- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:21010 CRL.A No. 741 of 2014 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 16TH DAY OF APRIL, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.G.S. KAMAL CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 741 OF 2014 (C) BETWEEN: B VENKATARAVANAPPA S/O BABANNA AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS, SURVEY SUPERVISOR, TALUK OFFICE, MADHUGIRI R/O KALIDASANAGARA, KORATAGERE, NATIVE OF HOSUR VILLAGE, GOWRIBIDANUR TLAUK, CHIKKABALLAPURA DISTRICT - 570 012. …APPELLANT (BY SRI. A H BHAGAVAN.,ADVOCATE) AND: STATE OF KARNATAKA BY LOKAYUKTA POLICE, TUMKUR, REPRSENTED BY THE COUNSEL FOR LOKAYUKTA HIGH COURT BUILDINGS BANGALORE - 560 001. …RESPONDENT (BY SRI. B.S. PRASAD.,SPECIAL COUNSEL) THIS CRL.A. IS FILED U/S.374(2) CR.P.C PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 05.08.2014 PASSED BY THE II ADDL. DIST. AND S.J., TUMKUR IN SPL.C.NO.5/11 - CONVICTING THE APPELLANT/ACCUSED FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/S 7 AND 13(1)(d) R/W SEC. 13(2) OF PREVENTION OF CORRUPTION ACT, 1988. AND THE APPELLANT/ACCUSED IS Digitally signed by SUMA B N Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:21010 CRL.A No. 741 of 2014 SENTENCED TO UNDERGO RIGOROUS IMPRISONMENT FOR A PERIOD OF SIX MONTHS AND A FINE OF RS.5,000/-, IN DEFAULT OF PAYMENT OF FINE, 3 MONTHS R.I. FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/S 7 R/W 13(2) OF THE PC ACT, 1988 AND ETC. THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR FURTHER 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 accused being aggrieved by the judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed in Special Case No.5/2011 on the file of II Additional District and Sessions Judge, Tumkuru (hereinafter referred to as 'the Trial Court'), by which the accused-appellant has been convicted and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of six months and to pay fine of Rs.5,000/- and in default of payment of fine to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of 3 months for the offence punishable under Section 7 read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act, 1988') and further sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of two years and to pay fine of Rs.5,000/- and in default of payment of fine to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of 3 months for the offence punishable under Section 13(1)(d) r/w 13(2) of the Act, 1988. - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:21010 CRL.A No. 741 of 2014 2. The case of the prosecution is that accused-appellant at the relevant point of time was working as a Survey Supervisor, Madhugiri Taluk. That the complainant had approached the office of the accused-appellant herein for the purpose of preparation of survey sketch in view of a family partition of the family properties and had made an application on 12.01.2009 in this regard, accused-appellant had come to the village of the complainant on 29.01.2009 and conducted the mahazar. However, had not given the survey sketch. Complainant had visited the office of the accused-appellant on several occasions. He was made to run repeatedly without any reason. That on 30.03.2009, when the complainant visited the appellant-accused, he had demanded a sum of Rs.24,000/-. On bargain, the said amount was reduced to Rs.12,000/-. Since the complainant was not willing to pay the said amount, he had filed a complaint in this regard on 06.04.2009 before the Police Inspector, Lokayuktha, Tumkuru District. Accordingly, the case in Crime No.4/2009 was registered against the accused for the offences punishable Sections 7, 13(1)(d) r/w Section 13(2) of the Act, 1988. - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:21010 CRL.A No. 741 of 2014 3. Pre-trap mahazar was conducted, a sum of Rs.12,000/- with the specific denomination