- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC-D:1013 CRL.A No. 100171 of 2015 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,AT DHARWAD DATED THIS THE 28TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V.SRISHANANDA CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 100171 OF 2015 (C) BETWEEN: BASANAGOUDA SIDDANAGOUDA PATIL, AGE: 54 YEARS, OCC : CHC B.NO.1441, KAKATI POLICE STATION, NOW WORKING AT ANKALAGI POLICE STATION, TQ : GOKAK, DIST : BELAGAVI. …APPELLANT (BY SRI. A.M.GUNDAWADE, ADVOCATE) AND: STATE OF KARNATAKA, BY SPECIAL PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH, AT : DHARWAD THROUGH LOKAYUKTA POLICE, BELAGAVI. …RESPONDENT (BY SRI. ANIL KALE, ADVOCATE) THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL IS FILED U/S 374(2) OF CR.P.C., SEEKING TO CALL FOR THE RECORD FROM IV ADDL. DIST. & SESSIONS JUDGE AND SPL. JUDGE (PCA) BELAGAVI PERTAINING TO SPL. CASE NO.17/2013 AND TO PASS A JUDGMENT OF ACQUITTAL BY SETTING ASIDE JUDGMENT OF CONVICTION AND ORDER OF SENTENCE PASSED AGAINST THE APPELLANT IV ADDL. DIST. & SESSIONS JUDGE AND SPL. JUDGE (PCA) BELAGAVI, IN SPL. CASE NO.17/2013 FOR THE ALLEGED OFFENCES U/SEC.7, 13(1)(D) R/W 13(2) OF P.C. ACT, 1988. THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CHANDRASHEKAR LAXMAN KATTIMANI Digitally signed by CHANDRASHEKAR LAXMAN KATTIMANI Date: 2026.02.02 17:04:17 +0530 - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC-D:1013 CRL.A No. 100171 of 2015 ORAL JUDGMENT (PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V.SRISHANANDA) Heard Sri A.M.Gundawade, learned counsel for appellant and Sri Anil Kale, learned counsel for respondent/Lokayukta. 2. Accused who has been convicted in Special Case No.17/2013 for offence punishable under Section 7, 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (‘P.C. Act’, for short) is the appellant. He has been sentenced as under: “The accused is hereby sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for 6 months for the offence punishable under Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. The accused is hereby further sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for one year for the offence punishable under section 13 (1) (d) R/w Sec. 13 (2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and he shall pay a fine of Rs.5,000/- in default, he shall undergo simple imprisonment for two months. Both sentences shall run concurrently. M O No. 1 an amount of Rs. 1,000/- is ordered to be confiscated to Government and other MOs are hereby ordered to be destroyed after the lapse of appeal period being worthless. A free copy of this judgment be supplied to the accused.” - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC-D:1013 CRL.A No. 100171 of 2015 3. Facts of the case which are very much necessary for disposal of the present appeal are as under: 3.1 Complainant and his wife on suspicion were summoned to the Kakathi Police Station on 03.06.2011 and 06.06.2011 in regard to a complaint lodged by Raju Sulabavi at Siddheshwar Nagar, Kakathi that somebody has stolen the gold from his house. 3.2 Thereafter, they were repeatedly summoned and therefore, the complainant went to the Office of the Superintendent of Police, Belagavi on 26.08.2011 and gave an application that they have been harassed by the Kakati Police Station unnecessarily and they wanted a settlement in the case. In that regard, Suresh Koli and Suresh Kumbar were sent to the complainant to admit the guilt. Accused who was working as a Head Constable with No.1441 in Kakathi Police Station demanded sum ₹1,000/- as a legal gratification to file a favourable report against them on the ground that the same needs to be paid to higher authorities. - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC-D:1013 CRL.A No. 100171 of 2015 3.3 After the complainant met the Superintendent of Police, Circle Inspector of Kakathi Police Station was directed to bring the complaint registered by Raju Sulebavi to logical end. Accused demanded illegal gratification to close the complaint. Complainant was not willing to part away the illegal gratification demanded by accused and therefore, he approached the Lokayukta Police Station, Belagavi and informed them about the demand made by the accused. Thereafter, the conversations were recorded and a detailed complaint in the handwriting of the complainant was lodged with the Lokayukta Police. 3.4 Pursuant to the complaint, head of the raid party summoned two independent government servants to act as panchas for the intended trap and explained to them the contents of the complaint. He secured intended illegal gratification comprising of one currency note of ₹500/- denomination and five currency notes of ₹100 denomination, noted the serial numbers of the same, smeared the phenolphthalein powder on those currency notes and demonstrated the chemical reaction of sodium carbonate solution - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC-D:1013 CRL.A No. 100171 of 2015 with the phenolphthalein powder and drafted experimental mahazar. 