Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988? 3. What Order? 8. Being aggrieved by the impugned judgment and order, the State is before this Court. - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:13249 CRL.A No. 1130 of 2013 9. Learned Special Public Prosecutor taking this Court through the records submitted that the trial Court has not appreciated the material evidence placed on record. If the trial Court had appreciated the evidence in proper perspective, no other opinion could have been formed other than proving the guilt of accused resulting in his conviction. 10. It is further submitted that the Trial Court has failed to appreciate the fact that the amount of bribe was recovered in the presence of the witnesses and the process of the trap laid by P.W.4 was beyond any doubt. Since the amount is recovered from the possession of the accused, which is preceded by a demand for bribe for furnishing a survey sketch, which had remained unchallenged, the Trial Court ought not to have acquitted the accused. Even if there were to be any discrepancies or omissions, the Trial Court ought to have taken the circumstantial evidence for the consideration which has not been done. He submits that P.Ws.2 and 3 have withstood the test of cross-examination and had supported the case of prosecution. Even if a shadow witness P.W.3 has not spoken about he being present at the time of demand and receipt of - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:13249 CRL.A No. 1130 of 2013 bribery amount, the same cannot take away the core of the prosecution case. Such minor discrepancy should not go to the roof of the matter resulting in accused being acquitted of the offences alleged. He relies upon the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Neeraj Dutta v. State (Government of NCT of Delhi), reported in (2023)4 SCC 731 and referring to para 88 of the said judgment he submits that the facts and circumstances of the present case would squarely fall within the parameters laid by the Apex Court for the purpose of consideration of the evidence produced by the prosecution, the Trial Court has, thus, lost sight of this crucial aspect of the matter. Hence, seeks for allowing of the appeal. 11. Per contra, Ms.Lenita Mathais for Sri.P.Prithvi Kiran Setty appearing for accused, taking this Court through the records submits that the essential requirement of element of demand and payment has to be established beyond reasonable doubt, which is a statutory requirement of the case of this nature, anything short of it has to be read in favour of the accused. She submits that nothing is placed on record either by the complainant or by the prosecution witness to establish - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:13249 CRL.A No. 1130 of 2013 this fact of there being a demand. She submits that even according to the prosecution witnesses, the purported tape recorder which was sent through P.W.1 has not been produced in the manner known to law which was the only proof according to the prosecution to establish the factum of demand made by the accused. That in the absence of such material being placed on record, the sole testimony of the complainant - P.W.1 could not have been relied which is rightly rejected by the Trial Court. 12. She submits that P.W.3, a shadow witness has spoken the truth of he not being present at the time of alleged payment of Rs.2,000/- by the complainant - P.W.1 to the accused. Even P.W.2 has spoken about the circumstances which he witnessed when he entered the room where the money was allegedly taken by the accused from the pants pocket after he had changed into different pants. She submits that all these events would indicate that there seems to be planting of the evidence against the accused, which is not safe to rely upon and has been rightly rejected by the Trial Court. Mere recovery of the amount from the possession of the accused is not sufficient unless the element of demand is - 11 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:13249 CRL.A No. 1130 of 2013 proved beyond reasonable doubt. She relies upon the following judgments in support of her submissions- i. Rajesh Gupta v. State through Central Bureau of Investigation (2022 SCC OnLine SC 1107); ii. Aman Bhatia v. State (GNCT of Delhi) 2025 INSC 618; iii. State of Lokayuktha Police, Davangere v. C.B.Nagaraj (2025 INSC 736); iv. P.Somaraju v. State of Andhra Pradesh (2025 INSC 1263); v. Neeraj Dutta v. State (Govt. of N.C.T. of Delhi) (2023 INSC 245); vi. Paritala Sudhakar v. State of Telangana, (2025 INSC 655); vii. Vinod Kumar Garg v. State (Government of National Capital Territory of Delhi), (2019 SCC OnLine SC 1522); viii. Suresh Thipmppa Shetty v. The State of Maharashtra (2023 INSC 749); ix. Aslam Alias Imran v. The State of Madhya Pradesh (2025 INSC 403). 13. Heard. Perused the records. 