having smeared with the finopthelin powder was handed over to the complainant. The complainant was asked to go along with the shadow witness namely S. Doddarangaiah-PW.2 and was instructed to pay the said money, if the accused-appellant had demanded and to indicate the same accordingly. Complainant along with S. Doddarangaiah-PW.2 went to the office of the accused-appellant on 06.04.2009 between 12:30 p.m and 12:45 p.m. The complainant had asked the accused-appellant if the survey sketches were ready to which the accused-appellant had answered in the affirmative and had asked the complainant if he had brought the money by hand signal and the complainant replied that he had brought the money. Further, complainant had taken the money from his left hand side pocket of the shirt and handed over the same to the accused- appellant. Accused-appellant having received the same kept in a file which was kept in Almirah. Thereupon the complainant had given the signal as instructed, at which time Lokayuktha official went inside the office of the accused-appellant and introduced themselves, conducted the trap mahazar, hands of - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:21010 CRL.A No. 741 of 2014 the accused-appellant were washed with the phenolphthalein solution which turned into pink colour. Thereafter the accused- appellant was asked about whereabouts of the bribe money. Upon the instructions given by the accused-appellant of he having kept the money in a file inside the Almirah, it was taken out through panch witness Puttappa-PW4 and on verification and examination it was found that the amount recovered from the file kept in the storage bureau was the amount which was handed over to the complainant while drawing pre-trap mahazar. Accordingly, charge sheet was filed. 4. Since the accused-appellant denied the charges and sought for trial. The matter was set down for trial, prosecution examined 8 witnesses as PW1 to PW8 and exhibited 12 documents marked as Ex.P1 to Ex.P12 and 9 material objects marked as MO1 to MO9. No evidence was recorded on behalf of the accused. 5. Thereafter, statement of the accused has been recorded under Section 313(1)(b) of Cr.P.C, which he has denied. - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:21010 CRL.A No. 741 of 2014 6. The trial Court framed the following points for its consideration: '' 1) Whether prosecution proves beyond reasonable doubt that the accused, being a public servant, committed criminal mis- conduct by demanding a sum of Rs.24,000/- and struck down the amount to Rs.12,000/- and received a sum of Rs.12,000/- on 06.4.2009 from the complainant as a reward for issuing a survey sketch in respect of the properties belonging to Cw.1 and thereby committed an offence punishable under section 7 of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988? 2) Whether prosecution proves beyond reasonable doubt that on 06.04.2009 accused, being a public servant, abusing his official position, obtained for himself a pecuniary advantage to the tune of Rs.12,000/- from the complainant by demanding and accepting the same as an illegal gratification and thereby committed an offence punishable under section 13(1)(d) r/w S.13(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988? 3) What order? '' 7. On appreciation of the evidence, proceeded to pass the impugned judgment and order as noted above. Being aggrieved, appellant-accused is before this court. 