Karnataka High Court
The State By vs Kemprangaiah S/O Venkatappa on 16 January, 2025
Author: Hemant Chandangoudar
Bench: Hemant Chandangoudar
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC-D:643
CRL.A No. 100149 of 2016
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH
DATED THIS THE 16TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 100149 OF 2016 (A)
BETWEEN:
THE STATE
BY LOKAYUKTHA POLICE,
POLICE INSPECTOR, KARNATAKA LOKAYUKTA,
POLICE WING, BALLARI,
REPRESENTED BY
SPECIAL PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
KARNATAKA KLOKAYUKTA.
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI. G.I.GACHCHINAMATH, STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR)
AND:
KEMPRANGAIAH S/O. VENKATAPPA
AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS,
BEO KURGODU, FORT, BALLARI.
...RESPONDENT
(BY SRI. J. BASAVARAJ, ADVOCATE)
THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL IS FILED U/S 378(1) and (3) OF
Digitally signed by B
K
MAHENDRAKUMAR
CR.P.C., SEEKING TO, GRANT LEAVE TO APPEAL AGAINST THE
Location: HIGH
COURT OF JUDGMENT AND ORDER OF ACQUITTAL PASSED BY THE PRL.
KARNATAKA
DHARWAD BENCH
Date: 2025.01.21
SESSIONS CUM SPECIAL JUDGE, AT BALLAI DATED 19.10.2015 IN
09:48:44 +0530
SPECIAL CASE NO.116/2012 AND SETASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND
ORDER OF ACQUITTAL PASSED BY THE PRL. SESIONS CUM
SPECIAL JUDGE, AT BALLARI DATED 19.10.2015 IN SPECIAL CASE
NO.116/2012 AND CONVICT AND SENTENCE THE RESPONDENT /
ACCUSED PERSON FOR THE O/P/U/S.7,13(1),(d) R/W SEC.13(2) OF
PREVENTION OF CORRUPTION ACT, 1988.
THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING, THIS DAY,
JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC-D:643
CRL.A No. 100149 of 2016
ORAL JUDGMENT
1. The Karnataka Lokayukta is in appeal against the acquittal of an accused under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, by the Principal Sessions Court, Ballari, in 2015.
2. The prosecution alleges that Rajashekar, the Chairman of the SDMC, oversaw a ₹7,00,000 government-funded construction project for a school under the Sarva Shiksha Abhiyan scheme. The accused, serving as the Block Education Officer (BEO) of Kurugodu, allegedly demanded a ₹5,000 bribe to approve funds for the fourth stage of construction despite the engineer's report recommending release.
3. Unwilling to pay, Rajashekar reported the matter to the Lokayukta Police, who conducted a trap operation. The accused was caught accepting the bribe, with chemical tests confirming the presence of bribe money on his hands and shirt. A mahazar (evidence record) was prepared, and the accused was produced before the court. Despite this, the Trial Court acquitted the accused, leading to the appeal by the Lokayukta.
4. To prove its case, the prosecution examined P.W.1 to P.W.15 and marked documents as Exs.P.1 to P.55(b) and material objects as M.O.1 to M.O.21. After evaluating the evidence on record, the Trial Court concluded that the prosecution failed to establish the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt and, accordingly, passed the impugned judgment of acquittal.
-3-NC: 2025:KHC-D:643 CRL.A No. 100149 of 2016
5. The learned counsel for the appellant argued that the accused had admitted to accepting the gratification amount of ₹5,000, as evident from Ex.P.21. This admission was further corroborated by Exs.P.1, P.23, and P.24, which are transcriptions of the voice recorder, along with the Forensic Science Laboratory report. The report confirmed that the accused's hands turned pink when dipped in a sodium carbonate solution after accepting the gratification amount.
6. In response, the learned counsel for the respondent- accused contended that the complainant had passed away during the trial, and the shadow witness did not support the prosecution's case. Furthermore, P.W.11, a friend of the complainant who had accompanied the shadow witness, also failed to support the prosecution's case. The counsel further argued that the transcription of the voice recording lacks evidentiary value due to the absence of a certificate under Section 65B of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872. Thus, the impugned judgment and order of acquittal passed by the Trial Court does not warrant interference. In support of his case, learned counsel for the respondent relies on the following decisions:.
