- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC-D:510 CRL.A No. 100401 of 2019 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.100401 OF 2019 (A) BETWEEN: THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY INSPECTOR OF POLICE, KARNATAKA LOKAYUKTA, BAGALKOTE. …APPELLANT (BY SRI. ANIL KALE, ADVOCATE) AND: ASHOK S/O BALAPPA NAIK AGED- 58 YEARS, OCC- DEPUTY TASHILDAR, REVENUE OFFICE, KALADAGI. …RESPONDENT (BY SRI. B.C. JNANAYYASWAMI, ADVOCATE) THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL IS FILED U/S 378 (4) OF CR.P.C. PRAYING TO CALL FOR RECORDS IN RESPECT OF SPECIAL CASE NO.4/2012 PASSED BY THE PRINCIPAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BAGALKOT AND SET ASIDE THE IMPUGNED JUDGMENT AND ORDER DATED 16.03.2019 MADE IN SPECIAL CASE NO.4/2012 PASSED BY THE PRINCIPAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BAGALKOT, AND FURTHER CONVICT THE ACCUSED FOR THE OFFENCE PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTION 7, 13(1)(D) R/W SECTION 13(2) OF PREVENTION OF CORRUPTION ACT, 1988, AND ETC.,. Digitally signed by CHANDRASHEKAR LAXMAN KATTIMANI Location: High Court of Karnataka, Dharwad Bench - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC-D:510 CRL.A No. 100401 of 2019 THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: ORAL JUDGMENT (PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V.SRISHANANDA) Heard Sri Anil Kale, learned counsel for the appellant and Sri B.C.Jnanayyaswami, learned counsel for the respondent. 2. Lokayuktha, Bagalkot, is the appellant challenging the acquittal of the respondent in Special Case No.4/2012 by the Judgment dated 16.03.2019. 3. The facts in the nutshell which are utmost necessary for disposal of the present appeal are as under: Upon the written complaint lodged by the complainant by name Ningappa Laxmappa Kuri, Bagalkote, contending that in respect of the pending work with the respondent, he approached him who demanded illegal gratification in a sum of Rs.10,000/- in order to show official favour. - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC-D:510 CRL.A No. 100401 of 2019 4. Based on the said complaint, Bagalkot Lokayuktha Police registered a complaint and secured two independent government servants as pancha witnesses for the intended raid, explained to them the contents of the complaint. After obtaining the bait money comprising 20 currency notes of Rs.500/- denomination, noted the serial numbers of the currency notes in a separate paper and smeared the phenolphthalein powder on those notes and demonstrated the chemical reaction of phenolphthalein powder with the sodium carbonate solution and drafted experimental mahazar. Thereafter, complainant and one of the panch witnesses were directed to approach the accused and on demand made by the accused to hand over the bait money to the hands of the accused and signal the rest of the raid party members including the co-pancha by washing his face with the kerchief. 5. Accordingly, the complainant and the shadow witness proceeded to the place of the accused, while the rest of the raid party members waited outside the office of - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC-D:510 CRL.A No. 100401 of 2019 the accused at their designated positions. Soon after they received the pre-designated signal, they entered the office of the accused and, on enquiry, seized the currency notes which were kept in his pant pocket after securing an alternate pant. Thereafter, trap mahazar was drafted. Investigation continued and charge sheet came to be filed. 6. After securing the presence of the accused, charges were framed for the aforesaid offences. Since the accused pleaded not guilty, the prosecution proceeded to examine eight witnesses, PW1 to PW8, to prove its case. The witnesses included the complainant, shadow witness, co-pancha, official superior, investigation agency personnel, and chemical examiner. 7. The prosecution also placed on record 38 documentary evidence, which were exhibited and marked as Exs.P1 to P38, and 10 material objects, marked as MOs.1 to 10. - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC-D:510 CRL.A No. 100401 of 2019 8. On conclusion of recording the evidence, the statement of the accused, as contemplated under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short, ‘the Cr.P.C’), was recorded, wherein the accused denied all incriminating circumstances. 9. Thereafter, the trial judge heard the arguments of the parties and, noting that the complainant, who initially supported the prosecution case in his examination-in-chief, subsequently turned hostile, and that the shadow witness deposed that he was standing outside the place where the accused was alleged to have received the bribe amount and acquitted the accused. 10. Aggrieved by the order of acquittal, the Lokayukta, Bagalkot, has filed the present appeal on the following grounds:  “It is submitted that the order of acquittal passed by the court below is illegal and improper and the same is liable to be set aside. - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC-D:510 CRL.A No. 100401 of 2019  It is submitted that the impugned Judgement and order of acquittal recorded by the court below is contrary to law, facts of the case and evidence on record. Hence the same is liable to be set aside.  It is submitted that the reasons assigned by the court below while passing the impugned Judgement and order of acquittal are erroneous and hence the court below has arrived at an improper conclusion which has resulted in substantial miscarriage of justice.  It is submitted that though C.W. 1 complainant has turned hostile he has admitted his signature appearing on the complaint (Ex. P. 1(a)). The complainant has also admitted his signature appearing in the Entrustment Panchanama (Ex. P. 2) and also admitted his appearance in the photos (Ex. P. 13 to P. 21) taken at the time of drawing the trap panchanama. The complainant has also admitted his signature appearing in trap panchanama (Ex. P. 22). This witness has also admitted that after the entrustment panchanama himself, pancha witness and Lokayukta staff have gone to the office of Deputy Tahasildar in Lokayukta vehicle. The fact also remains that the official work of the Accused was pending before the Accused during the relevant period when the complaint was lodged. Taking these aspects into - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC-D:510 CRL.A No. 100401 of 2019 consideration the court below ought to have convicted the Accused.  