3.5 Instructions were given to the complainant and one of the panch witnesses to act as shadow witness to accompany the complainant to the accused and observe the activities that would take place when accused demands and complainant hands over the tainted currency. 3.6 Accordingly, complainant, shadow witness proceeded to the Kakati Police Station, met accused. Thereafter, the accused enquired as to who has accompanied the complainant and complainant told that he is his relative and all the three persons went to the tea shop, consumed tea and on returning to the police station near an electric pole, accused demanded the illegal gratification and complainant handed over the tainted currency to his hands. He took it in the right hand and kept it in his pant pocket. 3.7 Immediately complainant gave pre-designated signal by removing his cap from his head and all the members of the raid party who were hiding nearby came there and apprehended - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC-D:1013 CRL.A No. 100171 of 2015 the accused. By then, there was drizzling. Therefore, all of them went to the police station wherein the accused was asked to handover the tainted currency and accused took out the same from his pant pocket and handed over to head of the raid party. Co-pancha was directed to tally the serial number of the currency notes with the experimental mahazar and it tallied and therefore, the illegal gratification of ₹1,000/- was seized by the head of the raid party. 3.8 Subsequent thereto, the explanation of the accused was obtained and thereafter he has been arrested. 3.9 Necessary documents were seized from the Kakati Police Station and thereafter accused was produced before the jurisdictional Special Judge and accused was remanded to judicial custody. 4. Lokayukta Police completed the investigation and filed charge sheet. 5. After charge sheet came to be filed, learned Special Judge took cognizance of the aforesaid offences and secured the presence of the accused and framed the charges for the offence - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC-D:1013 CRL.A No. 100171 of 2015 under Section 7, 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) P.C. Act. Accused pleaded not guilty. Therefore, trial was held. 6. In order to bring home the guilt of the accused, nine witnesses were examined on behalf of the prosecution as Exhibits P1 to P9 and as many as 24 documents were placed on record which were exhibited and marked as Exhibits P1 to P24. Besides marking 13 material objects as MO1 to MO13. 7. On conclusion of recording of evidence, the learned Special Judge recorded the accused's statement, wherein accused has denied the incriminatory circumstances, but did not choose to file any written submissions nor led any defence evidence. 8. Thereafter, learned Special Judge heard the arguments of the parties and on appreciation of the material evidence on record, convicted the accused for the aforesaid offences and sentenced as aforesaid supra. - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC-D:1013 CRL.A No. 100171 of 2015 9. Being aggrieved by the same, accused is before this Court in this appeal on following grounds:  “That, the Appellant is an innocent person and had not committed any offences as alleged by the Prosecution and he is entitled to be acquitted.  That, the Accused/Appellant is an innocent person and has not committed any of the offences as alleged and is entitled to be acquitted from the charges leveled against him, by setting aside judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed against him by the trial Court.  On perusal of the contents of first information Ex- P4given by PW-2 Channappa discloses that, the contents of the information are imaginary one.  On perusal of entire evidence on record it will discloses that, there is no believable evidence against the Appellant for the proof of the charges leveled against him.  The reasoning assigned by the trial Court in concluding that, the Prosecution has proved beyond all reasonable grounds, that, the Accused/Appellant is committed the offences and found guilty for the offences punishable U/s. 7, and U/s 13(1)(d) R/w. 13(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act 1988, are not legally acceptable one and judgment of conviction is required to be set aside. - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC-D:1013 CRL.A No. 100171 of 2015  PW-2 Channappa Basavanneppa Nandihalli is the main witness who is the informant of the case and on perusal of his evidence on record there is no clarity in his evidence disclosing the clear evidence of demand and acceptance of bribe money from him by the Accused person and the evidence given before the Court is contrary to the contents of Ex-P4, complaint material facts.  