8. Learned counsel appearing for appellant submitted: (a) that in the deposition of PW1, there is no mention of demand by the accused on the date of the incident. Similarly, PW2, the shadow witness has not stated anything about the demand and acceptance of bribe amount by the accused in his statement recorded under Section 162 of the Cr.P.C. Though the prosecution has examined Shankarappa-PW3, who is - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:21010 CRL.A No. 741 of 2014 stated to be close relative of PW1 his presence is not corroborated. (b) PW6-Shiresthedar, who has been examined to identify the voice in the tape recorder has not recognized the voice of the accused. (c) PW7- Commissioner who granted the sanction order has not fully supported the case of prosecution. (d) Complaint was dated 06.04.2009 whereas the sketch was prepared on 10.03.2009 and the accused had affixed his signature on 30.03.2009 and the same was handed over to the Shiresthedar one Sreedevi and Ravindranath who have not been examined by the prosecution. (e) Prosecution has failed to prove the elements of demand and acceptance. Prosecution failed to prove pendency of work which was required to have been proved beyond reasonable doubt. That even according to PW1 and PW2, accused had merely demanded the money by signalling through his hand. He refers to the deposition of Investigation Officer- PW8 and points out to the portion where the Investigation Officer admitted that the complainant has not stated about accused demanding the bribe by hand signal. - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:21010 CRL.A No. 741 of 2014 (f) that on the very same day and immediately on the completion of trap proceedings had given a statement contending that the alleged bribe money was forcibly kept by the complainant inside the file which was kept in the Almirah. (g) that there was no demand of any nature whatsoever by the accused. Only because accused belonged to a downtrodden community and his progress was not accepted by certain persons with vested interests, who had set up and stage managed the entire process. He submits that the statement given by the accused is natural. (h) He relies upon the judgment of the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Laxman Vs State of Karnataka passed in Criminal Appeal No.2625/2012 dated 16.02.2024 referring to paragraph 20 of the said judgment, which in turn refers to another judgment in the case of Chandrasha Vs State of Karnataka through Lokayuktha Police, Kalaburgi, and submits that pendency of the work of the complainant with the accused is one of the facts required to be proved by the prosecution and in instant case accused having completed his work of preparing the sketch by affixing signature on 30.03.2009, no work was pending at his end. - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:21010 CRL.A No. 741 of 2014 (i) Referring to another judgment of the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in the case of The State of Karnataka Vs ManuSingh dated 24.07.2025 passed in Crl.A.No.100142/2016 paragraph 12, he submits demand and payment by way of gesture or signal was not sufficient to constitute demand and payment of illegal gratification. Thus he submits in the instant case the prosecution has failed to prove the case beyond reasonable doubt and seeks for allowing of the appeal. 9. Per contra learned counsel appearing for respondent- Lokayuktha submits: (a) that there is consistency in the statement given by PW1 prior to and subsequent to recording of his evidence, which is corroborated by the evidence of PW2-Doddarangaiah. That both the witnesses have stated about accused demanding the money by his hand signal which is sufficient to constitute the demand, it need not be a oral demand. (b) that admittedly amount was found inside a file kept in the Almirah belonging to the accused, which was taken out upon the instruction and indication by the accused after conducting of Phenolphthalein test which turned positive. That merely because the - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:21010 CRL.A No. 741 of 2014 word hand (PÉÊ) was not mentioned in the statement, the core of the case of prosecution cannot be taken away. The substance of demand and acceptance has been proved by the