- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC-D:1228 CRL.A No. 100021 of 2015 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. 100021 OF 2015 (A) BETWEEN: THE STATE, BY THE POLICE INSPECTOR, KARNATKA LOKAYUKTA POLICE STATION, BELGAUM. …APPELLANT (BY SRI. SRINIVAS B. NAIK, ADVOCATE) AND: SHRI. SANGAPPA AND SANGAMESH S/O. GOURAVVA KAMBLE, AGE: 58 YRS, OCC: ASST.DIRECTOR OF DISTRICT. INDUSTRIAL CENTRE, BELGAUM, R/O. HIPPARAGI, TALUKA: JAMKHANDI, DIST: BAGALKOT. …RESPONDENT (BY SRI. VIJAY K. NAIK, ADVOCATE) THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECION 378(1) AND (3) OF CR.P.C. PRAYING TO GRANT LEAVE TO THE APPELLANT TO APPEAL AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND ORDER OF ACQUITTED DATED 20.10.2014 PASSED IN SPL. CASE NO.14/2012 ON THE FILE OF THE IV-ADDL. DIST. & SESSIONS & SPL JUDGE (PCA), BELGAUM AND ALLOW THE APPEAL AND ETC., THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL COMING ON FOR HEARING, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CHANDRASHEKAR LAXMAN KATTIMANI Digitally signed by CHANDRASHEKAR LAXMAN KATTIMANI Date: 2026.02.02 17:04:18 +0530 - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC-D:1228 CRL.A No. 100021 of 2015 ORAL JUDGMENT (PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V.SRISHANANDA) 1. Heard Sri Srinivas B. Naik, learned counsel for the appellant and Sri Vijay K.Naik learned counsel for the respondent. 2. Lokayuktha, Belagavi, is the appellant challenging the acquittal of the respondent in Special Case No.14/2012 dated 20.10.2014 on the file of the IV Additional District and Sessions Judge and Spl Judge (PCA), Belagavi. 3. Facts of the case in brief which are utmost necessary for disposal of the present appeal are as under: Complainant, a resident of Airforce Station quarters, Belagavi, filed an application with the office of the accused on 03.01.2011 for issue of temporary registration certificate in order to start the Primes Dairy before the District Industrial Centre, Belagavi. Accused being the Assistant Director in District Industrial Centre, Belagavi, was required to process the application filed by the complainant. - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC-D:1228 CRL.A No. 100021 of 2015 4. Complainant approached the accused who was working in the said District Industrial Centre, on 04.01.2011 for issue of provisional registration certificate. It is the case of the complainant that accused demanded Rs.1,300/- as illegal gratification to process the said application. As the complainant was not willing to pay the illegal gratification, he approached the Lokayukta Office, Belagavi. 5. The Inspector of Lokayukta, Belagavi, secured two independent Government servants as panch witnesses for the proposed trap and explained to them the contents of the complaint. Thereafter, the Inspector demonstrated the chemical reaction of phenolphthalein powder with sodium carbonate solution. The tainted currency notes amounting to Rs.1,300/- were taken from the custody of the complainant, smeared with phenolphthalein powder, and an entrustment (experimental) mahazar was drawn. 6. Thereafter, the raid party proceeded to the office of the accused and conducted the trap. At about 1:20 p.m. on 07.01.2011, the raid was conducted, the colour test yielded positive results, and the accused was arrested. - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC-D:1228 CRL.A No. 100021 of 2015 7. Subsequently, a thorough investigation was carried out, and a charge sheet came to be filed against the accused. 8. The presence of the accused was secured by the learned Special Judge and the trial was conducted. 9. In order to prove the case of the prosecution, the complainant was examined as PW-1. He deposed in line with the averments made in the complaint and supported the prosecution case during his examination-in-chief with regard to the pre-trap and trap proceedings. 10. During his cross-examination, PW-1 admitted that in Ex.P-13, at page No.14, there is an acknowledgment for having received the application. He further admitted that on 03.01.2011 he had submitted the application for temporary registration and that no document was written by the accused on 07.01.2011. He also admitted that the records disclose that on 04.01.2011 there is an acknowledgment of his application. 11. PW-1 further admitted that the records reveal that on 04.01.2011 itself the application had been - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC-D:1228 CRL.A No. 100021 of 2015 processed. However, he denied the suggestion that the entire work relating to the application was completed on 04.01.2011. 12. He also admitted that when he visited the office of the accused on 07.01.2011, the accused was not found in his chamber, but stated that the accused was standing outside and smoking. 13. He further admitted that there is no conversation regarding the demand of money recorded in the voice recorder. He also admitted that the alleged demand was not recorded as the accused had made a hand signal demanding payment of the illegal gratification. 14. PW-4 is the shadow witness. He deposed in consonance with the averments made in the complaint and supported the prosecution case with regard to the pre-trap proceedings, experimental mahazar, and trap mahazar during his examination-in-chief. He specifically deposed that the experimental mahazar was conducted in his presence, that a sum of Rs.1,300/- was recovered from the accused, and that the colour test yielded positive results. - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC-D:1228 CRL.A No. 100021 of 2015 15. During cross-examination, PW-4 admitted that he had signed Ex.P-13, which was seized by the Inspector on 07.01.2011. He further admitted that Ex.P-13 contains an endorsement acknowledging receipt of the application submitted by the complainant. He also admitted that Exs.P- 13 and P-14 are the original and copy respectively, and that they were seized from the complainant and the accused. 