- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC-D:1220 CRL.A No. 100094 of 2014 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,AT DHARWAD DATED THIS THE 30TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V.SRISHANANDA CRIMINAL APPEAL No.100094 OF 2014 (C) BETWEEN: HANUMANTHAPPA SAVANUR S/O. LATE TIPPANNA AGE: 48 YEARS, OCC: NIL, R/O. BALEHOSUR, TQ: SHIRAHATTI DIST: GADAG. …APPELLANT (BY SRI. GANAPATI M. BHAT, ADVOCATE) AND: THE STATE OF KARNATAKA, R/BY ITS LOKAYUKTHA POLICE, HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, BELLARY. …RESPONDENT (BY SRI. ANIL KALE, ADVOCATE) THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 374(2) OF CR.P.C. PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER OF CONVICTION AND SENTENCE IN SPECIAL CASE NO.40/2012 ON THE FILE OF PRINCIPAL SESSIONS AND SPECIAL JUDGE, BELLARY, DATED 4.4.2014 AND SET THE APPELLANT AT LIBERTY IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE. THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL COMING ON FOR FURTHER HEARING, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CHANDRASHEKAR LAXMAN KATTIMANI Digitally signed by CHANDRASHEKAR LAXMAN KATTIMANI Date: 2026.02.03 15:09:38 +0530 - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC-D:1220 CRL.A No. 100094 of 2014 ORAL JUDGMENT (PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V.SRISHANANDA) Heard Sri Ganapati M. Bhat, learned counsel for the appellant and Sri Anil Kale, learned counsel for Lokayuktha. 2. Accused in Special Case No.40/2012 on the file of the Prl. Sessions Judge/ Special Judge, Bellary, convicted for the offence punishable under Sections 7, 13(1)(d) r/w 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act is the appellant. 3. Sentence ordered by the learned Special Judge reads as under: “Accused is sentenced (1) for the offence u/Sec 7 of P.C.Act, R.I. for 1 year and a fine of Rs.3,000/-, I/D of payment of fine, he has to undergo S.I. for 1 month. (2) for the offence u/Sec 13(1)(d) r/w Sec.13(2) of P.C.Act R.I. for 2 years and a fine of Rs.10,000/-, I/D of payment of fine, he has to undergo S.I. for three months. Substantive portion of the sentence shall run concurrently.” 4. Facts in the nutshell which are utmost necessary for disposal of the present appeal are as under: - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC-D:1220 CRL.A No. 100094 of 2014 Complainant-Kallappa Phakeerappa Bailavada who is examined as PW-2 in the case on hand, was facing a departmental enquiry. He was working as a driver cum conductor in NEKRTC, Ballari. 5. On account of the misdeeds committed by him, he was facing a departmental enquiry. Accused was the person who was the enquiry officer. For favourable report in the said departmental inquiry, accused said to have demanded Rs.5,000/- as illegal gratification from the complainant. Towards the same, complainant had already paid Rs.3,000/-. The departmental enquiry was not closed by the accused and he demanded for the payment of balance amount Rs.2,000/-. Until and unless the said amount is paid, accused was not willing to close the departmental enquiry. Complainant was not willing to part away the balance amount Rs.2,000/-. 6. Therefore, he approached the Lokayuktha Police, Ballari, and filed a written complaint. Based on the written complaint, Inspector, Lokayuktha, Ballari, formed a raid team comprising of himself and two independent government servants to act as panchas for the intended raid and secured sum Rs.2,000/- from - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC-D:1220 CRL.A No. 100094 of 2014 the custody of the complaiannt comprising of three currency notes of Rs.500/- denomination and five currency notes of Rs.100/- denomination. 7. One of the panch witnesses was asked to note down the serial numbers of the currency notes and smeared the phenolphthalein powder on the said currency notes. Later on, demonstrated the chemical reaction of phenolphthalein powder with the colourless Sodium Carbonate solution and drafted the experimental mahazar. 8. The complainant examined as P.W.2 and shadow witness who is examined as PW-1, were directed to approach the accused and on demand to hand over the tainted currency notes to the accused and give a pre-designated signal to the head of the raid party. 9. Accordingly, complainant and shadow witness proceeded to the bus stand at Ballari and met the accused who was in the bus stand. On demand made by the accused, complainant handed over the tainted currency notes to the accused, which he took - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC-D:1220 CRL.A No. 100094 of 2014 and kept in his right side pocket of the pant. Complainant gave the pre-designated signal. 