1) Ravinder Singh @ Kaku Vs. State of Punjab
- 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 461
2) N.Vijayakuamr Vs. State of Tamil Nadu
- AIR 2021 SC 766
3) K.Shanthamma Vs. The state of Telangana
- 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 192 -4- NC: 2025:KHC-D:643 CRL.A No. 100149 of 2016
4) Jagtar Singh Vs. State of Punjab
- 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 232
7. After considering the arguments of the learned counsel for both parties and upon perusal of the Trial Court records, the sole point for consideration in this appeal is:
Whether the prosecution has established the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubt, and whether the judgment of acquittal is legally sustainable?
8. P.W.1, the shadow witness who accompanied the complainant during the trap, denied in his examination-in-chief the demand and acceptance of the gratification amount by the accused. Nothing was elicited during his cross-examination to discredit his statement or to establish that P.W.1 witnessed the alleged demand and acceptance of the bribe.
9. The complainant, who lodged the complaint with the Lokayukta Police and alleged that the accused had demanded the gratification amount, passed away before the commencement of evidence. Consequently, his testimony could not be recorded.
10. P.W.11, a friend of the complainant who accompanied P.W.1 (the shadow witness), did not support the prosecution's case. His cross-examination did not yield any evidence to contradict his statement or to substantiate that the accused had demanded or accepted the bribe.
-5-NC: 2025:KHC-D:643 CRL.A No. 100149 of 2016
11. The prosecution relied on the evidence of P.W.2, a panch witness to the entrustment mahazar, under which the complainant was entrusted with a tape recorder to record his conversation with the accused. However, while P.W.2 supported the mahazar, the investigating officer, P.W.10, corroborated the prosecution's claim and established the entrustment mahazar.
12. Ex.P.55, the FSL report issued by P.W.15, indicated that the accused's hands turned pink when dipped in a sodium carbonate solution, confirming possession of tainted money. P.W.15, the author of the report, supported the prosecution's case.
13. While the prosecution established that the accused possessed the tainted money, it was also required to prove that the money was received as a result of a demand and acceptance of a bribe. Since the complainant had died during the trial, the prosecution had to rely on corroborative evidence to prove the demand and acceptance. With the shadow witness turning hostile, the prosecution primarily relied on the transcription of the voice recorder (Exs.P.1, P.23, and P.24) and the explanation given by the accused in Ex.P.21.
14. In Ex.P.21, the accused explained that he had received the tainted money from the complainant as reimbursement for travel to Mantralaya, not as a bribe. Exs.P.1, P.23, and P.24 are transcriptions of the conversation allegedly recorded on the tape recorder entrusted to the complainant, produced to substantiate the demand and acceptance of the bribe.
-6-NC: 2025:KHC-D:643 CRL.A No. 100149 of 2016
15. Section 65B of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, governs the admissibility of electronic records. It states that any information in an electronic record, if printed, stored, recorded, or copied in optical or magnetic media and meeting the conditions of the section, is admissible as evidence without further proof of the original. However, sub-section (4) mandates that such evidence must be accompanied by a certificate from an expert to authenticate the electronic record.
16. The Supreme Court in Ravinder Singh @ Kaku held that electronic records, such as call records, are inadmissible under Sections 65A and 65B of the Indian Evidence Act if they are not accompanied by the requisite certification under the Act. In this case, the transcription of the voice recorder lacks such certification and, therefore, has no evidentiary value.
17. In the absence of substantial evidence proving the demand for a bribe and with the accused providing an explanation for the possession of tainted money, the prosecution has failed to establish the guilt of the accused beyond a reasonable doubt. Accordingly, there is no illegality in the impugned judgment of acquittal passed by the Trial Court.
18. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed.
Sd/-
(HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR) JUDGE KMS Ct:vh List No.: 1 Sl No.: 35