16. PW-4 further admitted that the complainant did not produce any document at the time of drawing the entrustment (experimental) mahazar, except the voice recording. He admitted that the voice recording was not clearly audible and that there was no specific conversation in the recording to indicate a demand for Rs.1,300/-. 17. The learned Trial Judge, upon appreciation of the evidence on record, held that mere handling of the tainted currency by the accused on the day of the trap is not sufficient to prove the prosecution case in the absence of specific evidence regarding demand and acceptance of illegal gratification. - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC-D:1228 CRL.A No. 100021 of 2015 18. The Trial Court further noted that the work relating to the complainant’s application, insofar as the accused was concerned, had already been completed on 04.01.2011. Accordingly, the Trial Court recorded an order of acquittal. 19. Being aggrieved by the said judgment of acquittal, the State has preferred the present appeal on the following grounds:  The order of acquittal of he accused/respondent passed by the Special Court below is opposed to law, facts and probabilities of the case.  Though the PW-2 & 4 have supported the prosecution case the trial Court acquitted the accused/respondent without any proper reasons and not in accordance with law; the court below has otherwise ignored the acceptable and trustworthy evidence placed on record by the prosecution, which has resulted in miscarriage of justice.  It is submitted that, as per the evidence placed on record when the complainant/PW-2 who had no ill will against the accused/respondent gave evidence regarding the demand by accused and lodging of complaint to Lokayukta police, for trap of accused; the learned trial judge ought to have accepted the complainant's testimony ivoted of giving undue importance to certain minor discrepancies. - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC-D:1228 CRL.A No. 100021 of 2015  It is submitted that independently of the recorded conversation there was evidence regarding demand by the accused as spoken by the PW.2 & 4.  The learned trial Judge failed to consider that PW.2 & 4 had stood the test of cross examination and the circumstantial evidence in the case least support to their testimonies.  The learned trail Judge failed to draw the presumption U/Sec. 20 of P.C Act, has resulted in miscarriage of justice.  Learned trial judge ought to have appreciated the evidence in an objective manner and with an intention of ascertaining the facts.  The learned trial Judge failed to consider that lapses if any in the part of I.O could not affect prosecution case.  It is submitted that the pre-trap conversation between the accused and P.W,2 had been recorded in the voice recorder by P.W.2 and the voice of the accused therein was identified by PW.8 Sudha Jnaneshwar Pawar and PW-7 Shivabasappa Basappa Tigadi before court and the said conversation is sufficiently established the demand by the accused. PW-8 & PW-7 are the official of District Industrial Centre, Belgaum who have identified the voice of accused in the conversation recorded in the voice recorder.  The entire judgment lacks the reason for recording finding and deserve to be set aside.  There is no objective assessment of the evidence of prosecution witnesses by the learned trial judge. - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC-D:1228 CRL.A No. 100021 of 2015  It is submitted that, the learned trial Judge not look into the presumption under Sec. 20 of P.C. Act. 1988.  It is submitted that the Investigation Officer who was examined as PW.11 fully supported the prosecution case.  It is submitted that there is corroboration between the evidence of the pancha witnesses and complainant witnesses.  The trial court relying on some minor omissions and contradictions and has given benefit of doubt by acquitting the respondent/accused, which is totally illegal in the eye of law.  The entire approach of the court below and the reasons assigned for acquitting the accused was contrary to law, evidence and material on record. 20. Sri Srinivas B. Naik, learned counsel for the appellant–State, reiterating the grounds urged in the memorandum of appeal, vehemently contended that the approach of the Trial Court is erroneous in acquitting the accused. 21. He submitted that the material evidence on record clearly establishes the demand of illegal gratification, inasmuch as the complainant has specifically deposed that the accused made a hand signal demanding payment of illegal gratification. He therefore contended that the - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC-D:1228 CRL.A No. 100021 of 2015 absence of an oral demand would not dilute the prosecution case and sought for allowing the appeal. 22. He further contended that Ex.P-13 only evidences acknowledgment of the application and that the work was not completed, contrary to the observation of the learned Trial Judge. According to him, there is a clear misreading of material evidence on record, resulting in miscarriage of justice, and hence interference by this Court is warranted. 23. Per contra, Sri Vijay K. Naik, learned counsel for the respondent–accused, supported the impugned judgment and contended that the prosecution has failed to establish, beyond reasonable doubt, the essential ingredients of demand and acceptance of illegal gratification. He submitted that mere handling of the tainted currency is not sufficient to convict the accused and sought dismissal of the appeal. 