14. The law in the case of this nature is well settled, unless and until there is proof beyond reasonable doubt with regard to the ingredients of demand and payment thereof, Section 7 of the Act cannot be pressed into service. It is relevant to refer to the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in - 12 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:13249 CRL.A No. 1130 of 2013 the case of M.Sambasiva Rao v. The State of Andhra Pradesh, reported in 2025 SCC OnLine SC 1648, wherein at para 34 it is held as under - "34. In a case of such nature, where the accused persons have been acquitted by the Trial Court, there is a double presumption of innocence which accrues in their favour. Reference may be made to Jafarudheen v. State of Kerala, (2022)8 SCC 440 which observed : '25, While dealing with an appeal against acquittal by invoking Section 378 CrPC, the appellate Court has to consider whether the trial court's view can be terms as a possible one, particularly when evidence on record has been analysed. The reason is that an order of acquittal adds up to the presumption of innovence in favour of the accused. Thus, the appellate Court has to be relatively slow in reversing the order of the trial court rendering acquittal. Therefore, the presumption in favour of the accused does not get weakened but only strengthened. Such a double presumption that enures in favour of the accused has to be disturbed only by thorough scrutiny on the accepted legal parameters." 15. In the instant case, the evidence of P.W.1 indicate that he had approached the accused for the purported purpose of surveying his land and for removal of encroachment by his neighbours, which according to the P.W.1 was not done despite he getting the police help at the insistence of the accused. Instead, the accused had informed him that he would give the - 13 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:13249 CRL.A No. 1130 of 2013 sketch copy subject to appellant paying Rs.2,000/-. It is this allegation with which he seemed to have approached the Lokayuktha Police on 28.02.2008. 16. Though in the evidence P.W.1/complainant had said that the P.W.4, Investigating Officer having been confirmed of the fact regarding demand being made by the accused, had laid the trap on 29.02.2008, nothing on record is produced on this aspect of the matter. P.W.1 does not speak about P.W.4 handing him over a tape recorder on 28.02.2008 and instructing him to record the conversation between him and the accused regarding the demand and he also does not speak about he calling P.W.4 on the evening of 28.02.2008 which is the evidence of P.W.4. According to P.W.4, when the complainant - P.W.1 had approached him, alleging about the demand being made by the accused, he had specifically instructed him after handing over tape recorder to record the conversation and to inform him. Except this, there is nothing on record to show that there was indeed any demand made by the accused. It is not the case of the prosecution that there was no preparation made either by the complainant - P.W.1 or by the - 14 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:13249 CRL.A No. 1130 of 2013 P.W.4 to obtain the evidence of the demand allegedly made by the accused. It is their specific case that the demand so made by the accused was recorded on a tape recorder. Said tape recorder is not produced in evidence in the manner known to law. P.W.4, except giving the reason of the recorded version was not audible, has not made any efforts to bring the same on record. 17. In this peculiar facts and circumstances of the matter, the reliance is placed on by the learned counsel for the appellant on the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Neeraj Datta (supra) to contend that the circumstantial evidence has to be taken into consideration is untenable. Perhaps the same could have been availed if it was the case of the prosecution that they did not have any material to prove the demand in the first instance, which is not the case on hand. As such, the Trial Court is justified in declining the case of the prosecution of there existing a demand for bribe. 18. As regards, the presence of P.W.3 - shadow witness, P.W.1 in his evidence though has spoken about he entering into the office of the accused at about 9.15 a.m., and - 15 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:13249 CRL.A No. 1130 of 2013 waiting near the table of the accused for about 10-15 minutes waiting for others to move away, he has not spoken about P.W.3 being present at the time when the accused allegedly demanded the bribe and he allegedly handing over the same. 19. P.W.3 was a shadow witness, in his evidence has categorically deposed as under- "There were many people in the office, P.W.1 and accused were talking to each other. Then myself and Lokayukta staff were standing outside the hall in the verandah, after about 10-15 minutes P.W.1 came out and told he has given the bribe amount to the accused and gave a signal by wiping his head." 20. This is not the case of the witness turning hostile. Here is a case, P.W.1 himself has not spoken about presence of P.W.3 at the time of alleged demand and handing over the money, which fact is merely reiterated by P.W.3 of he standing outside the hall. So, therefore, it is not the case of discrepancy or a case of hostility. It is the case of plain and simple truth of P.W.3 not being present at the time of demand and handing over of the bribe by the complainant - P.W.1 to the accused. Nothing can be improved thereupon by the prosecution. - 16 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:13249 CRL.A No. 1130 of 2013 21. These two elements of demand made prior to the trap, during the trap, not being proved by the prosecution beyond reasonable doubt, this Court do not see any error having been committed by the Trial Court in rejecting the case of the prosecution. The other submissions and the grounds urged do not warrant any further consideration. Accordingly, Appeal fails and same is dismissed. Judgment and order passed by the Trial Court is confirmed. Sd/- (M.G.S. KAMAL) JUDGE HNM List No.: 1 Sl No.: 21