Karnataka High Court
Smt N Usha vs The State Of Karnataka on 22 January, 2026
-1-
NC: 2026:KHC:3747
CRL.A No. 719 of 2023
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 22ND DAY OF JANUARY, 2026
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S RACHAIAH
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 719 OF 2023 (C)
BETWEEN:
1. SMT. N USHA
D/O HANUMANTHAPPA N
AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS,
PANCHAYATH DEVELOPMENT OFFICER,
LAKKONDAHALLI GRAMA PANCHAYATH,
KASABA HOBLI,
HOSKOTE TALUK,
PINCODE - 574 227.
PRESENTLY
Digitally
signed by
R/AT NO.5, 2ND FLOOR,
SREEDHARAN
BANGALORE 1ST CROSS,
SUSHMA
LAKSHMI VINAYAKA LAYOUT,
Location: High
Court of BHOOPSANDRA,
Karnataka
BENGALURU NORTH,
RMV EXTENSION,
BENGALURU - 560 094.
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI. SANDESH J CHOUTA, SR. ADVOCATE FOR
SRI. K B K SWAMY, ADVOCATE)
-2-
NC: 2026:KHC:3747
CRL.A No. 719 of 2023
HC-KAR
AND:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
REPRESENTED BY POLICE INSPECTOR,
KARNATAKA LOKAYUKTA,
BENGALURU.
PINCODE-560001.
REPRESENTED BY SPECIAL PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
BENGALURU-560001.
...RESPONDENT
(BY SRI. B S PRASAD, SPL.PP)
THIS CRL.A IS FILED U/S 374(2) CR.PC PRAYING TO SET
ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND CONVICTION DATED 25.03.2023
PASSED BY THE IX ADDL. DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE,
AND SPECIAL JUDGE, BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT,
BENGALURU IN SPL.C.NO.117/2015, CONVICTING THE
APPELLANT/ACCUSED FOR THE OFFENCE PUNISHABLE UNDER
SECTION 7, 13(1)(d) R/W SEC 13(2) OF P.C ACT AND ETC.,
THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR FURTHER HEARING, THIS
DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S RACHAIAH
-3-
NC: 2026:KHC:3747
CRL.A No. 719 of 2023
HC-KAR
ORAL JUDGMENT
This appeal has been filed by the appellant being aggrieved by the judgment of conviction and order on sentence dated 25.03.2023 passed in Spl.C.No.117/2015 on the file of IX Additional District and Sessions Judge and Special Judge, Bangalore Rural District, Bangalore. Wherein, the appellant has been convicted for the offence punishable under Section 7, 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (for short P.C. Act).
2. The ranks of the parties henceforth shall be considered as per the rankings of the Trial Court.
Factual matrix of the case:
3. The case of the prosecution is that the accused was working as Panchayath Development Officer (PDO) at Lakkondahalli Grama Panchayath, Hoskote Taluk. The complainant-Munivenkatappa was holding civil contract license and it is stated that he had completed the work of laying pipelines in Lakkondahalli, Hasigala and Kammasandra Village worth of Rs.3,80,000/-. It is alleged that the appellant/accused -4- NC: 2026:KHC:3747 CRL.A No. 719 of 2023 HC-KAR had insisted the complainant to pay illegal gratification of 14%. It is further stated that a sum of Rs.20,000/- was paid through cheque and remaining balance of Rs.23,200/- was to be paid. As the complainant had not interested to pay the amount, it is stated that he lodges a complaint before the respondent - Police.
4. The respondent-Police after registering a case conducted investigation and submitted the charge-sheet.
5. To prove the case of the prosecution the prosecution examined 04 witnesses and got marked 41 documents and also identified 08 material objects.
6. The Trial Court after appreciating oral and documentary evidence on record, convicted the appellant for the offences stated supra. Being aggrieved by the said conviction, the appellant has preferred this appeal.
7. Heard Sri.Sandesh.J.Chouta., learned Senior Counsel appearing for Sri.K.B.K.Swamy., learned counsel for the appellant and Sri.B.S.Prasad., learned Special Public Prosecutor for respondent.
-5-
NC: 2026:KHC:3747 CRL.A No. 719 of 2023 HC-KAR
8. Learned Senior Counsel Sri.Sandesh.J.Chouta., appearing for Sri.K.B.K.Swamy., learned counsel for the appellant vehemently submitted that, the Trial Court has committed error in recording a conviction, which is liable to be set aside.
9. It is further submitted that the complainant has died during the pendency of the case. P.W.-1 being a shadow witness has been examined. His evidence would disclose that he did not hear the conversation between the complainant and the accused relating to the demand of illegal gratification. When the shadow witness did not support the case in respect of demand of illegal gratification, the ingredients of Section 7 and 13(1)(d) of P.C. Act cannot be attracted. However, the Trial Court recorded the conviction on assumption and presumption which is against to the settled principles of law.
