- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC-D:518 CRL.A No. 100340 of 2023 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, AT DHARWAD DATED THIS THE 19TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V.SRISHANANDA CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 100340 OF 2023 (A) BETWEEN: THE STATE OF KARNATAKA CBI, ACB BRANCH BENGALURU R/BY SPL. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR …APPELLANT (BY SRI. NEELENDRAD .GUNDE,ADVOCATE) AND: SRI. SUDDHARUD T. METRE AGE. 48 YEARS, OCC. THE THEN PRINCIPAL OF KENDRIYA VIDYALAY-1 RAJ NAGAR, HUBBALLI, R/O. APPORVA NAGAR, SILVER TOWN, GOKUL ROAD, HUBBALLI, PERMANENT R/O. MADAN HIPPARAG VILLAGE AND POST TQ. ALAND DIST. KALABURAGI 585101. …RESPONDENT (BY SRI. SHIVAKUMAR S. BADAWADAGI, ADVOCATE) THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL IS FILED U/SEC. 378(4) OF CR.P.C. PRAYING TO CALL FOR THE RECORDS AND ALLOW THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL BY SETTING ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND ORDER OF ACQUITTAL DATED 13.04.2023 PASSED IN SPL. CBI. CC NO. 07/2018 BY III ADDL. DISTRICT AND SESSIONS AND SPL. JUDGE DHARWAD AND CONVICT THE RESPONDENT AND ETC.,. THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, 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:518 CRL.A No. 100340 of 2023 ORAL JUDGMENT (PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V.SRISHANANDA) 1. Heard the learned counsel Sri.Neelendra D.Gunde, appearing for appellant-Central Bureau of Investigation1 and Sri.Shivakumar Badawadagi, appearing for respondent-accused. 2. The CBI, ACB Branch, Bangalore, has preferred the appeal challenging the judgment of acquittal of the respondent in Special CBI C.C.No.7/2018 by considered judgment dated 13.04.2023 passed by the III Additional District and Sessions and Spl.Judge, Dharwad. 3. Facts in the nutshell which are at most necessary for disposal of the present appeal are as under: A complaint was lodged by Sri.Basavaraj S. Pujar (PW-1) before the CBI, ACB, Bangalore alleging that the respondent, who was working as the Principal of Kendriya Vidyalay-I, Raj Nagar, Hubli, being a public servant, demanded illegal gratification of ₹.50,000/- in the form of a mixer grinder and five bottles of liquor procured from CSD Canteen, for securing admission of the complainant’s son to IV Standard and it was 1 Hereinafter referred to as ‘the CBI’. - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC-D:518 CRL.A No. 100340 of 2023 alleged that the respondent thereby committed offences punishable under Section 7 and Section 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 19882. 4. Based on the complaint, the head of the right party formed a raid team comprising of himself, his sub-staff and two independent government servants as panchas for the intended ride and all of them proceeded towards the Kendriya Vidyalay-I, Raj Nagar, Hubli. 5. The complainant and the the shadow witness were directed to proceed on a motorcycle and hand over the illegal gratification upon demand by the accused and thereafter, they give a pre-designated signal. These proceedings were reduced into writing by way of an experimental mahazar. As per the prosecution case, when the complainant wanted to hand over the illegal gratification in kind to the accused, a raid was conducted and five bottles of liquor and a mixer grinder was seized, which were admittedly purchased by the complainant from the CSD Canteen with receipts. 2 Hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’ - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC-D:518 CRL.A No. 100340 of 2023 6. A trap mahazar was laid and thereafter the accused was arrested. 7. After detailed investigation, a charge sheet came to be filed for the offences under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) read with 13(2) of the Act. The presence of accused was secured, charges were framed and the accused pleaded not guilty and therefore, trial was held. 8. In order to establish the guilt of the accused, the prosecution examined 22 witnesses comprising of complainant, shadow witness, co-pancha, other circumstantial witnesses, the Investigation Officer and the chemical examiner. As many as, 71 documentary evidence were placed on record which are exhibited and marked as Ex.P-1 to Ex.P-17. Four bottles of liquor and a mixer grinder were marked as Material Objects Nos. 1 to 5. 9. The statement of the accused under Section 313 of the Criminal Procedure Code3 was recorded, wherein the accused has denied all the incriminating circumstances. After hearing the arguments, the learned trial Judge, by impugned judgment 3 Hereinafter referred to as ‘the Cr.P.C.’ - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC-D:518 CRL.A No. 100340 of 2023 acquitted the accused, inter alia, on the reasons recorded in paragraph Nos.8 to 10 of the Judgment which reads as under: “8. The specific defence of the accused is that he has nowhere demanded illegal gratification. But, only enquired about purchasing liquor and Mixer from the Military canteen, since complainant is a Army personnel and he will get the same at discount price, he was about to pay for the said items. But, at that time all of a sudden the police have forcibly caught hold him, without documents and application, it is not possible to get a seat for P.W. 1's son. In the cross-examination of P.W-1 at page No.14 para-26 he has specifically admitted as follows: "it is correct to suggest that the accused removed the cash from his pocket, at that time I gave a signal that his hands not to give it because I have already lodged a complainant to the CBI police". 