- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC-D:2276 CRL.A No. 100411 of 2023 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,AT DHARWAD DATED THIS THE 13TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V.SRISHANANDA CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 100411 OF 2023 (A) BETWEEN: STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY SPECIAL PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, THROUGH LOKAYUKTA POLICE DISTRICT KOPPAL. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. SRINIVAS B. NAIK, ADVOCATE) AND: REVANASIDDAPPA KOLKARA S/O PAMPAPATHEPPA AGE 55 YEARS, OCC. TECHNICAL ASSISTANT O/O. ASSISTANT DIRECTOR OF AGRICULTURE GANGAVATHI DISTRICT KOPPAL, R/O. BUDAGUMPA 583227. …RESPONDENT (BY SRI. NEELENDRA D. GUNDE, ADVOCATE) THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL IS FILED U/SEC. 378(1)(3) OF CR.P.C., SEEKING GRANT SPECIAL LEAVE AND SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND ORDER OF ACQUITTAL DATED 10/08/2022 PASSED IN SPECIAL. C.C (P.C) NO. 13/2012 ON THE FILE OF PRINCIPAL DISTRICT SESSIONS AND SPECIAL JUDGE, KOPPAL. AND CONSEQUENTLY, CONVICT THE ACCUSED/ RESPONDENT IN SPECIAL C.C. (P.C) NO. 13/2012 FOR THE OFFENCES PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTIONS 7, 13 (1) (D) R/W 13(2) OF PC ACT AND IMPOSE MAXIMUM SENTENCE, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE. CHANDRASHEKAR LAXMAN KATTIMANI Digitally signed by CHANDRASHEKAR LAXMAN KATTIMANI Date: 2026.02.20 12:33:19 +0530 - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC-D:2276 CRL.A No. 100411 of 2023 THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: ORAL JUDGMENT (PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V.SRISHANANDA) 1. Heard Sri. Srinivas B. Naik, learned counsel for the appellant and Sri. Neelendra D. Gunde, learned counsel for the respondent. 2. Lokayukta is the appellant challenging the order of dated 10.08.2022 passed in Special Case (P.C.) No.13/2012 by the learned Principal Sessions and Special Judge, Koppal1, acquitting the accused for the offences punishable under Sections 7, 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 19882. 3. Facts in nutshell which are utmost necessary for disposal of the present appeal are as under: 1 For short, ‘the Trial Court’ 2 For short, ‘P.C. Act’ - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC-D:2276 CRL.A No. 100411 of 2023 3.1. A complaint came to be lodged by one Sri. Shrinivas S/o. Satyanarayan with the Lokayukta Police, Koppal, contending that in respect of the pending work with the office of the accused, he had enquired the accused who demanded a sum of Rs.24,000/- as the illegal gratification. Complainant was not willing to meet the said illegal gratification and therefore, he had approached the Lokayukta Police. 3.2. In order to ascertain that the version of the complainant was true, the Lokayukta Police had sent voice recorder to the complainant and after confirming about the demand, they intended to trap the accused. 3.3. Accordingly, the Police Inspector Lokayukta secured the presence of two independent witnesses to act as panchas for the intended trap proceedings. 3.4. In their presence, the complaint averments was read over and the voice recorder was played and a sum of Rs.24,000/- was secured from the custody of the complainant, comprising Rs.1,000/- of 10 notes and Rs.400 - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC-D:2276 CRL.A No. 100411 of 2023 of 28 notes. The serial numbers of those notes were recorded on a separate paper and thereafter, phenolphthalein powder was applied to them. A chemical reaction of phenolphthalein powder with the colorless sodium carbonate solution was demonstrated to the pancha witnesses. Thereafter, the Police Inspector directed that accused and PW2/Shadow witness to visit the office of the accused and on demand should hand over the tainted currency to the accused and shadow witness was directed to closely observe the activities that would take place at the time of demand and acceptance of the tainted currency and report to the police. 3.5. Instructions were also given to the complainant that after he hands over the tainted currency to the accused, he should come out and give the signal to the rest of the raid party members. All these activities were recorded into writing in the form of experimental mahazar. 3.6. Subsequently, the team proceeded towards the office of the accused and complainant and shadow witness - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC-D:2276 CRL.A No. 100411 of 2023 went inside the office of the accused. Accused told them to wait for sometime and thereafter, it is the complainant who offered them to come for the lunch. 3.7. As such, complainant, accused and shadow witness went to the hotel Survesh at Gangavathi which was situated about 100 to 200 meters away from the office of the accused. All of them went inside the hotel. Complainant and accused moved forward and shadow witness followed them. Complainant and accused sat on a one table and shadow witness was sitting little away from the complainant and the accused. 3.8. Thereafter, the accused said to have demanded the money for illegal gratification and the complainant handed over the same, which the accused took it from his right hand and counted it and then with his left hand he kept into the left side pant pocket. Thereafter, they completed the lunch and complainant came out and gave the pre-designated signal. Immediately remaining members - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC-D:2276 CRL.A No. 100411 of 2023 of the raid party came to the hotel, demanded the illegal gratification received by the accused. 3.9. They conducted the color wash and which turned positive and seized the tainted currency and thereafter, brought the accused to his office, collected the documents pertaining to the work pending with the complainant and then arrested the accused and produced him before the Special Judge. 