The evidence of PW-2 even if taken to consideration discloses that, about the allegation of theft against him and his wife and enquiry in that regard by the Police was already completed, this fact discloses that, there was no work was pending with the Kakti Police and subsequently contacting him by the Accused person and putting a demand of bribe unbelievable fact and allegation.  On perusal of evidence of PW-2 his act and conduct is completely of suspicion in nature and allegations are unbelievable one and he wanted to misuse his liberty by making unbelievable allegations.  The documents produced at Ex-P18 inrespect of the enquiry against the Complainant in respect of theft allegations was already completed earlier to 15-06-2012 and report was submitted to the S.P.Belagavi on 15-06- 2012 itself, Ex-P18 makes it very clear. - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC-D:1013 CRL.A No. 100171 of 2015  Even on perusal of the contents of Ex-P18 the enquiry report also discloses that no work was pending with the Kakti Police inrespect of the complainant Channappa Nandihalli, on 18-06-2012 date of filing of the complaint with Lokayukta case and registration of the case and trap.  The PW-2 Channappa Nandihalli was considered to be as a hostile witness by the Prosecution and he was subjected to cross examination by the Prosecution, this makes it clear that, his evidence is not a substantial evidence to believe the allegations against the Accused person as he goes on to admit the question put to him by the Special Public Prosecutor.  The evidence of PW-1 nowhere discloses that, the Appellant/Accused had demanded Rs.1000/- an illegal gratification to do an official work or showing any favour to the informant.  The production of the alleged bribe amount at the time of entrustment mahajar Ex-P5 by PW-2 Channappa is unbelievable fact.  PW-6 Smt. Drakshayini who is the wife of PW-2 Channappa against whom the allegation of theft was made and enquiry was made by the Kakti Police stated that after enquiry Accused told and assured that the matter was settled and took their signature, had also not stated anything about demand of Rs.1000/- by the Accused persons. - 11 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC-D:1013 CRL.A No. 100171 of 2015  On perusal of evidence of PW-2 Channappa and PW-6 Drakshayini discloses that, there was no demand of bribe money and during the course of the trial the Prosecution tried to put suggestions to them about the demand, the same will not become a believable evidence and even PW-6 totally denied the suggestion of the Prosecution.  PW-3 Kamappa who appears to be accompanied PW-2 Channappa during trap proceedings allegedly witnessed had also not fully supported the case of the Prosecution and he was also treated as hostile witness.  In respect of the demand of bribe money by the Accused as stated by PW-3 Kamappa is unbelievable evidence and the same is also not supported by the main witness PW-2 Channappa.  On perusal of the evidence on record the alleged recovery of the bribe money MO.No.1 is also unbelievable one. Since the evidence of the witnesses is contrary to the contents of trap mahajar.  The evidence in respect of the hand wash of the Appellant/Accused person in Sodium Carbonate solution is also not clearly believable one since the evidence of PW-2, PW-4, PW-9 are contrary to each other.  Inrespect of the evidence for the proof of recovery of the bribe amount as deposed by PW-3 Kamappa, PW-4 Mahesh, Mahajar witness and PW-9 S.G.Patil, investigation officer and the contents of the trap - 12 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC-D:1013 CRL.A No. 100171 of 2015 mahajar Ex-P6 are contrary to each other and it makes it clear that, the allegations are unbelievable.  The evidence on record nowhere clearly discloses that, the Appellant has demanded illegal gratification nor he has taken or obtained money by illegal means for himself by misusing the official powers.  On perusal of the evidence of PW-2 Channappa and PW- 3 Kamappa and PW-4 Mahesh who are material witnesses discloses that, the Appellant/Accused person was made a scapegoat to overcome the allegations of theft made over against the PW-2 and PW-6. Apart from this the Appellant/Accused has no power to take any action against PW-2, PW-6 and also has no power to submit a report in respect of the allegation against them and no work was pending.  The sanction order issued as per Ex-P17 is not legally acceptable one and the same is given without properly considering the allegations available on record including the allegations made against the complaint and his wife.  