- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:18639 CRL.A No. 583 of 2013 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. 583 OF 2013 (C) BETWEEN: K. GOVINDAPPA S/O LATE SH. KARIYAPPA AGED IN MAJOR R/AT SESHAGIRI HALLI, RAMANAGAR TALUK THEN BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT (NOW RAMANAGAGAR DISTIRCT) W/AS 'D' GROUP EMPLOYEE KARNATAKA STATE NURSING COUNCIL SURYA APARTMENT, NO.71, A STREET, 6TH CROSS GANDHINAGAR, BANGALORE. …APPELLANT (BY SRI. RAVIKUMAR B.R., ADVOCATE) AND: STATE BY POLICE INSPECTOR, KLA, REPRESENTED BY STANDING COUNSEL AND SPL PUBLIC PROSECUTOR IN THE HONBLE HIGH COURT FOR LOKAYUKTHA CASES, BANGALORE. …RESPONDENT (BY SRI. PRASAD B S., ADVOCATE) THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL IS FILED U/S.374(2) CR.P.C PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE CONVICTION SENTENCE DATED 27.04.2013 PASSED BY THE SPL. JUDGE, PREVENTION OF CORRUPTION ACT, Digitally signed by SUMA B N Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:18639 CRL.A No. 583 of 2013 BANGALORE URBAN DISTRICT, BANGALORE CITY IN SPL.C.C.NO.92/2008 - CONVICTING THE APPELLANT/ACCUSED FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/S 7 AND 13(1)(d) P/U/S 13(2) OF PREVENTION OF CORRUPTION ACT, 1988. THE APPELLANT/ACCUSED IS SENTENCED TO UNDERGO R.I. FOR 6 MONTHS AND PAY FINE OF RS.100/-, IN DEFAULT TO PAY FINE, HE SHALL UNDERGO S.I. FOR 15 DAYS. FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/S 7 OF PREVENTION OF CORRUPTION ACT, THE APPELLANT/ACCUSED IS SENTENCED TO UNDERGO R.I. FOR 1 YEAR AND PAY FINE OF RS.200/-, IN DEFAULT TO PAY FINE, HE SHALL UNDERGO S.I. FOR 1 MONTH FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/S 13(1)(d) R/W SEC. 13(2) OF PREVENTION OF CORRUPTION ACT, 1988 AND ETC. THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ARGUMENTS, 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 dated 27.04.2013 passed in Special C.C.No.92/2008 on the file of the Special Judge, Bangalore Urban District, Bangalore City (trial Court) by which the trial Court has passed the following: ORDER Under Section 235(2) of Cr.P.C., accused Mr.K.Govindappa is convicted for the offences punishable under Section 7, and 13(1)(d) punishable under Section 13(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. His bail bond stands cancelled. - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:18639 CRL.A No. 583 of 2013 2. Case of the prosecution is that one Asha K.Nayak, wife of complainant -PW1 and her colleague Sheela Shetty, had submitted forms for C.G.F.N.S course (Commission on Graduates of Foreign Nursing Schools) had paid prescribed fee of Rs.1,000/- in the form of demand drafts. And in this connection, complainant had gone to the Karnataka Nursing Council, Surya Apartment No.71, A Street, Anandarao Extension, 6th Cross, Gandhinagar, Bengaluru, to submit the applications and had handed over the same to the concerned clerk. At that time the said clerk demanded Rs.250/- for each application. The complainant had replied that he had no money to which the said clerk had stated that he would not receive the applications without money and accordingly the complainant was sent back. 3. In this connection a complaint was lodged which was registered in Crime No.5/2004 for the offences punishable under Section 7, 13(1)(d) and 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (for short `P.C. Act'). 4. After successful trap and drawing up of mahazar in that regard, a charge sheet is filed alleging that - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:18639 CRL.A No. 583 of 2013 accused/appellant, was working as a `D' group employee of Karnataka State Nursing Council, Surya Apartment No.71, A Street, 6th Cross, Gandhinagar, Bengaluru, and was a `Public Servant'. That he had demanded a sum of Rs.250/- each from Asha K. Nayak and Sheela Shetty. And since he had demanded the money which was paid, he was charged for having committed offences punishable under Sections 7, 13(1)(d) and 13(2) of P.C. Act. Charges framed, read over and accused denied and sought to be tried. 5. Prosecution examined five witnesses as PW1 to PW5. Exhibited 19 documents P1 to P19 and 13 material objects MO1 to MO13. Statement of accused under Section 313 of Cr.P.C was recorded and he pleaded and denied the incriminating evidence brought against him. 6. Trial court framed the following point for its consideration: "(i). Whether the prosecution proves that the accused while working as `D' Group Employee, Karnataka State Nursing Council, Surya Apartment, No.71, `A' Street, 6th Cross, Gandhinagara, Bangalore, being a public servant, demanded bribe amount of Rs.250/- each from Smt.Asha K.Naik wife of complainant Narasimha P. Prabhu and from one Sheela Shetty for receiving two applications to the course of N.G.F.N.S. Course and on 27.01.2004 at about 3.45 p.m. in the office of the accused, the accused demanded and accepted Rs.500/- - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:18639 CRL.A No. 583 of 2013 from the complainant Narasimha P. Prabhu for receiving two applications to the course of N.G.F.N.S Course, u/s 7 of Prevention of Corruption Act? (ii) Whether the prosecution further proves that the accused being a public servant on 27.01.2004 at about 3.45 p.m. in the office of the accused by illegal means abused his position as a public servant demanded and obtained Rs.500/- of cash to make pecuniary advantage, against public interest, from CW1 Narasimha P. Prabhu the complainant and thereby committed an offence punishable u/s 13(1)(d) of Prevention of Corruption Act which is punishable u/s 13(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act? (iii) What offence the accused has committed? (iv) What order?" 