prosecution, therefore, the burden was on the accused to discharge in terms of Section 20 of the Act. (c) that the accused, who alleges conspiracy by certain persons with vested interests has not examined any witness in justification of his stand taken. That the accused has not denied he having the responsibility of preparing the sketch and handing over to the complainant. That in most of the cases even if the records/documents are kept ready, they wouldn't hand over the same unless their demands are met with and this is one such classic case wherein though the sketch was kept ready on 30th as claimed by the accused, it was not handed over until the amount was paid. (d) He refers to the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Neeraj Dutta Vs State (Govt. of N.C.T of Delhi) reported in 2023 SCC Online SC 280 and referring to paragraph 88.4 of the said judgment submits for the purpose of constitution of offence under Section 7, acceptance of the money was sufficient. If other circumstances are established, demand and acceptance stands proved. - 11 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:21010 CRL.A No. 741 of 2014 Therefore, he submits the trial Court having taken note of these aspects of the matter has rightly come to the conclusion of convicting the accused-appellant for the offences noted above and seeks for dismissal of the appeal. 10. Heard and perused the records. 11. Point that arise for consideration is: '' Whether the trial Court is justified in convicting the accused-appellant for the offences punishable under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of the P.C. Act, 1988? '' 12. It is not in dispute that at the relevant point in time accused was working as Taluk Survey Supervisor. It is also not in dispute that the complainant had indeed met the accused for preparation of a survey sketch. Accused had apparently gone to the spot on 29.01.2009 and had demanded payment of bribe amount of Rs.24,000/- for him to issue survey sketch as required by the complainant. As per the allegations made in the complaint at Ex.P1, complainant had visited the office of the accused on 30.03.2009, on which date the accused had demanded bribe amount of Rs.24,000/- which after negotiation - 12 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:21010 CRL.A No. 741 of 2014 was reduced to Rs.12,000/-. Though it is vehemently urged by counsel for the appellant-accused that there was no work pending as on 30.03.2009 at the end of the accused, the very line of suggestions putforth during the cross examination on behalf of the accused to the complainant-PW.1 indicate that the complainant-PW.1 had indeed met accused on 30.03.2009. Relevant to refer to paragraph Nos.7 and 8 of the cross examination of PW1 which reads as under: "7. ಾಸ ಸ ೆಯ ¸ÉÌ ಮತು ವರಯನು ಸ ೆ ಆೕನ !ೆಲಸ #ಾಡು%ದ' ()ೕ*ೇ+ ಎನುವವ-.ೆ /ಾ-ೕಕು 26.03.2009ರಂದು ಸ ದ'ರು ಎಂದ7ೆ ಸ-. ಅವರು ಪ-(ೕಲ:ೆ #ಾ; <ೆ= ಮತು ವರಯನು ಆ7ೋ?.ೆ ಸ ದ'ರು ಎಂದ7ೆ ಸ-. /ಾ-ೕಕು 30.03.2009ರಂದು ಆ7ೋ? ಅದನು ಪ-(ೕಲ:ೆ #ಾ;*ಾ'7ೆ ಎಂದ7ೆ <ಾ@ ಪ-(ೕಲ:ೆ #ಾ;*ಾ'7ೆ ಆದ7ೆ ನಮ.ೆ !ೊABಲ ಎಂದು ನು;ಯು/ಾ7ೆ. 8. /ಾ-ೕಕು 30.03.2009!ೆ= :ಾನು ಸ ೆ ಆೕ.ೆ Dೋ*ೆ' ಎಂದ7ೆ ಸ-. ಆಗ ಆ7ೋ? ತಹ(ೕGಾ' ರವರ ಸH #ಾ; ()ೕ*ೇ+ ನನ.ೆ <ೆ=ನು !ೊಡು/ಾ7ೆ ಎಂದು DೇIದರು ಎಂದ7ೆ ಸ-. <ಾ@ :ಾನು ()ೕ*ೇ+ ಹ%ರ ºÉÆÃzÁUÀ CªÀgÀÄ MAzÀÄ ¸ÀªÉð £ÀA§gïUÉ gÀÆ.200 gÀAvÉ gÀÆ.1200 C£ÀÄß !ೊಡJೇಕು ಎಂದು DೇIದ'ರು Dಾಗೂ :ಾನು ಅವ-.ೆ ರೂ.600 !ೊKೆB Dಾಗೂ ಅವರ ಆ7ೋ? <ಾDೇಬರು ಸH #ಾ;!ೊಡು/ಾ7ೆ ಎಂದು ಅವರ ಹ%ರ Dೋ ಎಂದು DೇIದರು ಎಂದು ನು;ಯು/ಾ7ೆ. ಆ7ೋ? :ಾನು #ಾಡುವ !ೆಲಸವ:ೆGಾ #ಾ;*ೆ'ೕ:ೆ ಎಂದು ತಹ(ೕGಾ' ರವರ ಸHಯ ನಂತರ *ಾಖGೆ ಪNೆದು!ೊIO ಎಂದು DೇIದರು ಎಂದ7ೆ ಸ-ಯಲ . <ೆ= ವ.ೈ7ೆ *ಾಖGೆ !ೊಡಲು ()ೕ*ೇ+ !