The trial Court erred in believing the evidence of witnesses who have not fully supported the allegations and their evidence appears to be given in compulsion and i.e. also in hapzed manner.  The reasoning assigned by the trial Court in coming to the conclusion is not legally acceptable one so as to convict the Accused person for the alleged offence. - 13 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC-D:1013 CRL.A No. 100171 of 2015  The evidence in respect of the voice recorded is also unbelievable, even that evidence also nowhere discloses the demand and acceptance of the bribe money.  The trial Court erred in believing the evidence of Prosecution and in passing judgment of conviction and the sentence awarded is also appears to be harsh one.  The evidence of the Prosecution is not beyond reasonable doubt so as to convict the Accused persons.. 10. Sri A.M.Gundawade, learned counsel for the appellant reiterating the grounds urged in the appeal memorandum, vehemently contended in the case on hand, complainant has not supported the case of the prosecution in toto except admitting his signature on the complaint and deposing some preliminary facts. 11. Therefore, demand and acceptance of the illegal gratification is not proved which is a sine qua non for establishing the offence under Section 7, 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of the P.C. Act and therefore, order of the conviction is bad in law. - 14 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC-D:1013 CRL.A No. 100171 of 2015 12. He would further contend that as on the date of alleged trap, already statements had been recorded by the accused and it has been sent to the higher authorities. Therefore, there was no work pending of the complainant so as to show official favour by the accused in favour of the complainant and hence, the conviction order is bad in law. 13. He would also contend that the social activists namely Suresh Koli and Suresh Kumbar are not examined by the prosecution, which would expose the hollowness of case of the prosecution and sought for allowing the appeal. 14. He would further contend that the prosecution has not been able to establish with sufficient proof about the all ingredients of the offence namely demand of illegal gratification, acceptance of illegal gratification and work of the complainant pending so as to show the official favour in favour of the complainant by misusing official position and therefore, order of conviction is bad in law. 15. He would further contend that the averments of the complaint is incorrect as the present appellant being the Head - 15 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC-D:1013 CRL.A No. 100171 of 2015 Constable of the Kakathi Police Station did not have any role to play in the alleged pending work of the complainant in Kakathi Police Station and therefore there was no occasion for the appellant to demand sum of ₹1,000/- and thus, sought for allowing the appeal. 16. He would invite the attention of this Court to the explanation offered by the accused which reads as under: “ªÀiÁ£Àå r.J¸ï.¦ ¸ÁºÉçgÀÄ PÀ£ÁðlPÀ ¯ÉÆÃPÁAiÀÄÄPÀÛ ¨É¼ÀUÁ«gÀªÀjUÉ- ªÀiÁ£ÀågÉ, «µÀAiÀÄ: ZÀ£ÀߥÀà £ÀA¢ºÀ½î EªÀjAzÀ ºÀt ¥ÀqÉzÀ §UÉÎ. -*- ªÉÄïÁÌt¹zÀ «µÀAiÀÄzÀ §UÉÎ §gÉzÀÄ PÉÆqÀĪÀÅzÀÄ K£ÉAzÀgÉ, £Á£ÀÄ ZÀ£ÀߥÀà EªÀ¤UÉ zÀÄqÀÄ PÉÆqÀĪÀAvÉ MvÁÛAiÀÄ DUÀ° ¨ÉÃrPÉ DUÀ° ªÀiÁrzÀÄÝ EgÀĪÀÅ¢®è DvÀ£É £À£Àß ºÉArAiÀÄ ªÉÄÃ¯É EgÀĪÀ C¥ÁzÀ£ÉAiÀÄ£ÀÄß PÀrªÉÄ ªÀiÁrj CAvÁ MvÁÛAiÀÄ¢AzÀ £À£ÀUÉ ¨ÉÃqÀ CAzÀgÀÆ PÀÆqÀ 1000=00 gÀÆ. PÉÆnÖgÀÄvÁÛ£É. EAzÀ - §¸ÀªÀUËqÀ ²zÀÝ£ÀUËqÀ ¥Ánî CHC/44/ PÁPÀw ¦.J¸ï. vÁ: 18.06.2012 PÁPÀw.¦.J¸ï.” 17. Therefore, it is the argument of Sri A.M.Gundawade that the appeal needs to be allowed by setting aside the order of conviction. - 16 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC-D:1013 CRL.A No. 100171 of 2015 18. Lastly, he would contend that there was no certificate as is contemplated under Section 65(b) of the Evidence Act so as to believe the alleged conversation between the accused and the complainant which is part of pre-trap mahazar and therefore, the same cannot be treated as demand and acceptance and sought for allowing the appeal. 19. Per contra, Sri.Anil Kale would contend that, in the case on hand, only on the suspicious complainant and his wife has been harassed by the Kakathi Police in respect of the complaint lodged by Raju Sulebhavi. 