7. Trial Court on appreciation of the evidence, answered the same in the affirmative and consequently passed the Judgment of conviction and order noted above which is impugned in this appeal. 8. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant taking this Court through the records at the outset submits: 8.1 that the complaint did not contain the name of the accused. It only referred to certain clerk. As such, the initial demand has not been proved. 8.2 That though Rs.500/- was recovered from the possession of the accused, the accused in his voluntary statement as per Exhibit P5 has put up a plausible - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:18639 CRL.A No. 583 of 2013 defence of he having received sum of Rs.500/- in respect of two C.G.F.N.S forms upon the instruction given by the Registrar and that he has not touched even a single paisa. 8.3 He further submits that in the cross examination a suggestion has been put to the Investigation Officer regarding PW3. He submits that the explanation given by the accused saying that the amount was collected at the instance of Registrar has been admitted by PW3 punch witness as well as PW5. He submits when the accused had specifically and categorically set up the plea of he not receiving the money on his own but on the instruction of the Registrar, same having been admitted by PW3 and PW5 prosecution has not cared to examine the said Registrar to establish their case. And in the absence of the said witness having been examined, the prosecution cannot claim to have proved the factor of demand and acceptance of the bribe amount. - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:18639 CRL.A No. 583 of 2013 8.4 That the sanction accorded by PW2 as per Ex.P4 is not in consonance with provision of Section 19 of the P.C. Act. Thus there is no compliance with mandatory requirement of law warranting application of mind by the sanctioning authority/PW2 who has admitted before the Court of she not being aware of reading and writing Kannada language while the sanction at Ex.P4 is in Kannada language. Thus he submits the trial Court has not appreciated these aspects of the matter in the proper perspective resulting in miscarriage of justice warranting interference at the hands of this Court. 9. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the respondent-lokayuktha submits: 9.1 that in the light of admission made by the accused/appellant of he having received the money though at the instance of Registrar, the factum of demand and receipt of the money need not be proved. 9.2 that PW3, the shadow witness has spoken about accused specifically demanding the money from the complainant and receiving the amount of Rs.500/- and - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:18639 CRL.A No. 583 of 2013 keeping the same beneath the ink pad. Thus he submits that the prosecution has specifically and categorically established the factum of demand and payment as well. 9.3 As regard the issue of irregularity in according sanction as per Ex.P4, he submits unless the accused pleads and establishes any prejudice having been caused, he cannot take shelter under irregular granting of sanction for prosecution. Hence, he submits the appeal lacks merit and seeks for dismissal of the same. 10. Heard and perused the records. 11. Point that arises for consideration is: "Whether the trial Court is justified in holding that the prosecution has proved beyond reasonable doubt its case of accused-appellant herein demanding and receiving bribe amount of Rs.500/- from the complainant at 3.45 p.m. on 27.01.2004 as gratification for receiving two applications for the course of CGFNS and thereby committed offence punishable under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) and 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act?" 12. There is no dispute of the fact that the accused/appellant at the relevant time was assigned with the responsibility of collecting the forms from the aspirants to the course of C.G.F.N.S and on the date of incident he was present - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:18639 CRL.A No. 583 of 2013 and was receiving said applications. It is also not in dispute that the complainant being the husband of one Asha K. Nayak had gone to submit the application of his wife, Asha K. Nayak, along with the application of her friend -Sheela Shetty with the prescribed fee of Rs.1,000/- by way of demand drafts. It is also not in dispute that the accused who was assigned with the responsibility of receiving the said applications had indeed received the amount of Rs.500/- which was subject matter of the pre-trap mahazar at Ex.P3. It is also not in dispute that the said amount of Rs.500/- denomination of Rs.100/- each was recovered from the possession of the accused and the accused was subjected to phenolphthalein test which turned out to be positive and the same having been recorded in mahazar at Ex.P13. 