- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:18638 CRL.A No. 304 of 2014 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 6TH DAY OF APRIL, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.G.S. KAMAL CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 304 OF 2014 (341(Cr.PC)/380(BNSS)) BETWEEN: STATE BY DY. SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION, (ANTI-CORRUPTION BRANCH) NO.36, BELLARY MAIN ROAD, GANGANAGAR, BANGALORE-560 032. …APPELLANT (BY SRI. PRASANNA KUMAR P., ADVOCATE A/W SRI. RAHUL KRISHNA REDDY P., ADVOCATES) AND: SRI L.M. LOKESH S/O SRI MALLEGOWDA, AGED:MAJOR, PROPRIETOR, M/s.KALLESHWAR AGENCIES, MARKET ROAD, CHIKKAMAGALUR - 577 101 KARNATAKA. …RESPONDENT (BY SRI. R NAGENDRA NAIK, ADVOCATE) THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL IS FILED U/S.341 CR.P.C PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED:30.04.2012 PASSED BY THE XXXII ADDL. CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE AND SPL. JUDGE FOR CBI CASES, (CCH-34) AT BANGALORE IN CRL.MISC.NO.1889/2012 AND CONSEQUENTLY Digitally signed by SUMA B N Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:18638 CRL.A No. 304 of 2014 ALLOW THE APPLICATION FILED BY THE APPELLANT UNDER SECTION 340 OF CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE. THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR HEARING, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.G.S. KAMAL ORAL JUDGMENT This appeal is by the State represented by CBI, being aggrieved by the order dated 30.04.2012 passed in Criminal Miscellaneous No.1889/2012 on the file of XXXII Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge and Special Judge for CBI cases, Bengaluru, CCH 34, by which an application filed under Section 340 of Cr.P.C has been rejected. 2. Case of the appellant is that one Srikant Sharma, Income Tax Officer, Ward No.1, Chikkamagaluru, faced the trial in Special CC No.330/2010 for the offences punishable under Section 7 and Section 13(2) r/w Section 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, on the allegation of he demanding and accepting the illegal gratification of Rs.10,000/- on 12.04.2010 from the complainant one L.M.Lokesh for showing official favour. - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:18638 CRL.A No. 304 of 2014 3. Charges were framed against said Srikanth Sharma and since he had denied, the matter was taken up for trial. It is alleged during the trial, a written complaint of complainant named L.M.Lokesh was marked as Exhibit P1, wherein he had specifically alleged regarding specific demand of bribe of Rs.10,000/- made by said Srikant Sharma. However, during the trial, said L.M.Lokesh had denied that said Srikanth Sharma had demanded the bribe. As such, he was treated as a hostile witness. In the cross examination he had admitted to the contents of the complaint and the signature and also drawing of the entrustment mahazar. 4. That based on the said evidence the trial Court had observed demeanor of the said witness who was examined as PW10 that there was "half hearted effort on his part to say he having handed over the bribe amount to the accused." It is based on this observation of the trial Court, it was contended that a prima facie case had been made out for the offences punishable under Section 193 IPC requiring lodging of the complaint before the competent Court after the enquiry under Section 340 of Cr.P.C. - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:18638 CRL.A No. 304 of 2014 5. Contenting as above, a petition under Section 340 was filed. 6. The trial Court on hearing the Special Public Prosecutor on the said application framed the following points for its consideration: "1. Whether the prosecution establishes that it is expedient in the interest of the justice that an enquiry is required to be made regarding the commission of the offence by the respondent under Section 193 IPC? 2. Whether the prosecution establishes the prima-facie materials regarding intentionally giving false evidence by the respondent in Spl.CC No.330/2010 and it is just and expedient to make a complaint to the court of the competent jurisdiction? 3. What order?" 7. Trial Court on appreciation of the material on record answered points 1 and 2 in the negative and consequently rejected the application/petition. Being aggrieved, the present appeal. 8. Sri.P.Prasanna Kumar, learned counsel along with Sri.Rahul Krishna Reddy P., learned counsel for appellant taking this Court through the records vehemently submits that the trial Court has erred in not taking note of its own observation - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:18638 CRL.A No. 304 of 2014 made during disposal of original case in Spl.C.C.No.330/2010 wherein Court had made categoric observation of said Lokesh- PW10 not deposing fully but making half-hearted attempt, which, according to learned counsel is a case of tendering false evidence, knowing fully well the same to be false, falling within the purview of Section 195 IPC, warranting enquiry and lodging of the complaint under Section 340 of Cr.P.C. 9. Learned counsel for the appellant also draws attention of this Court to the deposition