20. He would further contend that, when the harassment was unable to be borne by the complainant he visited the office of the Superintendent Police, Belgavi and complained about the harassment. Pursuant thereto, instructions were issued from the office of the Superintendent Police, Belgavi to the Circle Inspector of Police and therefore the matter was required to be closed. - 17 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC-D:1013 CRL.A No. 100171 of 2015 21. In that regard, the complainant and his wife visited the police station and at that juncture, it is the present appellant who demanded a sum of ₹.1,000/- to submit a favourable report, under the guise of paying the same to the higher authorities. Since the complainant was not interested, he approached the Lokayuktha Police. The complaint lodged by the complainant is in his own handwriting, which he has admitted during the cross- examination by the Public Prosecutor. 22. He also specifically admitted about the payment of the bribe money near the electric pole, which has been handled by the accused by taking the same in the right hand and keeping it in his pant pocket, which has been established not only through the trap mahazar, but also through the oral testimony of the complainant as well as the shadow witness which would be sufficient enough to establish the demand and acceptance of illegal gratification. 23. Therefore, all the ingredients required for the proving of the offence under Section 7, 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of the P.C.Act, have been established by the prosecution and thus sought for dismissal of the appeal. - 18 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC-D:1013 CRL.A No. 100171 of 2015 24. He would further contend that very fact that the tainted currency has been seized from the pant pocket of the accused, that too in the PSI chamber of Kakati Police Station and in the absence of any proper or plausible explanation offered by the accused, it should be presumed that the said tainted currency was handled by the accused in respect of the illegal gratification for which he had made a demand with the complainant, as is found in the complaint averments and thus sought for dismissal of the appeal. 25. He also argued that mere non-production of the certificate under Section 65(b) or non-seizure of the mobile phone would not cause any dent to the case of the prosecution, inasmuch as the conversation with regard to demand and acceptance is incorporated in the pre-trap mahazar and no such conversation is recorded at the time of trap. Therefore, he seeks dismissal of the appeal. 26. Having heard the arguments of both sides, this Court perused the material on record meticulously. - 19 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC-D:1013 CRL.A No. 100171 of 2015 27. On such perusal of the material on record, the following points would arise for consideration: (i) Whether the prosecution has successfully established the necessary ingredients to attract the offence punishable under Sections 7, 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of the P.C.Act? (ii) Whether the impugned judgment is suffering from legal infirmity or perversity and thus calls for interference? (iii) Whether the sentence imposed is excessive? (iv) What order? Regarding Points (i) and (ii) :- 28. In order to appreciate the case of the parties, it is just and necessary to cull out the admitted facts available on record, which reads as under:  A complaint came to be lodged by Raju Sulebhavi alleging that there was a theft of gold in his house on 02.06.2011. - 20 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC-D:1013 CRL.A No. 100171 of 2015  Complainant and his wife were summoned to the Kakati Police Station on 03.06.2011 on the ground of suspicion.  The complainant and his wife were again summoned on 06.06.2011.  According to the averments in the complaint, they were harassed by repeated calls to the police station.  The complainant and his wife visited the office of Superintendent of Police, Belgavi.  Instructions were given from office of Superintendent of Police, Belgavi to Circle Inspector of Police.  The complainant met the accused, who was a Head Constable having the buckle No.1441 of Kakati Police and requested the matter to be closed.  The accused handled the tainted currency on 18.06.2012 at about 06.00 p.m. near the electric pole situated between the Kakati Police station and a tea shop.  The tainted currency was recovered from the pant pocket of the accused in the cabin of PSI Kakathi Police Station by head of the raid party. - 21 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC-D:1013 CRL.A No. 100171 of 2015  The serial numbers of the tainted currency recovered from the pant packet of the accused tallied with the serial numbers recorded in the experimental mahazar in Ex.P-5.  Hand wash of the right hand of the accused in sodium carbonate solution turned pink and colour test stood positive.  Likewise, the colour test for the pant packet of the accused stood positive.  The FSL report, marked at Ex.P24, confirms that traces of phenolphthalein powder were found in the material objects placed on record as MOs.1,10 and 12. 