13. PW3, shadow witness in his deposition has specifically stated as under: "Thereafter we left towards Karnataka Nursing Council, which is the office of the accused. We reached the office at 3.10 p.m. The vehicle was stopped at a distance of 300 feet from the office of the accused. Myself and complainant went to the office of the accused. Complainant was in the "Q". The accused asked the complainant as "Thandideera". The complainant gave Rs.500/- and the accused kept the amount beneath ink pad. - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:18639 CRL.A No. 583 of 2013 Then the accused counted it and kept it beneath ink-pad and started filling up the application and took out the same. Then he went towards the office of the Registrar." 14. The aforesaid deposition of PW3, shadow witness further strengthens the case of the prosecution of there being a demand and acceptance of the bribe money which admittedly was in addition to prescribed fee to be paid by way of demand draft. 15. The defence set up by the accused is seen at Ex.P5 which read as under: "ೆ. ೋಂದಪ ಆದ ಾನು ಈ ನ ..ಎ. ಾರಂ 2ೆ 500 ರುಗಳನು ೆೆದುೊಳ ಾಗ !ೋಾಯುಕ$ %&ೕಸರು ನನನು ಬಂ)ರುಾ$*ೆ. ಾನು ಹಣ ಪ.ೆಯುವಂೆ ೋಂದ0ಾ)ಾ1ಗಳ 2ೇ3ರುವ4ದ1ಂದ ೆೆದುೊಳೆ$ೕ ೆ5 ನಃ ಾನು ಒಂದು 8ೈ:ೆ ಮುಟು=ವ4ಲ?. ಇದು ಸತB ೆಂದು ಪCDಾEೕಕ1ಸುೆ$ೕ ೆ." 16. When the prosecution has proved the case of demand and acceptance and the accused has also admitted the possession of the amount, albeit, on behalf of the Registrar, Section 20 of the P.C. Act would come into play which read as under: "20. Presumption where public servant accepts any undue advantage.—Where, in any trial of an offence punishable under section 7 or under section 11, it is proved that a public servant - 11 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:18639 CRL.A No. 583 of 2013 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 accepted or obtained or attempted to obtain that undue advantage, as a 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." 17. Accused, in the considered view of the Court, has failed to prove his innocence as contemplated in Section 20 of the P.C. Act. 18. The other submission made on behalf of the accused is that irregularity in PW2 according the sanction under Section 19 of the P.C. Act. Section 19 of the P.C. Act read as under: "19. Previous sanction necessary for prosecution.—(1) No court shall take cognizance of an offence punishable under sections 7, 11, 13 and 15 alleged to have been committed by a public servant, except with the previous sanction save as otherwise provided in the Lokpal and Lokayuktas Act, 2013- (a) in the case of a person who is employed, or as the case may be, was at the time of commission of the alleged offence employed in connection with the affairs of the Union and is not removable from his office save by or with the sanction of the Central Government, of that Government; (b) in the case of a person who is employed, or as the case may be, was at the time of commission of the alleged offence employed in connection with the affairs of a State and is not removable from his office save by or with the sanction of the State Government, of that Government; (c) in the case of any other person, of the authority competent to remove him from his office. - 12 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:18639 CRL.A No. 583 of 2013 Provided that no request can be made, by a person other than a police officer or an officer of an investigation agency or other law enforcement authority, to the appropriate Government or competent authority, as the case may be, for the previous sanction of such Government or authority for taking cognizance by the court of any of the offences specified in this sub-section, unless— (i) such person has filed a complaint in a competent court about the alleged offences for which the public servant is sought to be prosecuted; and (ii) the court has not dismissed the complaint under section 203 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974) and directed the complainant to obtain the sanction for prosecution against the public servant for further proceeding: Provided further that in the case of request from the person other than a police officer or an officer of an investigation agency or other law enforcement authority, the appropriate Government or competent authority shall not accord sanction to prosecute a public servant without providing an opportunity of being heard to the concerned public servant: Provided also that the appropriate Government or any competent authority shall, after the receipt of the proposal requiring sanction for prosecution of a public servant under this sub-section, endeavour to convey the decision on such proposal within a period of three months from the date of its receipt: Provided also that in case where, for the purpose of grant of sanction for prosecution, legal consultation is required, such period may, for the reasons to be recorded in writing, be extended by a further period of one month: Provided also that the Central Government may, for the purpose of sanction for prosecution of a public servant, prescribe such guidelines as it considers necessary. Explanation.