It is submitted that the shadow pancha (CW. 3) has also been examined as P.W. 2 and he has supported the case of prosecution. He has stated that Ningappa Kuri had given 20 notes of RS. 500/- each to the Lokayukta police and the powder was smeared to the said notes. The numbers were noted down and then given to the pancha No. 1. As per the instructions the pancha No. 1 counted the said notes and kept in the pocket of the complainant. Then the hands of the Pancha No, I were washed and the same turned into pink colour and it was sealed in the bottle under panchanama. P.W. 2 has also admitted the C.D. containing the conversation in the mobile before filing complaint and another C.D. containing conversation recorded in mobile before trap. Another witness P.W. 3 has also supported the case of prosecution.  It is submitted that based on the material available on record, the sanctioning authority ie.. CW. 24 who has been examined as P.W. 7 has also deposed that he has found prima facie case and has granted the sanction for prosecuting the Accued. P.W. 25 who is the Lokayukta DSP has also deposed at length about the Investigation carried by him. - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC-D:510 CRL.A No. 100401 of 2019  It is submitted that the above narrated circumstances clearly establishes the fact that the Accused has demanded the bribe amount of RS. 10,000/- and has accepted the same. The Hand wash and pant pocket wash of the Accused has also turned to pink colour. The said amount of RS 10,000/- has been recovered from the Accused and therefore considering all these aspects of the matter the court below ought to have convicted the Accused. There is ample evidence available on record to prove the guilt of the Accused. Therefore the impugned Judgement and order of acquittal is liable to be set aside and the Accused is liable to be convicted.  It is submitted that the appreciation of the evidence by the learned Sessions Judge is not in its proper perspective.  It is submitted that the learned Sessions Judge has not raised proper probabilities and inferences on the basis of the evidence on record. Hence the order of acquittal is liable to be set aside.  It is submitted that viewed from any angle the impugned Judgement and order of acquittal recorded by the learned Sessions Judge for the charged offences is illegal, erroneous and deserves to be set aside.” - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC-D:510 CRL.A No. 100401 of 2019 11. Sri Anil Kale, learned counsel for the appellant, reiterating the grounds urged in the appeal, vehemently contended that the complainant, who had supported the case of the prosecution in his examination-in-chief, was won over by the defence and thereafter turned hostile to the prosecution. 12. It is further contended that the deposition of the shadow witness also makes it clear that he was tutored and won over by the defence. Hence, the order of acquittal has resulted in a miscarriage of justice. 13. He further contended that the demand and acceptance of the bribe amount are established not only through the earlier testimony of the complainant supporting the prosecution in his examination-in-chief, but also through the seizure of the currency notes, which tallied with the experimental mahazar. The colour test also stood positive, including the pant pocket sample seized from the accused. - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC-D:510 CRL.A No. 100401 of 2019 14. Therefore, it was contended that the matter requires reconsideration and that the appeal deserves to be admitted and allowed. 15. Per contra, Sri B.C. Jnanayya Swami, learned counsel appearing for the accused, supports the impugned order and contends that the alleged trap was a motivated one and that the essential ingredients of the offence have not been established by cogent and convincing evidence on record. Therefore, it is contended that the order of acquittal deserves to be confirmed by dismissing the appeal. 16. Having heard the arguments of both sides, this Court has meticulously perused the material on record. Upon such perusal, it is to be noted that the sine qua non parameter for establishing an offence under Sections 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of the Act is proof of demand and acceptance. 17. In the present case, the prosecution has failed to place any cogent evidence on record to establish the - 11 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC-D:510 CRL.A No. 100401 of 2019 aforesaid parameters, inasmuch as the complainant, who initially supported the case of the prosecution, partly subsequently turned hostile during cross-examination. Even in his examination-in-chief, he did not fully support the prosecution case, except deposing about his acquaintance with the accused and the work pending in the office of the accused. 18. The shadow witness also could not lend substantial support to the prosecution, as even in his examination-in-chief he deposed that he was standing outside the cabin of the accused. Therefore, could not have witnessed the actual demand made by the accused or the actual handing over of the tainted currency notes to the accused, which were allegedly kept in his pant pocket. 19. In the absence of the aforesaid parameters being established through the evidence of the prosecution, the mere fact that the colour test stood positive and that documentary evidence was collected by the investigating - 12 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC-D:510 CRL.A No. 100401 of 2019 agency would not be sufficient to prove all the ingredients of the offences punishable under Section 7 or, for that matter, under Sections 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act. 20. The learned trial Judge bestowed due and careful consideration on these aspects of the matter and, for proper and acceptable reasons, acquitted the accused by the impugned judgment. 21. It is well settled that an order of acquittal passed by a duly constituted court reinforces the presumption of innocence in favour of the accused, and where two views are possible on the same set of facts, the view which favours the accused must be preferred. 22. Applying the above cardinal principles to the case on hand, the order of acquittal does not warrant interference. Accordingly, the following: - 13 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC-D:510 CRL.A No. 100401 of 2019 ORDER The criminal appeal is devoid of merit and is dismissed. Sd/- (V.SRISHANANDA) JUDGE Kcm- paragraphs 1 to 4 AC-paragraphs 5 till end. CT-CMU LIST NO.: 2 SL NO.: 16