ೇQ ವಕ ಆದ'ರು ಎಂದ7ೆ ಸ-. /ಾ-ೕಕು 30.03.2009 ಮತು ನಂತರ ಆ7ೋ¦AiÀÄ ºÀwÛgÀ £À£Àß ¨Á§ÄÛ AiÀiÁªÀÅzÉà PÉ®¸À ¨ÁQ EgÀ°®è JAzÀgÉ ¸ÀjAiÀÄ®è." 13. From the perusal of the aforesaid deposition it becomes clear that the complainant had indeed met the - 13 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:21010 CRL.A No. 741 of 2014 accused on 30.03.2009. Complaint has been given on 06.04.2009. In the complaint, complainant has alleged that on 30.03.2009 when he met the accused, he had demanded Rs.24,000/- and the complainant was ready to pay Rs.12,000/-. In the chief examination the accused has stated that he had approached the accused prior to 06.04.2009 and the accused had demanded Rs.24,000/- but he has not specified the date on which he met the accused. In the cross examination, as already noted above, the complainant has voluntarily stated that on 30.03.2009, upon the instruction of the accused, he met one Sreedevi, who had demanded Rs.200/- per survey number and he had even paid Rs.600/- to the said Sridevi. Though learned counsel for the accused referring to the said portion of the deposition insists that the accused had said that no work with the accused was pending and the prosecution has not examined said Sreedevi and one Ravindranath which is a serious lapse, the fact emanates accused meeting the complainant on 30.03.2009 stands established. 14. On 06.04.2009, when the complainant along with the shadow witness went to the office of the complainant and - 14 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:21010 CRL.A No. 741 of 2014 asked if the sketches were ready, the accused had nodded his head and had demanded the bribe amount by making hand signal upon which the complainant had paid the amount which had been given to him during the pre-trap mahazar and on receipt of the said amount, accused had kept the same inside a file in a Almirah. PW2 in his evidence has reiterated this aspect of the matter. Relevant portion of his evidence reads as under: "3. ಈ ಬ.ೆS ಮಹಜ #ಾ;ದರು……….:ಾ+ಬUರೂ ಸ ೆ ಆೕನ ಒಳ.ೆ Dೋ*ೆವX. ಆೕನ ಈಗ !ೋAನ Dಾಜರು ಇರುವ ಆ7ೋ? ಇದ'ರು. ¦ügÁå¢ (ವಕು#ಾರ <ಾZ[ ನಮ\ ಸ ೆ <ೆ= ಆ*ೆ]ೕ ಎಂದು ಆ7ೋ?ಯನು +^ಾ-ದರು. ಆಗ ಆ7ೋ? <ೆ= ತ_ಾರು ಆ*ೆ ಎಂದು :ಾನು DೇIದ'ನು ತಂ'ೕ7ಾ ಎಂದು !ೈ. ಸ:ೆ`ಂದ !ೇIದರು. ಆಗ ¦ügÁå¢ ತಂ*ೆ'ೕ:ೆ ಎಂದು DೇIದರು". 15. Thereafter as per the instruction complainant seemed to have given the signal to the team waiting for conducting a trap who had swung into action and apprehended the accused and subjected him to Phenolphthalein test which turned out to be positive. 16. Evidence on the record also indicate that after conducting the test on questioning the accused, he had indicated he having kept the money inside a file in Almirah. The - 15 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:21010 CRL.A No. 741 of 2014 said money was taken out of the said place through pancy witness Puttappa-PW4 and on verification it was found that the said amount tallied with the amount subject matter of pre-trap mahazar. 17. These three incidents of complainant and the shadow witness going to the office of the accused, accused demanding the money by hand sign, his hands turning pink to the phenolphthalein test and recovering the money from the Almirah has been consistent. 18. Relevant at this juncture to refer to the defence taken by the accused, his statement recorded under Section 313 of Cr.P.C is extracted in paragraph No.4 of the impugned Judgment, which reads as under: "¦ügÁå¢ಯು 8:ೇ ಸ ೆ ನಂಬ ಗಳ ಅಳ/ೆ ಮತು <ೆ= .ಾ ಶುಲ= bಾವ%ದ'ರು. ಆ ಪ)!ಾರ ಅಳ/ೆ ಆತು. 24.3.2009 ರಂದು ()ೕ*ೇ+ ಎಂಬ !ೇQ ವಕ ಕಡತ ಪ-(ೕ. ನನ.ೆ ರ ಾcದ'ರು. :ಾನು ಕಡತ ಪ-(ೕ ಸH Dಾd ¢£ÁAPÀ 30.3.2009 ರಂದು ಮ/ೆ !ೇQ ವಕgï.ೆ ಕಡತ ರವc*ೆ'. ನನ ¦ügÁå¢.ೆ ಸಂಬಂeದ _ಾವX*ೇ !ೆಲಸ Jಾd ಇರಲ ". 19. Further in his statement given to the investigating officer soon after completion of trap proceeding, he has stated that on 30.03.2009 he had after verification of 11-E sketch had - 16 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:21010 CRL.A No. 741 of 2014 affixed his signature on 30.03.2009. But the complainant had not taken the said sketch, instead wanted to comeback with one Shankarappa to obtain signature of the Tahsildar on the said sketch. That on 06.04.2009, when the accused-appellant had finished his lunch, even without his asking complainant had forcibly kept the money in a file and placed it inside the Almirah and that he has no connection of nature of whatsoever. That it was a conspiracy to fix him and implicate him falsely. One Mahalingappa was threatening him repeatedly to falsely implicate him in the case. 20. Thus, according to the accused, the amount was forcibly kept inside the file and thereafter inside the Almirah by the complainant himself. 