—For the purposes of sub-section (1), the expression “public servant” includes such person— (a) who has ceased to hold the office during which the offence is alleged to have been committed; or (b) who has ceased to hold the office during which the offence is alleged to have been committed and is holding an office other than the office during which the offence is alleged to have been committed. - 13 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:18639 CRL.A No. 583 of 2013 (2) Where for any reason whatsoever any doubt arises as to whether the previous sanction as required under sub-section (1) should be given by the Central Government or the State Government or any other authority, such sanction shall be given by that Government or authority which would have been competent to remove the public servant from his office at the time when the offence was alleged to have been committed. (3) Notwithstanding anything contained in the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974),— (a) no finding, sentence or order passed by a special Judge shall be reversed or altered by a Court in appeal, confirmation or revision on the ground of the absence of, or any error, omission or irregularity in, the sanction required under sub-section (1), unless in the opinion of that court, a failure of justice has in fact been occasioned thereby; (b) no court shall stay the proceedings under this Act on the ground of any error, omission or irregularity in the sanction granted by the authority, unless it is satisfied that such error, omission or irregularity has resulted in a failure of justice; (c) no court shall stay the proceedings under this Act on any other ground and no court shall exercise the powers of revision in relation to any interlocutory order passed in any inquiry, trial, appeal or other proceedings. (4) In determining under sub-section (3) whether the absence of, or any error, omission or irregularity in, such sanction has occasioned or resulted in a failure of justice the court shall have regard to the fact whether the objection could and should have been raised at any earlier stage in the proceedings. Explanation.—For the purposes of this section,— (a) error includes competency of the authority to grant sanction; (b) a sanction required for prosecution includes reference to any requirement that the prosecution shall be at the instance of a specified authority or with the sanction of a specified person or any requirement of a similar nature." 19. Thus as per clause (a) of sub-Section (3) of Section 19, unless accused/appellant making out a case of failure of - 14 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:18639 CRL.A No. 583 of 2013 justice on account of absence of, or any error or omission or irregularity in the sanction, this Court do not see any reason to accept the submission made on this behalf. It is no doubt true the requirement of compliance with provisions of Section 19 is to protect innocent and honest officers from being subjected to unwarranted allegations and case of corruption. However, in the instant case accused himself has admitted to have received Rs.500/- in addition to the amount payable in accordance with law. 20. Accused being a Public Servant cannot plead ignorance as to why he was receiving said additional sum of Rs.250/- per application. Though the accused has maintained a slip for receipt of the additional amount, apparently at the instance of its Registrar-Ramamurthy, no effort is made to examine Ramamurthy either. 21. Thus clause (a) of sub-Section (3) of Section 19 of the Prevention of Corruption Act statutorily recognizes even absence of the sanction unless failure of justice is pointed out. - 15 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:18639 CRL.A No. 583 of 2013 22. Facts narrated above do not indicate accused/appellant having suffered any prejudice or failure of justice in the matter. 23. No grounds are made out for consideration of the submission of acquittal of the accused. 24. As regard the sentencing is concerned, the trial Court has imposed 6 months imprisonment for the offence punishable under Section 7 and 1 year for the offence punishable under Section 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act. The minimum term of imprisonment prescribed by the Statute is imposed in the instant case, as such the same cannot be reversed or reduced. 25. In that view of the matter no grounds. Appeal stands dismissed. Order dated 27.04.2013 passed in Spl.C.C.No.92/2008 by the trial Court is confirmed. Sd/- (M.G.S. KAMAL) JUDGE SBN List No.: 1 Sl No.: 30