29. The following points are disputed facts, culled out from the material on record: (i) The alleged demand made by the accused. (ii) The role of accused in the handling the complaint of Raju Sulebhavi and in filing a favourable report. (iii) The claim that the complainant and the shadow witness were strangers to the accused. - 22 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC-D:1013 CRL.A No. 100171 of 2015 (iv) Whether any work of the complainant was pending with the accused? 30. In the light of the above admitted and disputed factual aspect, when the material evidence on record is re-appreciated, it is to be noted that PW-1 is an Engineer who drafted the spot sketch vide Ex.P-2 and his evidence is formal in nature. 31. PW-2 is the complainant, who made a half-hearted support in his examination-in-chief. Therefore, with the permission of the Court, he has been treated as a hostile witness and cross- examined by the learned Public Prosecutor. 32. During the cross-examination on behalf of prosecution, the contents of the complaint and the trap mahazar were confronted to him. The complainant not only admitted the contents of the complaint but also admits that the entire complaint averments are in his handwriting and admitted his signature. As per the settled principles of law, a complaint or FIR can be utilized not only for the purpose of contradictions but also to corroborate the case of prosecution. - 23 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC-D:1013 CRL.A No. 100171 of 2015 33. Therefore, even though complainant has not supported the case of the prosecution in toto in the examination-in-chief, such of the answers which are elicited by the Public Prosecutor during the course of cross-examination of PW-1, were sought to be corroborated with the contents of the complaint, it is crystal clear that there was a demand made by the accused on the date of the trap for illegal gratification, that too outside the police station, in the public place near the electric pole which was situated between the tea shop and the police station. 34. Further, the accused was supposed to be inside the Kakathi police station and if the complainant and the shadow witness are totally strangers, as is sought to be canvassed on behalf of the appellant, there was no necessity for the accused to accompany the strangers to a tea shop, that too during the working hours of the police station. 35. Therefore, it is presumed that the complainant was a known person and of acquaintance to the accused and statements has been prepared by the accused which would - 24 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC-D:1013 CRL.A No. 100171 of 2015 favour the complainant and his wife and later on, on the day of trap, he had taken their signatures also on those statements. 36. Therefore, the isolated answers elicited in the cross- examination of the Investigation Officer, that the documents had already been sent out from the table of the accused to his higher authorities and therefore there was no work pending as on the date of trap, cannot be countenanced in law. 37. Further, if the work was already completed as is elicited in the cross-examination of P.W.9, why the accused contacted the complainant to his mobile telephone on 16.06.2012 and made a demand is a question that remains unanswered. 38. Admittedly, the date of trap is 18.06.2012 and if necessary favourable reports have been made by the accused on 15.06.2012, then was there any necessity for the accused to call the complainant on his mobile telephone is again a question that remains unanswered. 39. It is to be noted that the accused has taken a defence as referred to supra that the money was forcibly handed - 25 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC-D:1013 CRL.A No. 100171 of 2015 over to him. The scene of the offence is the public road. It is to be noted that electric pole which was situated in between the tea shop and the Kakti police station is the place where the complainant actually handed over the tainted currency in the presence of the shadow witness to the accused. 40. It is not the case of the accused that it was forcibly put into the pant pocket of the accused. In fact, it was handed over by the complainant to the accused and accused took the tainted currency in his right hand and then kept it in his pant pocket. Immediately, pre-designated signal is given. In fact the trap mahazar mentions all these activities as the remaining raid party members were watching all these proceedings by parking the jeep on the service road. 41. In other words, since the incident has occurred in the day light and what was transpiring in between the complainant and the accused in the presence of the shadow witness was also witnessed by other members of the raid party and soon after they received the pre-designated signal, all of them