21. The aforesaid defence raised, as rightly pointed out by the prosecution is improbable. The bribe amount recovered is Rs.12,000/- of denomination Rs.500/-. Accused is a Taluk Survey Supervisor. He allowing someone to keep the money in his file and thereafter carrying and keeping the same inside his Almirah and until the same was recovered, accused keeping - 17 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:21010 CRL.A No. 741 of 2014 quiet particularly when he had stated about persons with vested interests were against him becomes unacceptable. By version of the accused himself, complainant had approached him in his office on 30.03.2009 and the accused himself had apparently directed the complainant to meet Sreedevi. The facts brought on record by the prosecution cannot be doubted. 22. Merely because there is absence of word hand(PÉÊ) in the statement of the witness, while rest of the statement is consistent prior to and subsequent to the examination of witnesses, same cannot be held to be a contradiction or an omission of such a serious nature taking away the core of the case of the prosecution. 23. The demand and receipt of the amount in the instant case having been proved, the burden was on the accused to have discharged the same. When according to the accused, the amount was forcibly kept inside the file and later in Almirah, his hands turning pink even before recovering the said amount indicate that it had passed through his hands. Therefore the question of forcible insertion of the money inside the file and the Almirah would not stand for justification. - 18 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:21010 CRL.A No. 741 of 2014 24. Reliance placed on the judgments referred to above by the learned counsel for the appellant factually differ. In that, PW2 had pleaded ignorance about the signs of demand and acceptance as seen at paragraph 14 of the Judgment in Criminal Petition No.100142/2016. 25. As regards reliance placed on the judgment of the Co-ordinate Bench in the case of Laxman supra and reliance placed thereon at paragraph 20 of the judgment to the order of Chandrasha supra case is also of no avail as the judgment passed in the case of Chandrasha supra has been set aside by the Apex Court resulting in his conviction. 26. It is trite law facts in each case differ and the same cannot be applied as a straightjacket formula. In the instant case, demand and acceptance having been proved and mahazar witness having withstood the test of cross- examination and accused having taken the defence of forcible insertion of money and inimical disposition of such person and the accused not having discharged the burden, this Court do - 19 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:21010 CRL.A No. 741 of 2014 not see any reason to interfere with the order passed by the trial Court. 27. Accordingly, appeal stands dismissed. 28. As regards sentence, trial Court has awarded 6 months imprisonment with fine upto Rs.5,000/- and default sentence of 3 months for the offence punishable under Section 7, which is minimum. As regards punishment and sentence in respect of offence punishable under Section 13(1)(d) r/w 13(2) of the Act, 1988, the trial Court has awarded sentence of 2 years, considering the age of the accused-appellant who is now retired, this Court deems it appropriate to reduce the same for a period of one year instead of two years. The rest of the sentence is maintained. Sd/- (M.G.S. KAMAL) JUDGE RL/SBN List No.: 1 Sl No.: 38