of PW10 recorded on 29.06.2011 in Special CC No.330/2010, wherein at paragraph 15 the witness has admitted that the conversation was reduced into writing in his presence and he had admitted the correctness of the same. That the conversation which was reduced into writing was marked as per Exhibit P30. He also draws attention of this Court to the contents of paragraph 17 of the deposition wherein the said witness has admitted that he did not know the contents of Exhibit P1 and that the accused did not receive any bribe for showing official favour and he was not shown any official favour. - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:18638 CRL.A No. 304 of 2014 10. Referring to the aforesaid observation of the trial Court and the deposition of PW10, it is vehemently contended that when the trap mahazar has been proved, a case of demand and acceptance has been made out, it was not open for the complainant at whose instance the entire machinery was set into action to turn hostile and to depose contrary to what was claimed by him in his complaint. It is urged if this tendency is not addressed, the sanctity stands eroded. 11. Learned counsel for appellant also submits that a clever witness can make it appear that he is deposing naturally while he would intentionally mislead the entire trial of prosecution. He relies upon the judgment in the case of A.R.Antulay Vs R.S.Nayak reported in AIR 1984 SC 718. Hence seeks for allowing of the appeal. 12. Per contra learned counsel appearing for the respondent on the other hand submits that the very ingredient of Section 195 IPC has not been made out warranting further action contemplated under Section 340 of Cr.P.C. He submits the witness during his chief examination has categorically stated that he merely apprehensive of accused intending to - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:18638 CRL.A No. 304 of 2014 demand bribe while there was no such factual demand indeed. That during the trial the said witness has merely reiterated that there was no demand for the bribe. Therefore, he submits no attribute of malafide intent can be made to witness PW10. He submits that the trial Court in the impugned Judgment at paragraphs 11 and 12 has specifically adverted to the purported observation made with regard to "half-hearted attempt made by the witness". That the trial Court has rightly come to the conclusion that the said observation would in any manner not make out a case of PW1 intentionally giving false evidence, falling within the provisions of Section 195 of the IPC. He further submits in the original proceedings of Special Case No.330/2010, the accused has been acquitted and the prosecution has not preferred any appeal. In the absence of prosecution preferring any appeal, this subsidiary proceedings is of no consequence. Hence seeks for rejection of the appeal. 13. Heard and perused the records. 14. Section 191 and 192 of IPC reads as under: 191. Giving false evidence.—Whoever, being legally bound by an oath or by an express provision of law to state the truth, or being bound by law to make a declaration upon any subject, makes any statement which is false, and which he - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:18638 CRL.A No. 304 of 2014 either knows or believes to be false or does not believe to be true, is said to give false evidence. Explanation 1.—A statement is within the meaning of this section, whether it is made verbally or otherwise. Explanation 2.—A false statement as to the belief of the person attesting is within the meaning of this section, and a person may be guilty of giving false evidence by stating that he believes a thing which he does not believe, as well as by stating that he knows a thing which he does not know. 192. Fabricating false evidence.—Whoever causes any circumstance to exist or [makes any false entry in any book or record, or electronic record or makes any document or electronic record containing a false statement,] intending that such circumstance, false entry or false statement may appear in evidence in a judicial proceeding, or in a proceeding taken by law before a public servant as such, or before an arbitrator, and that such circumstance, false entry or false statement, so appearing in evidence, may cause any person who in such proceeding is to form an opinion upon the evidence, to entertain an erroneous opinion touching any point material to the result of such proceeding is said “to fabricate false evidence”. Section 340 of Cr.P.C reads as under: "340. Procedure in cases mentioned in section 195.