9. Even the Spl. Public Prosecutor has treated the witness as hostile to this portion and cross-examined for which the witness has stick on to the earlier version in the chief examination. Further, the P.W-1 also admitted that liquors are not allowed inside the School and he know that liquor could not be carried inside the School. From the above admission it is very much clear that accused never demanded illegal gratification. P.W-1 in his further cross- examination at page No.11 para 23 also admitted as follows: "the price of Mixer Grinder and liquor was known to the accused and the total amount was around only Rs.3,500/-". - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC-D:518 CRL.A No. 100340 of 2023 10. Hence, from the above admission by the P.W-1 who is a Military person working as Hawaldar in Indian Army, he will get the various items including liquor and house hold articles for a discounted prices exclusively for the persons working in the Military. Hence, accused intended to purchase the above items from the complainant for the Payment. Accordingly, when the said items were handed over the accused had kept the said amount and even removed the cash from his pocket to give the price of the sajt articles to the complainant. But, at that time CBI police have conducted the raid and seized articles and prepared the mahazars. In view of the evidence of P.W-1 stated in the chief-examination as discussed above evidence of all other witnesses is noway helpful to prove the case of prosecution. The accused has clearly proved his defence not only in the cross-examination and also in his written 313 statement. It is very unfortunate that the price of the materials is very nominal of Rs.3500/-, nobody would demand such items as a bribe from anybody for getting a seat in the School. The accused being a Principal of reputed Institution which is Kendriya Vidyalay definitely would never demanded for such items as bribe. The entire incident has taken place at outside the compound of the School and the prosecution has not proved anything which has been taken place inside the School and in the chamber of the School. It is very unfortunate that accused being a Principal of such a reputed institution was caught by layng the trap for such cheap items and such a case has been filed. The prosecution has totally failed to prove the - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC-D:518 CRL.A No. 100340 of 2023 ingredients of Sec. 7 and 13(1) R/w 13(2) of PC Act. If at all accused intended to demand illegal gratification, he would have demanded cash or valuable things. But, in this case, the seized M.O-1 to M.O-4 are the consumable items and M.O-5 is a Mixer Grinder and they are not valuable items. On careful consideration of all those materials, prosecution utterly failed to prove all the charges and accused has proved his defence that no case has been made out against him and he is liable to be acquitted. Hence, I answered these points No.1 and 2 in negative.” 10. Being aggrieved by the said Judgment, the CBI has filed the present appeal on following grounds:    The impugned judgment and order of acquittal passed by the lower court below is contrary to law, facts and evidence on record, and as such the same is liable to be set aside.    The reasons assigned by the learned Special Judge while passing the impugned judgment and order of acquittal are erroneous and hence he has slipped into error and proceeded to pass the impugned judgment and order of acquittal, thereby resulting in substantial miscarriage of justice to the case of the appellant.    It is submitted that interestingly the court below has acquitted the respondent mainly on one single stress admission of PW-1/ Complainant in the cross examination except said admission nothing is discussed by the Court below.    It is submitted that though PW-1 has been treated as partly hostile. However, the court below relying upon the cross - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC-D:518 CRL.A No. 100340 of 2023 examination of PW-1 at page 14 which read as under "It is correct to suggest that the accused removed the cash from his pocket, at that time I gave a signal that his hands not to give it because I have already lodged a complainant to the CBI Police", has acquitted the respondent. Except the said admission which by itself is Incriminating in nature, the court below has not considered other material available against the respondent.    It is submitted that during the cross examination of the other prosecution witness, nothing is elicited during the cross examination so as to discard the case of prosecution. Further, if it is the defense of the respondent accused that he was going to receive the liquor and mixer by paying cash then he ought to have stated so in his explanation under 313 Cr.PC. and also after arrest and thereafter ought have lead defense evidence so as to prove his case. In view of not leading any defense evidence the court below ought not have acquitted the respondent herein.    It is submitted that the evidence of PW-1 and PW-2 clearly reveals about the demand and acceptance by the respondent herein. And their evidence also corroborates with the contents of the complaint at Ex-P-1. This being the evidence on record the court below ought not have passed the impugned order.    The prosecution has examined PW-3/Prashanth Kumari who speaks about the procedure for getting the students admitted in Kendriya Vidyalaya and the evidence of this witness clearly reveals that it was respondent herein who was working as principal on the date of incident and as such when the prosecution has examined PW-1 and 2 to - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC-D:518 CRL.A No. 100340 of 2023 prove about demand and acceptance and pendency of work by this witness, the court below ought not have acquitted the respondent herein.    When demand, acceptance and pendency of work were proved by prosecution beyond reasonable doubt, the court below ought not have acquitted the respondent herein.    