- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC-D:587 CRL.A No. 100048 of 2023 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,AT DHARWAD DATED THIS THE 20TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V.SRISHANANDA CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 100048 OF 2023 (A) BETWEEN: THE STATE OF KARNATAKA, REPRESENTED BY SPECIAL PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, THROUGH LOKAYUKTA POLICE, KOPPAL DIST. KOPPAL 583231. …APPELLANT (BY SRI. SRINIVAS B. NAIK, ADVOCATE) AND: KARAVEERPRABHU S/O VIRUPAKSHAPPA KYALAKONDA AGE. 56 YEARS, OCC. DISTRICT SURGEON, DISTRICT HOSPITAL KOPPAL, R/O. HANGARGI, TQ.BADAMI, DIST. BAGALKOT 587201. …RESPONDENT (BY SRI. SHIVAKUMAR S. BADAWADAGI, ADVOCATE) THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 378(1)(3) OF CR.P.C. PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND ORDER OF ACQUITTAL DATED 29.03.2021 PASSED IN SPL. C.C. NO. (P.C.) NO. 19/2022 ON THE FILE OF SESSIONS AND SPECIAL JUDGE, KOPPAL AND CONVICT THE ACCUSED/RESPONDENT IN SPL. C.C.(P.C.) NO. 19/2022 FOR THE OFFENCES PUNISHABLE U/SEC. 7, 13(1)(D) R/W 13(2) OF PC ACT AND IMPOSE MAXIMUM SENTENCE I THE ENDS OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY. THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL COMING ON FOR FURTHER ORDERS, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: Digitally signed by CHANDRASHEKAR LAXMAN KATTIMANI Location: High Court of Karnataka, Dharwad Bench - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC-D:587 CRL.A No. 100048 of 2023 ORAL JUDGMENT (PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V.SRISHANANDA) Heard Sri.Srinivas B. Naik, learned counsel for the appellant and Sri.Shivakumar S. Badawadagi, learned counsel for the respondent. 2. Lokayukta Police, Koppal is in this appeal challenging the order of acquittal passed in Special CC (PC) No.19/2012. 3. Facts in the nutshell which are utmost necessary for disposal of the appeal are as under: 3.1. A complaint came to be lodged with Lokayukta Police, Koppal by the complainant - Hulagappa who is examined as P.W.1. 3.2. Based on his complaint, Lokayukta Police, Koppal registered a case for the offence punishable under Section 7, 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act. 3.3. As per the complaint averments, for the pending work of Hulagappa, accused in order to misuse his official - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC-D:587 CRL.A No. 100048 of 2023 position and to show official favour, demanded 10% of the bill amount which would work out to Rs.12,700/- but accused has demanded Rs.11,000/- as illegal gratification. Complainant was not willing to part with the illegal gratification and therefore, he approached the Lokayukta Police. 3.4. After registering the case, Lokayukta police secured two independent Government servants as intended panchas for the intended trap and explained them the contents of the complaint and secured nine currency notes of Rs.1,000/- denominations and four currency notes of Rs.500/- denominations and noted serial numbers of the same in separate paper and smeared phenolphthalein powder on those currency notes and demonstrated chemical reaction of phenolphthalein powder with the Sodium Carbonate solution which is a colourless solution to the panch witnesses and drafted experimental panchanama. 3.5. Shadow witness and complainant were directed to approach the accused and hand over the tainted currency to the accused on demand and give a predesignated signal by washing his face with the help of a handkerchief. - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC-D:587 CRL.A No. 100048 of 2023 3.6. Accordingly, on 23.08.2011, the complainant and shadow witness – Sachin (P.W.2) proceeded to the office of the accused and after handing over the tainted currency, gave a pre- designated signal and thereafter, rest of the raid party came there and recovered the tainted currency from the custody of the accused and thereafter, drafted the trap panchanama, arrested the accused and produced him before the Special Court after getting his explanation recorded. 3.7. After thorough investigation, charge sheet came to be filed against the accused for the aforesaid offences. 3.8. Accused pleaded not guilty and therefore trial was held. 4. In order to bring home the guilt of the accused, as many as 18 witnesses were examined as P.W.1 to P.W.18 and 34 documents were placed on record which were exhibited and marked as Exs.P.1 to Ex.P.34 and seven material objects were marked as M.O.1 to M.O.7. 5. On behalf of the defence, six documentary evidence were placed on record, which were exhibited and marked as - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC-D:587 CRL.A No. 100048 of 2023 Ex.D.1 to Ex.D.6, comprising of attendance register of the complainant for the month of June, July and August, 2011, circular dated 17.03.2010, requisition to record the statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C, certified copy of the logbook for the month of July and August, 2011 of ambulance bearing No.KA- 37/G-189. 