10. Immediately the remaining members of the raid party came there and enquired the accused. After disclosing the identity by the head of the raid party, the complainant was asked to take out the tainted currency notes and all of them moved the canteen situated in the bus stand. Sodium Carbonate solution was prepared in three different bowls. Hand wash of the accused was taken in the Sodium Carbonate solution separately for the right and left hands. The solution turned into pink colour and it was separately stored and sealed. 11. After securing an alternate pant for the accused, the pant worn by him was seized and pant pocket was also washed in the Sodium Carbonate solution which also turned into pink colour and it was separately stored and sealed in a bottle. 12. The explanation of the accused was obtained which he gave it in writing vide Ex.P-13. Thereafter accused was arrested and brought before the Special Judge and was sent to judicial custody. - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC-D:1220 CRL.A No. 100094 of 2014 13. Police, after thorough investigation filed the charge sheet. Learned Special Judge after receipt of the charge sheet, secured the presence of the accused and framed the charge for the offence punishable under Sections 7, 13(1)(d) under Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act. 14. Accused pleaded not guilty. Therefore, trial was held. 15. In order to bring home the guilt of the accused, prosecution examined ten witnesses comprising of shadow witness, complainant, co-pancha, official superiors, Assistant Engineer, PWD, Chief Traffic Manager, FSL Officer, Enquiry Officer and Investigation Officer. Prosecution placed on record as many as 43 documents which were exhibited and marked as Exs.P-1 to P-43, comprising of complaint, the service particulars of the accused, FIR, FSL report, photocopy of the documents, trap mahazar, entrustment mahazar, photographs etc. Prosecution also placed on record 16 material documents which were exhibited and marked as MOs-1 to 16, comprising of eight tainted currency notes as MOs-1 to 8, envelope, colourless sample solution, sample of pink colour solution, sample colourless liquid, left hand and right hand wash solution, pant - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC-D:1220 CRL.A No. 100094 of 2014 wash solution, pant worn by the accused at the time of the incident and metal seal. 16. On conclusion of recording of evidence, learned Special Judge recorded the statement of the accused as is contemplated under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure wherein accused has denied the incriminatory circumstances, but did not choose to file any written submissions nor led any defence evidence to probabilise that the amount received by him was towards the repayment of the loan obtained by the complainant from the accused. 17. Thereafter, learned Speical Judge heard the arguments of the parties and by considering the oral and documentary evidence placed on record, convicted the accused for the aforesaid offences and sentenced him as referred to Supra. 18. Being aggrieved by the same, accused has preferred the present appeal on the following grounds: • “It is submitted that, the Trail Judge erred in not noticing that the mere recovery of money would not be a proof of guilt, the presumption that would arise in favor of the prosecution. - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC-D:1220 CRL.A No. 100094 of 2014 • It is submitted that, the learned Trial judge ought to have accepted the version of the appellant that the money in question alleged to have been demanded by the accused has been actually borrowed by the complainant and complainant had agreed to repay the amount but that time the complainant filed complaint against the appellant to harass and implicate the appellant in the alleged crime which is against the law. • It is submitted that, the Trial Judge failed to notice that P.W.6, who is the cashier of the canteen he turned hostile. • It is submitted that, the Trial Judge failed to notice that the complainant had been already kept under suspension and departmental enquiry was conducted against him and he approached the accused to give a evidence in his favor and He further deposed that if the enquiry proceedings were over there was every chances of taking action against him and that he approached the appellant to save him but the accused has specifically filed a false denied immediately the complainant complaint with malafide intention against the accused. • It is submitted that, on 11.08.2011 there was no hearing of the case. The defense taken by the appellant would probable's that he did not demand and accept the amount and a false story was set up by the 1.0 in order - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC-D:1220 CRL.A No. 100094 