It is submitted that the court below has failed to appreciate the presumption available in favour of the prosecution under section 20 of P. C Act. section 20 reads as follows: "Where, in any trial of an offence punishable under section 7 or under section 11. it is proved that a public servant accused of an offence has accepted or obtained or attempted to obtain for himself, or for any other person, any undue advantage from any person, it shall be presumed, unless the contrary is proved, that he accept or obtained or attempted to obtain that undue advantage, as motive or reward under section 7 for performing or to cause performance of a public duty improperly or dishonestly either by himself or by another public servant or, as the case may be, any undue advantage without consideration or for a consideration which he knows to be inadequate under section 11". Said section clearly makes it clear that when the prosecution proves that the accused has accepted or obtained or attempted to obtain for himself or for any other person it shall be presumed that the same is accepted as bribe unless the contrary is proved. The Court below has - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC-D:518 CRL.A No. 100340 of 2023 failed to raise said legal presumption in favor of the prosecution and to shift the onus on the respondent shows to prove is defense on his behalf by probabilities.    It is submitted that the SD cards at M.O-9 and 10 of recorder and mobile of complainant is sufficient enough to prove the entire case of prosecution about demand and acceptance. Transcript of the same would clearly reveal about pendency of work with respondent, the demand and acceptance by respondent. This material evidence has not at all been appreciated by the Special Court.    Further to identify the voice of respondent in M.O 9 and 10 the prosecution got examined PW-3, 4 and 5 who are is co- employees. And they have clearly identified the voice of the respondent herein. When such being the oral and documentary evidence on record the court below is not justified in passing the order of acquittal.    It is submitted that the prosecution got examined PW-10 to 12 for the purpose of securing the CDR report of the mobile belonging to complainant PW-1 and also that of land line of Kendriya Vidyalaya. In that view of the matter the court ought not have acquitted the respondent.    It is submitted that the court below has failed to appreciate properly the documentary and oral evidence on record and has passed the impugned order.    It is submitted that even otherwise the evidence of PW-1 clearly proved that the respondent herein has misused his position as Principal and demanding liquor and mixer or cash of Rs.50,000/- and acceptance of the same by him. In - 11 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC-D:518 CRL.A No. 100340 of 2023 that view of the matter the court below ought have convicted respondent herein.    It is most respectfully submitted that by examining the witness and producing the relevant materials, the prosecution has established that the accused has demanded the illegal gratification and accepted the same. The prosecution has proved the demand and acceptance and the recovery of the illegal gratification is also proved as phenolphthalein test was also positive. Such being the case, hence, the acquittal of accused is erroneous.    It is submitted that, the co- pancha has supported the case of the prosecution. Pw-2 is the shadow witness who had accompanied the complainant has categorically stated that, the accused has demanded and accepted the illegal gratification. And nothing is elucidated in cross examination of this witness from the defense. This being the fact, prosecution has clearly proved the demand and acceptance of the mixature & liquor bottles. Therefore the special judge has erred in acquitting the accused.    It is submitted that, the prosecution has obtained the sanction order and sanctioning authority has also categorically deposed in the trial.    Thus viewed from any angle, the judgment and order of acquittal passed by the court below is even otherwise illegal, erroneous and unsustainable. 11. Sri.Neelendra D. Gunde, learned counsel for the appellant reiterating the grounds urged in the appeal, vehemently contended that a stray suggestion which was - 12 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC-D:518 CRL.A No. 100340 of 2023 admitted by PW-1 and a pillion rider (shadow witness) has been blown out of proportion, ignoring the other material evidence on record resulting in miscarriage of justice and sought for admitting the appeal for further consideration. 12. Per contra, Sri.Shivakumar Badawadagi, learned counsel representing the respondent-accused, supports impugned judgment. He would further contend that the actual trap itself has not taken place and therefore, question of acceptance being absent, acquittal order is just and proper and 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, it is evident that the suggestions put to PW-1 were categorically admitted by him, which has been rightly taken note of by the learned trial Judge in paragraphs 8 to 10 of the impugned judgment. 15. These suggestions would be sufficient enough to hold that there is no proper evidence to place on record to prove demand and acceptance, which are sine qua non for establishing the offences under Sections 7 and 13 of the Act. - 13 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC-D:518 CRL.A No. 100340 of 2023 16. Further, in the case hand, the alleged illegal gratification was in kind. Admittedly, the accused did not receive the ‘kind’ said to have been given by the complainant and even before illegal gratifications could be handed over to the custody of the accused, the raid has taken place and it has been seized. 17. No doubt, the shadow witness supported the prosecution case. However, when the complainant himself has admitted in categorical terms the suggestion which was referred in paragraph Nos. 8 to 10 of the impugned judgment, question of any improvement to be made by the examination of PW-2 would not arise and therefore, order of acquittal is just and proper. 18. Further, whenever a duly constituted Court records the order of acquittal, it reinforces the innocence of the accused and if two views are permissible on the same set of facts, the view favourable to the accused must be preferred. 19. Keeping in mind, these celebrated legal principles in the background and upon re-appreciation of the evidence on record, this Court do not find any good grounds to interfere with the impugned judgment or to admit the appeal for further consideration. - 14 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC-D:518 CRL.A No. 100340 of 2023 20. Hence, the following order: ORDER The appeal dismissed. Sd/- (V.SRISHANANDA) JUDGE RHR/-CT-CMU LIST NO.: 2 SL NO.: 25