6. Learned Trial Judge after conclusion of recording of evidence, recorded the accused statement wherein accused has denied all the incriminatory circumstances and has furnished an explanation that he has been falsely implicated in the case. 7. Thereafter, learned Trial Judge heard the arguments of the parties and after considering the rival contentions of the parties, noted the admissions given by the complainant in his cross-examination in paragraph No.33 and admission of P.W.3 and P.W.5 in paragraph Nos.36 and 37 and acquitted the accused for the offences. 8. Being aggrieved by the same, Lokayukta Police, Koppal has preferred this appeal on following grounds: - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC-D:587 CRL.A No. 100048 of 2023  “The judgment and order of acquittal passed by the trial Court is against the material placed on record and contrary to the evidence. Hence interference of this Hon'ble Court is warranted.  The following are the ingredients of section 7 of the Act: i) The accused must be a public servant or expecting to be a public servant; ii) He should accept or obtain or agrees to accept or attempts to obtain from any person iii) For himself or for any other person; iv) Any gratification other than legal remuneration; v) As a motive or reward for doing or forbearing to do any official act or to show any favour or disfavour.  Section 13(1)(d) of the Act has the following ingredients which have to be proved before bringing home the guilt of a public servant, namely- i) The accused must be a public servant; ii) By corrupt or illegal means, obtains for himself or for any other person any valuable thing or pecuniary advantage; or by abusing his position as public servant, obtains for - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC-D:587 CRL.A No. 100048 of 2023 himself or for any other person any valuable thing or pecuniary advantage without any public interest. iii) To make out an offence under section 13(1)(d), there is no requirement that the valuable thing or pecuniary advantage should have been received as a motive or reward. iv) An agreement to accept or an attempt to obtain does not fall within section 13(1)(d). v) Mere acceptance of any valuable thing or pecuniary advantage is not an offence under this provision. vi) Therefore, to make out an offence under this provision, there has to be actual obtainment. vii) Since the legislature has used two different expressions namely "obtains" or "accepts", the difference between these two must be noted.  It is submitted that PW 1 is a complainant, PW 2 is shadow witness, and PW 3 is the Pancha witness. The PW 1 has categorically stated as to demand by the accused and upon the demand made by the accused PW 1 has kept the tainted money on the file kept on the table. This piece of evidence regarding demand and acceptance is been categorically supported by the shadow witness i.e., P.W.2. There is clear evidence as - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC-D:587 CRL.A No. 100048 of 2023 to demand and acceptance of the bribe amount by the accused. The Trial Court erroneously over looked the clinching piece of the evidence regarding demand and acceptance and accepted the theory of the defence and erroneously acquitted the accused of the charges.  The prosecution is able to prove the charges against the accused even by way of circumstantial evidence, the PW 2 being the shadow witness has categorically supported about the demand and acceptance by the respondent. Further he has stated that as per directions of the respondent the money was kept on the table by the PW 1. The PW 3 being the pancha witness has also supported the case and stated regarding the trap proceedings and recovery of tainted money from the possession of the respondent. These aspects of the matter are not properly considered by the trial Court.  It is submitted that PW 1 to PW 18 have categorically supported the case of the prosecution. The Trial Court has undermined the piece of evidence which would prove the guilt of the respondent, and upon considered of the irrelevant facts and circumstances thereby erroneously acquitted the accused of the charges.  The learned Judge, while passing the said judgment, order of acquittal, has not appreciated the legal nuances involved in their proper perspective, which - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC-D:587 CRL.A No. 100048 of 2023 has resulted in substantial miscarriage of justice vis-a- vis the appellant.  The appreciation of evidence by the trial Court, while passing the impugned judgment and order of acquittal is not in its proper prospective. Hence, the same is liable to be set aside.  Thus, viewed from any angle, the impugned judgment and order of acquittal is even otherwise erroneous, and unsustainable in law and hence the same is liable to be set aside. 9. Learned counsel for the appellant/Lokayukta Police reiterating the grounds urged in the appeal memorandum would contend that the approach of the learned Trial Judge is incorrect in acquitting the accused. 10. He would further contend that the material evidence placed on record is not properly appreciated especially, the recovery of the tainted currency and support made by the shadow witness and the co-pancha with regard to the contents of the experimental mahajar as well as the trap mahajar and colour test being turned positive was sufficient enough to convict the accused especially in the absence of any contra evidence placed - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC-D:587 CRL.A No. 100048 of 2023 on record and sought for admitting the appeal for further consideration. 