24. Having heard the learned counsel appearing for both sides, the following points arise for consideration: - 11 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC-D:1228 CRL.A No. 100021 of 2015 i. Whether the prosecution was successful in establishing all the ingredients necessary to attract the offences punishable under Sections 7, 13(1)(d) red with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act? ii. Whether the impugned judgment suffers from any legal infirmity or perversity warranting interference by this Court? iii. If points Nos.1 and 2 are answered in the affirmative, what sentence? iv. What order? 25. Regarding point Nos.1 and 2: In the case on hand, the fact that the complainant filed an application for temporary licence with the concerned District Office on 03.01.2011 is not in dispute. As per Ex.P-13, the said application was acknowledged. The material documents placed on record also reveal that the application was processed insofar as the present respondent–accused was concerned, subject to affixing of his final signature after necessary processing. 26. The material on record does not disclose any cogent evidence to establish the demand of illegal gratification of Rs.1,500/-, which was allegedly negotiated - 12 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC-D:1228 CRL.A No. 100021 of 2015 and reduced to Rs.1,300/-. The conversation recorded at the pre-complaint stage is admittedly not properly audible, as conceded by PW-4. 27. In fact, when the said recording was played in open Court during the cross-examination of PW-4, he categorically stated that he was unable to identify the voice or establish any specific demand of illegal gratification. Though he volunteered to state that, if heard closely, there appeared to be some conversation indicating demand, the same was not clear or definite. 28. Trial Court has also heard the said voice recording along with PW-4, and the Trial Court has rightly observed that the conversation is not audible and does not establish any specific demand at the pre-complaint stage. 29. Admittedly, there is no voice recording on the date of the trap evidencing demand. The shadow witness has not supported the case of demand. It is only the complainant who has stated that the demand was made by way of a hand signal. - 13 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC-D:1228 CRL.A No. 100021 of 2015 30. It is also an admitted fact that the alleged hand signal was not made inside the cabin of the accused. The complainant has specifically stated that when he and the shadow witness visited the accused’s chamber on 07.01.2011, the accused was not present therein. He volunteered to state that the accused was standing outside the office and smoking a cigarette. 31. The said place is not shown in the sketch appended to the charge sheet. If, in fact, the alleged demand had taken place outside the office premises, the same ought to have been reflected in the sketch and a panchanama should have been drawn. Thus, in the absence of clear proof of demand, mere handling of the tainted currency alone would not be sufficient to conclude that the prosecution has established all the ingredients of the offence. 32. Moreover, the incident pertains to a period prior to the amendment of the Prevention of Corruption Act. Therefore, mere recovery or handling of tainted currency cannot, by itself, constitute an offence under Section 7 of - 14 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC-D:1228 CRL.A No. 100021 of 2015 Prevention of Corruption Act, following the dictum of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Neeraj Dutta Vs. State (Govt. of N.C.T. of Delhi)1. 33. Further, the admissions of the complainant and the shadow witness, coupled with the documents marked at Exs.P-13 and P-14, clearly establish that there was acknowledgment of the application and that the role of the present accused, insofar as processing of the application was concerned, stood completed on 04.01.2011. Though the complainant denied the suggestion that the entire work was completed on that date, the documentary evidence on record supports the defence. 34. Under these circumstances, there was no scope for the accused to demand illegal gratification. The learned Trial Judge has taken a view favourable to the accused, which is permissible in criminal jurisprudence. It is well settled that when two views are possible, the view favourable to the accused must be adopted. 1 2022 INSC 1280 - 15 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC-D:1228 CRL.A No. 100021 of 2015 35. The prosecution is required to traverse the distance between mere suspicion and proof beyond reasonable doubt. It is also a well-established principle that an accused is presumed innocent and an order of acquittal further strengthens such presumption. 36. Applying these settled principles to the facts of the present case, this Court finds that the judgment of acquittal passed by the learned Special Judge does not warrant interference, as there is proper appreciation of the evidence on record. 37. Accordingly, Point No.1 is answered in the negative and Point No.2 in the affirmative. 38. Regarding Point No.3: In view of the findings on Point Nos.1 and 2, this point does not arise for consideration. 39. Regarding Point No.4: In view of the findings recorded on Point Nos.1 to 3, the following order is passed: - 16 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC-D:1228 CRL.A No. 100021 of 2015 ORDER i. The appeal is devoid of merit and is hereby dismissed. ii. The bail bond, if any, stands discharged. Sd/- (V.SRISHANANDA) JUDGE KCM,AC, CT:CMU list no.: 1 sl no.: 15