of 2014 to make the trap successful and trial judge ought to have held that the appellant has never misused his official position and he completed the enquiry and question of he favoring the complainant would not arise. • It is submitted that,, the finding of the Trial Court that the Appellant demanded and accepted bribe of Rs.2,000/- from complainant and thereby he is guilty of the offences punishable u/s.7, 13(1)(d) r/w. section 13(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act is erroneous and not based on valid reasons. • It is submitted that, trial Court ought to have observed that demand, acceptance and recovery of bribe money are the important limbs to constitute the offence u/s.7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act and grossly erred in not noticing that none of the said ingredients are proved by the prosecution. • It is submitted Trial Court erred is not properly appreciating the explanation offered by the appellant in the form of written statement and given at the earliest point of time. • It is submitted that,, Trial Court ought to have accepted the defence version and ought to have held that prosecution has not proved any of the charges leveled against appellant. - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC-D:1220 CRL.A No. 100094 of 2014 • The appellant has unblemished record in his service, his conduct was good which would establish the fact that the I.O who is interested in prosecution of persons who was inimically towards the complaint. • It is submitted that, on the date of filing of the complaint the lokayukta police had given a voice recorder to the complainant for recording of the conversation between the complainant and accused but the complainant did not switch on the recorder when there was a sufficient time for him to switch on the recorder. The trial court has failed to appreciate this material fact. Hence demand & acceptance is not sufficiently proved by the prosecution. • On the day of the incident there were several customers in the canteen the prosecution has failed to examine the any independent customers who were present in the canteen. • The learned Judge, while passing the said judgment, order of conviction and sentence, has not appreciated the legal nuances involved in their proper perspective, which has resulted in substantial miscarriage of justice vis-a-vis the appellant. • It is submitted that trial Court has not considered, that the version of complainant is totally contrary to the evidence of PW 1 the shadow pancha. Hence this inconsistence has not been accepted by the trial Court, - 11 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC-D:1220 CRL.A No. 100094 of 2014 which will leads to miscarriage of justice. Hence, interference of this Hon'ble Court is warranted.” 19. Sri Ganapathi M.Bhat, learned counsel for the appellant/ accused reiterating the grounds urged in the appeal memorandum vehemently contented that the learned Special Judge has not properly appreciated the material evidence on record and wrongly convicted the accused resulting in miscarriage of justice. 20. He would further point out that the explanation offered by the accused, vide Exhibit P-13, would make it crystal clear that the complainant had obtained loan from the accused and the same was repaid on the day of the incident and a motivated trap has taken place which aspect has not been properly appreciated by the learned Special Judge while passing the impugned judgment and sought for allowing the appeal. 21. He would further contend that payment of Rs.3,000/- towards the illegal gratification is not established by the prosecuting agency. Therefore, question of payment of balance sum of Rs.2,000/- towards the illegal gratification to obtain the - 12 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC-D:1220 CRL.A No. 100094 of 2014 favourable order in the pending departmental enquiry cannot be countenanced in law and sought for allowing the appeal. 22. Lastly as an alternate submission, Sri Bhat would submit that in the event this Court upholding the order of conviction, custody period already undergone by the accused may be treated as the period of imprisonment taking note of the fact that accused is now aged 62 years and having lost the job of the Assistant Traffic Inspector, his entire family is now suffering. Therefore, sought for allowing the appeal partly. 23. Per contra, Sri Anil Kale, learned counsel representing the Lokayuktha would support the impugned judgment. 