arrived at the spot and enquired the accused after showing the identity of the head of the party and thereafter, he accepted that the - 26 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC-D:1013 CRL.A No. 100171 of 2015 money has been received by him and kept in his pant pocket. When the tainted currency was about to be seized, it started drizzling. Therefore, the entire raid party along with the accused and complainant, visited kakti police station and in the chambers of Police Sub-Inspector, further proceedings took place. In the presence of shadow witness, co-pancha, head of the raid party, complainant and other members of the kakti police station, tainted currency was recovered from the pant pocket of the accused. 42. Hand wash of both the hands have taken place in separate Sodium Carbonate solution kept in bowls. The bowl which contained the Sodium Carbonate solution wherein right hand wash took place turned into pink colour was separately seized and sealed. M.O.9 is the right hand wash of the accused which turned into pink colour. Unless accused had handled the tainted currency; there could not have been colour test turned positive. 43. Defence as is taken by the accused that the tainted currency has been forcefully handed over to the accused has not been proved atleast by placing plausible evidence on record. - 27 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC-D:1013 CRL.A No. 100171 of 2015 44. Under such circumstances, the demand and acceptance and colour test being turned positive and tainted currency has been accepted for furnishing the favourable report, this Court is of the considered opinion that the prosecution is able to establish all necessary ingredients to attract the offence. 45. No doubt, few contradictions are elicited in the cross-examination of prosecution witness. Much is also argued about the non-production of Section 65(b) certificate insofar as the proof of demand is concerned so also non-seizure of the mobile telephone in which it has been recorded. 46. Admittedly, those are the part of pre-trap mahazar that was only to ensure that the contents of the complaint is true and that did not by itself establish the demand and acceptance of the tainted currency on the day of trap. 47. In other words, non-furnishing of the 65(b) certificate, non-seizure of the mobile telephone on the day of trap did not cause any dent muchless serious dent to the case of the prosecution as the prosecution did not rely upon that evidence for the proof of demand and acceptance as - 28 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC-D:1013 CRL.A No. 100171 of 2015 complainant, shadow witness and recovery of the tainted currency have established that there was demand and acceptance more so having regard to the improper and improbable defence being taken and not establish by the accused. 48. Therefore, the prosecution is successful in establishing all ingredients which has been rightly appreciated in the impugned judgment by the learned Trial Magistrate if not in happy words and with logical reasons. 49. Even after reappreciation of the material evidence on record, this Court does not find any legal infirmity or perversity in reaching out the conclusion that accused is guilty of the offences punishable under Section 7 and 13(1)(d) punishable under Section 13(2) of the P.C. Act. 50. Accordingly, point Nos.(i) and (ii) are answered in affirmative and negative respectively. - 29 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC-D:1013 CRL.A No. 100171 of 2015 REG. POINT No.(iii): 51. Learned Trial Magistrate after taking into consideration all the relevant aspects of the matter, has imposed six months imprisonment for the offence punishable under Section 7 of the P.C. Act and to undergo simple imprisonment of one year for the offence under Section 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of the P.C. Act and imposed fine of Rs.5,000/- with default sentence. 52. This Court does not find any reasons whatsoever to reduce the same and it is minimum sentence that has been imposed by the learned Trial Magistrate. 53. In view of the foregoing discussions, point No.(iii) is answered in negative. REG. POINT No.(iv): 54. In view of the findings of this Court on point Nos.(i) to (iii) as above, following: ORDER i. Appeal is meritless and hereby dismissed. - 30 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC-D:1013 CRL.A No. 100171 of 2015 ii. Appellant is directed to surrender before the Trial Court on or before 10.02.2026 to serve remaining part of the sentence failing which he shall be secured through the process known to law for serving remaining sentence. iii. Office is directed to return the Trial Court Records with copy of this order forthwith. Sd/- (V.SRISHANANDA) JUDGE CLK,RHR,KAV Ct-cmu LIST NO.: 1 SL NO.: 10