4. On completion of the investigation, the charge sheet came to be filed. 5. Presence of the accused was secured and charges were framed. 6. Accused pleaded not guilty and therefore, trial was held in order to bring home the guilt of the accused. 7. Prosecution examined 17 witnesses as PW1 to PW17 and as many as 38 documents were placed on record which were exhibited and marked as Ex.P1 to P38. Attendance Register Extract is marked as Ex.D1 and - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC-D:2276 CRL.A No. 100411 of 2023 material objects were placed on record, which were marked as MO1 to MO11. 8. On completion of recording of the prosecution evidence, accused's statement as is contemplated under Section 313 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, was recorded, in which the accused has denied the incriminatory circumstances. Thereafter, the learned Trial Judge heard the arguments of the parties and by impugned judgment dismissed the case and acquitted the accused. 9. Being aggrieved by the same, it is Lokayukta Police who has filed this present appeal on the following grounds:  “It is submitted that the impugned judgment and order of acquittal passed by the trial Court is contrary to law, facts and evidence on record, and the same is liable to be set aside.  It is submitted that the Trial Court has erred in appreciating the evidence of the Prosecution, not applied its judicial mind, travelled beyond the scope of evidence and arrived to a wrong conclusion of acquittal for the charge levelled against the - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC-D:2276 CRL.A No. 100411 of 2023 respondent, which has resulted in miscarriage of justice.  It is submitted that the following are the ingredients of section 7 of the Act: a) The accused must be a public servant or expecting to be a public servant; b) He should accept or obtain or agrees to accept or attempts to obtain from any person c) For himself or for any other person; d) Any gratification other than legal remuneration; e) As a motive or reward for doing or forbearing to do any official act or to show any favour or disfavour.  It is submitted that, Section 13(1)(d) of the Act has the following ingredients which have to be proved before bringing home the guilt of a public servant, namely- a) The accused must be a public servant; b) By corrupt or illegal means, obtains for himself or for any other person any valuable thing or pecuniary advantage; or by abusing his position as public servant, - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC-D:2276 CRL.A No. 100411 of 2023 obtains for himself or for any other person any valuable thing or pecuniary advantage without any public interest. c) To make out an offence under section 13(1)(d), there is no requirement that the valuable thing or pecuniary advantage should have been received as a motive or reward. d) An agreement to accept or an attempt to obtain does not fall within section 13(1)(d). e) Mere acceptance of any valuable thing or pecuniary advantage is not an offence under this provision. f) Therefore, to make out an offence under this provision, there has to be actual obtainment. g) Since the legislature has used two different expressions namely "obtains" or "accepts", the difference between these two must be noted.  It is submitted that P.W.1 is the complainant who has supported the case of prosecution for demand of bribe by the respondent and bribe amount paid by him. - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC-D:2276 CRL.A No. 100411 of 2023  It is submitted that P.W.2 Selvaraj who is serving as a teacher in Government Private School and a Shadow witness has consistently deposed about pre trap procedure, the demand and acceptance of bribe amount by the respondent in the hotel and laying the trap by the police and trap mahazar prepared by the police. Further he has also deposed about the voice recorded by the complainant regarding demand of bribe by the respondent. The consistent, cogent and reliable evidence of independent shadow witness has been not properly appreciated and relied upon by the Trial Court to prove the charges.  It is submitted that P.W.3 Adivayya who was working as First Division Assistant in Zilla Panchayath, Koppal has deposed a consistent evidence supporting the case of prosecution and the trap laid by the Police after the respondent demanded and accepted the bribe amount from the complainant.  It is submitted that P.W.4 Veeresh who was Deputy Director of Agriculture Koppal has deposed regarding purchase of equipments by the farmers and sanction of subsidy. Further he has deposed that the respondent was the concerned Agriculture Officer who was trapped by the police.  It is submitted that P.W.8 Nagareddeppa has deposed about purchase of equipments from the - 11 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC-D:2276 CRL.A No. 100411 of 2023 complainant and application submitted by him for subsidy. P.W.9 Assistant Engineer has prepared the sketch of the spot. P.W.12 Ningappa is another farmer who submitted application for purchase of equipments under the scheme and entitled for subsidy.  It is submitted that P.W.13 Manjunath Patil, Deputy Secretary has deposed about sanction order to prosecute the respondent. P.W.14 is a police witness and P.W.16 is the 10. The 10 has deposed in detail regarding the entire investigation in the matter.  It is submitted that during the Trial of the case the respondent never challenged the legality of sanction order Ex.P.35, but the Trial Court without there being any defect in the sanction order on its own has discussed about validity of sanction order and recorded erroneous finding on such sanction. There is cogent evidence of P.W.13 to prove that the sanction has been accorded by the concerned authority, by application of mind and following proper procedure. The evidence of P.W.13 has been ignored by the Trial Court without any valid justification.  