24. He would contend that in the case on hand, complainant has supported the case of the prosecution in toto and so also the shadow witness. Though he has failed to specifically state about the demand and acceptance of money and the work pending and to the extent the shadow witness did not support the case of the prosecution, he has been treated as partly hostile. - 13 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC-D:1220 CRL.A No. 100094 of 2014 25. He was cross-examined by the Special Public Prosecutor by confronting the contents of trap mahazar and the statement given by him before the Investigation Officer wherein he has admitted about the demand and acceptance of the illegal gratifications and also the pending work of the complaint with the accused. 26. Thus, there is a total support for the case of the prosecution through the oral testimony of the complainant and shadow witness, besides the corroboratory evidence in the nature of the Co-Pancha having supported the case of the prosecution. 27. The official superiors having furnished the documents about the pending departmental enquiry of the complainant with the accused, so also the trap and the scene of the sketch where the trap has taken place and the colour test being positive, the prosecution has established all necessary ingredients to uphold the conviction recorded by the learned Special Judge and thus sought for dismissal of the appeal. - 14 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC-D:1220 CRL.A No. 100094 of 2014 28. Insofar as alternate submission is concerned, he would submit that in a matter of this nature, loss of job is consequential to the offence committed by the accused. Therefore, mere old age of the accused and loss of job cannot act as mitigating circumstances to reduce the sentence and thus sought for dismissal of the appeal. 29. Having heard the arguments of both sides this Court perused the material law on record meticulously. 30. On such perusal of the material on record, following points would arise for consideration: (i) Whether the prosecution has successfully established all the ingredients to attract the offence punishable under Section 7, 13(1)(d) and Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act? (ii) Whether the impugned judgment is suffering from legal infirmity or perversity and thus calls for interference? (iii) Whether the sentence is excessive? (iv) What Order? - 15 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC-D:1220 CRL.A No. 100094 of 2014 31. REGARDING POINT Nos.(i) and (ii): In the case of hand, acquaintance of the accused with the complainant is not in dispute. In fact, accused is the official superior of the complainant inasmuch as he is the Assistant Traffic Inspector and complainant is the driver cum conductor in NEKRTC. 32. On account of the misdeed committed by the complainant, there was a departmental enquiry which was pending with the accused. It is alleged in the complaint that, to pass a favourable order in the departmental enquiry accused demanded Rs.5,000/- and Rs.3,000/- was already paid by the complainant. 33. In this regard, there is no material evidence placed on record except the oral say and the complaint averments. The same is highlighted by the accused to show that there is no proof of payment of Rs.3,000/- towards the illegal gratification and therefore case of the prosecution is doubtful. 34. In this regard, it is pertinent to note that the prosecution is not required to prove the payment of the illegal gratification earlier to the day of trap. What is to be looked into is, whether - 16 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC-D:1220 CRL.A No. 100094 of 2014 on the day of trap, accused handled the tainted currency which was paid towards the illegal gratification or not. 35. In this regard, there is a specific testimony of the complainant as well as the shadow witness who have been examined as PW-2 and PW-1 respectively. Both of them have specifically stated that after they left the Lokayktha office, they reached the new bus stand and accused was contacted by the complainant. Shadow witness was very much present along with the complainant and on demand, complainant handed over sum of Rs.2,000/- comprising of three currency notes of Rs.500/- denomination and five currency notes of Rs.100/- denomination, serial numbers of which were entered in experimental mahazar and smeared with the phenolphthalein powder. Accused took the said currency notes from the custody of the complainant and counted the same. Thereafter, kept the same in his right side pocket of the pant. 36. Immediately, complainant gave the pre-designated signal and the remaining persons of the raid party including the head of the raid party arrived on the scene and head of the raid party showed his identity. Thereafter, accused was taken to bus stand - 17 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC-D:1220 CRL.A No. 100094 of 2014 canteen where the tainted currency notes were recovered from the pant pocket of the accused. 