—(1) When, upon an application made to it in this behalf or otherwise, any Court is of opinion that it is expedient in the interests of Justice that an inquiry should be made into any offence referred to in clause (b) of sub-section (1) of section 195, which appears to have been committed in or in relation to a proceeding in that Court or, as the case may be, in respect of a document produced or given in evidence in a proceeding in that Court, such Court may, after such preliminary inquiry, if any, as it thinks necessary,— (a) record a finding to that effect; (b) make a complaint thereof in writing; (c) send it to a Magistrate of the first class having jurisdiction; (d) take sufficient security for the appearance for the accused before such Magistrate, or if the alleged offence is non- bailable and the Court thinks it necessary so to do, send the accused in custody to such Magistrate; and - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:18638 CRL.A No. 304 of 2014 (e) bind over any person to appear and give evidence before such Magistrate. (2) The power conferred on a Court by sub-section (1) in respect of an offence may, in any case where that Court has neither made a complaint under sub-section (1) in respect of that offence nor rejected an application for the making of such complaint, be exercised by the Court to which such former Court is subordinate within the meaning of sub- section (4) of section 195. (3) A complaint made under this section shall be signed,— (a) where the Court making the complaint is a High Court, by such officer of the Court as the Court may appoint; [(b) in any other case, by the presiding officer of the Court or by such officer of the Court as the Court may authorise in writing in this behalf.] (4) In this section, “Court” has the same meaning as in section 195. 15. Deposition of PW10 at paragraph 5 read as under: "5. Now I am seeing ………….Then I was filed the compliant against the accused on 09.04.2010 before the SP, CBI, Bangalore since I was having apprehension that the accused would enhance the amount of the income tax or otherwise would insist upon the payment of the bribe. Since the accused was called myself twice or thrice. Therefore, I was having such apprehension as such I was mentioned the said fact in the complaint. The compliant is as per Ex.P1 the signature of the witness is marked as Ex.P1(a)." 16. Clearly, complainant-PW10 in his chief examination has stated that he was apprehensive of accused demanding the payment of bribe. - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:18638 CRL.A No. 304 of 2014 17. On a specific query by this Court, learned counsel for the appellant fairly submitted even the shadow witness who was examined as PW2 has merely spoken about purported receipt of the amount and not about the demand. 18. The observation made by the trial Court in its judgment about PW10 making half-hearted attempt, which is found to be the basis for the present application, has been clarified by the trial Court at paragraphs 11 and 12 of the impugned order which reads as under: "11. Now, this court has to ascertain the deliberate falsehood that the prosecution is alleging against respondent M.Lokesh. On looking to the entire materials on the record this court could finds the clue that respondent M.Lokesh was the complaint in Spl.C.C.No.330/2010 which was ended in acquittal on 04.11.2011. This court could also observe that respondent being PW.10 in the said case did not fully support the prosecution. While he deposes in his chief examination that he was paid Rs.10,000/- to the accused, however, in para No.16 of his cross-examination he admits that the accused did not demand bribe, he was not received any bribe for showing the official favour and he was not shown any official favour. He in para No.19 of his deposition he admits accused was never demanded the bribe, he was not paid the bribe amount, no such amount was recovered from the possession of the accused. On looking to the above evidence in para No.35 of the judgment in Spl.C.C.No.330/2010 this court did observe that there is a doubt regarding demand and acceptance of the bribe by the accused. However, in para No.39 of the judgment this court observe that there is half hearted efforts on the part of PW.10 regarding to say his handing over of the bribe amount to the accused. While considering the totality of the deposition of PW.10 this court observe that there was an half hearted effort on the part of the PW.10 to depose regarding demand and acceptance of the bribe by the accused. - 11 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:18638 CRL.A No. 304 of 2014 12. Now, on careful going through the judgment in Spl.C.C.No.330/2010 this court not finds the observation regarding giving of the false evidence by the PW.10. However, according to the learned Special Public Prosecutor the observation regarding half hearted efforts on the part of PW.10, the respondent, herein to say about the demand and acceptance of the bribe by the accused is sufficient to believe that it is an observation of intentionally giving false evidence. On careful going through the judgment this court could not agree with the learned Special Public Prosecutor that there is an observation against the respondent regarding his intentionally giving false evidence. This court has also not observed that to eradicate the perjury it is expedient to set the criminal law into the motion against the respondent herein." 19. This Court is of the considered view that trial Court has indeed come to the just conclusion of there being absence of deliberate falsehood by the witness as contemplated under Section 195 IPC. The trial Court has rightly rejected the application warranting no interference. Appeal dismissed. Sd/- (M.G.S. KAMAL) JUDGE SBN List No.: 1 Sl No.: 35