It is submitted that to prove the demand of bribe by the respondent there is an electronic evidence placed before the Trial Court and the same is not properly relied upon by the Trial Court. - 12 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC-D:2276 CRL.A No. 100411 of 2023  It is submitted that the view of Trial Court regarding demand of bribe and acceptance of it in the public place is against the rules of evidence. It is not necessary that bribe should be accepted only in the place of work and such acceptance is believable by the courts.  It is submitted that in the recent judgment rendered by Hon'ble reme Court Constitutional Bench in the case of Neeraj Dutta vs State (Govt of N.C.T.Of Delhi) decided on 15th of December 2022, it has been held that direct evidence of demand or acceptance of bribe is not necessary to convict the public servant under the Prevention of Corruption Act and that such fact can be proved through circumstantial evidence. Even if the direct evidence of complainant is not available, owing to death or other reasons the or complainant turning hostile. In the present case there is evidence of complainant to prove the demand of bribe by the respondent. Further there is a direct evidence of P.W.2 shadow witness to prove the demand and acceptance of bribe by the respondent at the spot. Such acceptable evidence has been not believed by the Trial Court and gave a finding that the case is doubtful. Therefore, the approach of Trial Court is not judicious and against the Principals rendered by the Hon'ble Apex Court. - 13 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC-D:2276 CRL.A No. 100411 of 2023  The learned Judge, while passing the said judgment, order of acquittal, has not appreciated the legal nuances involved in their proper perspective, which has resulted in substantial miscarriage of justice vis-a-vis the appellant.  The appreciation of evidence by the trial Court, while passing the impugned judgment and order of acquittal is not in its proper prospective. Hence, the same is liable to be set aside.  Thus, viewed from any angle, the impugned judgment and order of acquittal is even otherwise erroneous, and unsustainable in law and hence the same is liable to be set aside.” 10. Learned counsel for the appellant would contend that though the complainant has turned hostile to the case of the prosecution, the oral testimony of shadow witness and other attendant circumstances including the seizure of the huge currency notes of Rs.24,000/-, color test being positive and work was pending with the accused, the prosecution is able to establish the ingredients of demand and acceptance and also handling of the tainted currency by the accused, the learned Trial Judge ought to have - 14 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC-D:2276 CRL.A No. 100411 of 2023 convicted the accused and sought for admitting the appeal for further consideration. 11. He would further contend that the learned Trial Judge has misdirected in not appreciating the material evidence properly and only on the ground that complainant has not supported the case of the prosecution, acquitted the accused resulting in miscarriage of justice and sought for allowing of the appeal. 12. Per contra, the learned counsel for the accused supports the impugned judgment. 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 noticed that, in the case on hand, the prosecution is not able to prove the demand and acceptance by placing cogent evidence on record inasmuch as the complainant has turned hostile to the case of the prosecution in toto. 15. Insofar as the shadow witness who is examined as PW2, in his cross examination he categorically admits - 15 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC-D:2276 CRL.A No. 100411 of 2023 that the accused did not demand the money, but it is the complainant who thrusted the money into the accused pant packet. 16. Moreover, when there is a specific answer elicited in the examination-in-chief itself that after receiving the tainted currency, accused, complainant and shadow witness had lunch and thereafter, pre-designated signal is given. 17. If the accused had the lunch, necessarily he would have had the hand wash after completing the lunch. Therefore, color test taking place even before he handled the tainted currency in the presence of the rest of the raid team members, how it turned positive is a question that remains unanswered. 18. Further, the place of incident is the hotel. No other independent witnesses who were present in the hotel have supported the case of the prosecution. 19. Taking note of these aspects of the matter, when the prosecution has failed to prove the demand and acceptance of the tainted currency merely on the ground - 16 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC-D:2276 CRL.A No. 100411 of 2023 that color test stood positive which is also doubtful and work being pending, the main ingredient to attract the offence punishable under Section 7, 13(1)(d) and 13(2) of the P.C. Act, is not established. 20. As such, the learned Trial Judge is justified in acquitting the accused. 21. It is the celebrated principles of criminal jurisprudence that the prosecution has to travel a long distance between the suspicion and proof and so also if two views are permissible in a set of circumstances, a view that favors the accused must be preferred. 22. Further, an order of acquittal reinforces the innocence of the accused. 23. Applying these celebrated principles to the facts of the case, this Court does not find any grounds whatsoever much less good grounds to admit the appeal for further consideration. - 17 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC-D:2276 CRL.A No. 100411 of 2023 24. Accordingly, the following: ORDER (i) The appeal is dismissed. (ii) Bail bonds, if any, stand cancelled. Sd/- (V.SRISHANANDA) JUDGE SMM / Ct-cmu LIST NO.: 1 SL NO.: 18