11. Per contra, learned counsel representing the respondent/accused would support the impugned judgment by contending that the very admission of the complainant would go to show that on the date of complaint, he was very much present in the school as could be seen from Ex.D.1 - attendance register. 12. So also, earlier visiting the accused by the complainant is not established by placing the probative value of Ex.D.2 and D.3. When the complainant himself has not visited the accused, there was no question of demand by the accused so as to complete the offence alleged against him and therefore, sought for dismissal of the appeal. 13. Having heard the arguments of both sides, this Court perused the material on record meticulously. 14. On such perusal of the material on record, there is an unequivocal admission made by the complainant in his cross- examination that on 18.08.2011, he did not visit the accused nor the Government Hospital or Lokayukta Office. - 11 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC-D:587 CRL.A No. 100048 of 2023 15. He has further admitted that his school hours would commence from 10.30 a.m. and end at 04.30 p.m. and he would be required to be present in the school by about 09.40 a.m. 16. He would further contend that the distance between Hasolingapura and Koppal is about 22 kilometers and it would require about one hour journey time. He has further admitted that he has no habit of making false entries in the school attendance register. 17. All these factors when viewed cumulatively, coupled with the attendance certificates marked vide Exs.D.1 to D.3 would make it clear that on 18.08.2011, he could not have visited the accused. If he has not at all visited the office of the accused or the Lokayukta Office or the Government Hospital on 18.08.2011, there is no question of demand made by the accused so as to fortify the complaint averments. 18. Likewise, P.W.5 who is the Assistant Administrative Officer of District Government Hospital, Koppal has admitted that accused is not his friend and he was not his colleague. - 12 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC-D:587 CRL.A No. 100048 of 2023 19. He has further answered that the voice of the accused is very low and he could not identify whether the voice in the voice recorder is that of the accused. He also states that for sometimes, while talking on the cell phone, there will be an echo of voice and he will not immediately recognize that it is the voice of the accused. 20. Likewise, in the cross-examination of P.W.2 - Sachin, it has been elicited as to who transcribed the voice that is found in the voice recorder. He also admits that there are two voices found in the voice recorder and he is unable to find out what is the second voice that was found in the voice recorder. 21. He has further answered that he has only heard ‘ಸಾವಿರ’ in the voice recorded not exactly what is the demand that has been made. 22. P.W.17 is the Investigation Officer who has admitted in the cross-examination that voice recorder is a valuable equipment and while handing over the same to the panch witnesses, he has sealed the same and handed over to the panch witnesses under the acknowledgment. But no such receipt is - 13 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC-D:587 CRL.A No. 100048 of 2023 available for handing over the voice recorder to the complainant which would create doubt about prosecution case. 23. Further, to prove the electronic record, proper certificate under Section 65B of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 has not been obtained and placed on record and therefore, learned Trial Judge placed reliance on the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Anwar P. V. v. P. K. Basheer and Others reported in 2014 (10) SCC 473 and has held that there is no material on record which would conclusively establish the fact of demand and acceptance which is a sine qua non to constitute the offence punishable under Section 7 and 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act. More so, the incident has occurred pre-amendment to the Prevention of Corruption Act. 24. Therefore, viewed from any angle, the prosecution evidence is not sufficient enough to convict the accused. Further, whenever a duly constituted Court records an order of acquittal, it results in double innocence to the accused. - 14 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC-D:587 CRL.A No. 100048 of 2023 25. Likewise, it is equally settled principles of law that if two views are permissible on the same set of evidence, a view which favours the accused must be preferred. 26. Taking note of these aspects of the matter, only on the ground that the colour test has turned positive and recovery of the tainted currency from the custody of the accused would not be sufficient enough to establish the ingredients of the offences alleged against the accused, which has resulted in acquittal, needs no interference even after re-appreciation of the material on record. 27. Accordingly, following: ORDER i. Appeal stands dismissed. ii. Bail bonds if any, stands cancelled. Sd/- (V.SRISHANANDA) JUDGE KAV, CT:CMU LIST NO.: 2 SL NO.: 34