37. An alternate pant was secured to the accused and hand wash of both the hands took place separately in the colourless Sodium Carbonate solution prepared in the canteen. Sample sodium carbonate water, carbonate water and the pink coloured hand wash of right hand and left hand of the accused were separately collected and sealed in separate bottles. 38. Thereafter, explanation of the accused was sought for wherein accused has given the explanation vide Ex. P-13 which reads as under: “¢£ÁAPÀ 11.08.2011gÀAzÀÄ ²æà PÀ®è¥ïà ¥sÀQÌÃgÀ¥Àà ¨ÉÊ®ªÁqÀ EªÀgÀÄ £À¤ßAzÀ ¸ÀĪÀiÁgÀÄ 2 wAUÀ¼À »AzÉ £À£ÀUÉ vÉÆAzÀgÉAiÀiÁVzÉ £À£Àß ªÀÄ£ÉAiÀÄ°è vÁ¬ÄUÉ ºÀĵÁj®è zÀAiÀĪÀiÁr 2,000 gÀÆ PÉÆrj £Á£ÀÄ £ËPÀj ºÀwÛzÀ £ÀAvÀgÀ PÉÆqÀÄvÉÛÃ£É CAvÁ vÉUÉzÀÄ PÉÆArzÀÝgÀÄ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ ¸ÀzÀgÀ ºÀtªÀ£ÀÄß ¢£ÁAPÀ 11.08.2011gÀAzÀÄ PÉÆqÀÄvÉÛÃ£É §¤ßj JA¢zÀÝgÀÄ. CzÀgÀAvÉ £Á£ÀÄ £À£Àß UɼÉAiÀÄ ¹.ªÀįÉèñÀ JA§ÄªÀªÀgÀ §½ £À£Àß ªÀÄUÀ¼À ªÀÄzÀÄªÉ «ZÁgÀªÁV - 18 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC-D:1220 CRL.A No. 100094 of 2014 ªÀiÁvÀ£ÁqÀĪÀ ¸À®ÄªÁV £À£Àß ªÁgÀzÀ ¸ÀÆnAiÀÄ ¤«ÄvÀå gÀeÉ ªÀiÁr §¼ÁîjUÉ §A¢zÉÝ£ÀÄ. D ¥ÀæPÁgÀ ¸ÀzÀgÀ PÀ®è¥Àà ¥sÀQÃgÀ¥Àà ¨ÉÊ®ªÁqÀ EªÀgÀÄ £À£ÀUÉ §¼Áîj §¸ï ¤¯ÁÝtzÀ°è ¨ÉnÖAiÀiÁzÀgÀÄ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ £À£ÀUÉ PÉÆqÀĪÀ ºÀtªÀ£ÀÄß ºÉÆmÉ°£À°è PÉÆnÖgÀÄvÁÛgÉ. EzÀÝ «µÀAiÀĪÀ£ÀÄß vÀªÀÄä°è w½¹gÀÄvÉÛãÉ. zÀAiÀĪÀiÁr EzÀgÀ°è £À£ÀßzÉãÀÄ vÀ¦à®èªÉAzÀÄ ¨ÉÃrPÉƼÀÄîvÉÛãÉ.” 39. Sri Ganapati Bhat would contend that the explanation offered in Ex.P-13 would make it clear that the amount that is returned by the complainant is towards the repayment of the loan obtained by him from the accused. 40. In order to prove the same, there is no material evidence placed on record by the accused nor any oral testimony of the accused is available on record, by examining himself as defence evidence. 41. Mere explanation vide Ex.P.13 that he has received the loan amount in the absence of the proof of loan obtained by the - 19 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC-D:1220 CRL.A No. 100094 of 2014 complainant from the accused, such an explanation is rightly ignored by the learned Trial Judge in the impugned judgment. 42. Work of the complainant being pending with the accused is not in dispute in one of the documents that is collected and placed on record including the examination of the witnesses by the prosecution in that regard. 43. Therefore, taking note of these aspects of the matter, all the ingredients to attract the offence punishable under Sections 7, 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act stands established by the prosecution inasmuch as there is proof for demand and acceptance of illegal gratification, recovery of the illegal gratification in the form of currency notes from the pant pocket of the accused and colour test being positive and work of the complainant being pending with the accused, are established. 44. Therefore, this Court does not find any legal infirmity or perversity in the finding recorded by the learned Trial Judge in convicting the accused in the impugned judgment for the aforesaid offences. - 20 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC-D:1220 CRL.A No. 100094 of 2014 45. In view of the foregoing discussion, Point Nos.1 and 2 are answered in affirmative and negative respectively. 46. REGARDING POINT No.(iii): Sri Ganpati Bhat would contend that the accused is now aged 62 years and he has lost his job. He has a family to maintain. Therefore, sentence may be modified by directing the custody period already undergone by him as the period of imprisonment by enhancing the fine amount as the minimum punishment that is available for the proved offences is one year. 47. Therefore, taking note of the health condition of the accused and he being aged 62 years, imprisonment of two years is reduced to one year and thus point No.(iii) is answered partly in the affirmative. 48. REGARDING POINT No.(iv): In view of the finding of this Court on point Nos.(i) to (iii) as above, the following: ORDER (i) Appeal is allowed in part. - 21 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC-D:1220 CRL.A No. 100094 of 2014 (ii) While maintaining the conviction of the accused for the offence punishable under Section 7, 13(1)(d) and Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, the sentence of two years imprisonment passed by the learned Trial Judge is reduced to one year and rest of the sentence stands unaltered. (iii) Appellant is directed to surrender before the Trial Court to serve the remaining part of the sentence on or before 20th February 2026. (iv) Office is directed to return the Trial Court records with copy of this Order forthwith for issue of modified conviction warrant. (v) Ordered accordingly. Sd/- (V.SRISHANANDA) JUDGE kcm, CT:CMU LIST NO.: 1 SL NO.: 14