10. It is further contended that unless the demand of illegal gratification is proved, even though the amount is recovered from the accused would not sufficient to hold that the same amount is illegal gratification and the same has been received for the purpose of discharging his official duties. The -6- NC: 2026:KHC:3747 CRL.A No. 719 of 2023 HC-KAR Trial Court has ignored in considering the settled principles of law. Consequently, the impugned judgment is passed which is required to be set aside.
11. The learned Senior Counsel to substantiate his argument relied on the following judgments:
i. Neeraj Dutta Vs. State (Government of NCT Delhi)1 ii. Neeraj Dutta Vs. State (Government of NCT Delhi)2 iii. K. Shanthamma Vs. State of Telangana3 iv. Soundarajan Vs. State4 v. Aman Bhatia Vs. State (GNCT of Delhi)5 vi. P. Manjunath Vs. Karnataka Lokayukta6 vii. Mr.N.Thejas Kumar Vs. State by ACB7 viii. Sri.Ramesh K.T. Vs. State of Karnataka by the Anti Corruption Bureau P.S.8 1 (2023) 4 SCC 731 2 (2023) SCC Online SC 280 3 (2022) 4 SCC 574 4 (2023) SCC Online SC 424 5 (2025) SCC Online SC 1013 6 W.P.No.10027/2022 7 W.P.No.915/2022 -7- NC: 2026:KHC:3747 CRL.A No. 719 of 2023 HC-KAR ix. Sri.B.K.Srinivas Vs. Karnataka Lokayukta9 x. Sri.A.Vanangamudi Vs. State of Karnataka10 xii. Panalal Damodar Rathi Vs. State of Maharashtra11 xii. Sri. R. Samba Murthy Vs. State of Karnataka12 xiii. Thulia Kali Vs. State of Tamil Nadu13
12. Per Contra, Sri.B.S.Prasad, learned Special Public Prosecutor for respondent, vehemently justified the judgment of conviction passed by the Trial Court and contended that merely because the shadow witness did not support the case of the prosecution, that itself is not sufficient to set aside the conviction.
13. It is further contended that the Trial Court has rightly appreciated the facts and circumstances of the case and recorded the conviction even though the complainant did not 8 W.P.No.10799/2023 9 W.P.No.925/2023 10 Criminal Appeal No.430/2013 11 1979 (4) SCC 526 12 Criminal Appeal No.662/2010 13 1972 (2) SCC 393 -8- NC: 2026:KHC:3747 CRL.A No. 719 of 2023 HC-KAR appear before the Court on account of his death. The law is well settled that conviction can be awarded on the facts and circumstances of the case even though the complainant has turned hostile or not available on account of his death on the given facts and circumstances of the case.
14. It is further contended that in the present case it is undisputed fact that the complainant was entrusted work of laying pipelines and he had completed it and he was waiting for his bills to be cleared by the accused. However, the accused had demanded 14% of the amount payable to the complainant. Though, amount of Rs.30,000/- had been paid by way of cheque, the balance amount of Rs.23,200/- was to be paid. The prosecution has proved the case by producing cogent evidence that the amount was recovered from the accused in the presence of witnesses. As such the prosecution has proved the case beyond the doubt regarding demand and acceptance of illegal gratification. Hence, the findings of the Trial Court need not be interfered with. Making such submissions the learned Special Prosecutor prays to dismiss the appeal. -9-
NC: 2026:KHC:3747 CRL.A No. 719 of 2023 HC-KAR
15. In support of his contentions learned Special Public Prosecutor for the respondent relied upon the following citation:
i). Neeraj Dutta Vs. State (Government of NCT of Delhi)14
16. Heard the learned counsel for the respective parties and perused the findings of the Trial Court. It is relevant at this stage to re-appreciate all the witnesses to arrive at a conclusion as to whether the findings of the Trial Court is proper or not.
17. Before adverting to the evidence of the case, it is relevant to refer the proposition of law which is relevant for the purpose of better understanding. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Neeraj Dutta Vs. State (Government of NCT of Delhi)15 in paragraph No.88, reads as under:
88. What emerges from the aforesaid discussion is summarised as under
88.1. (a) Proof of demand and acceptance of illegal gratification by a public servant as a fact in issue by the prosecution is a sine qua non in order 14 (2023) 4 SCC 731 15 (2023) 4 SCC 731
- 10 -
NC: 2026:KHC:3747 CRL.A No. 719 of 2023 HC-KAR to establish the guilt of the accused public servant under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d)(i) and (ii) of the Act.
88.2. (b) In order to bring home the guilt of the accused, the prosecution has to first prove the demand of illegal gratification and the subsequent acceptance as a matter of fact. This fact in issue can be proved either by direct evidence which can be in the nature of oral evidence or documentary evidence.
88.3. (c) Further, the fact in issue, namely, the proof of demand and acceptance of illegal gratification can also be proved by circumstantial evidence in the absence of direct oral and documentary evidence.
88.4. (d) In order to prove the fact in issue, namely, the demand and acceptance of illegal gratification by the public servant, the following aspects have to be borne in mind:
(i) if there is an offer to pay by the bribe-
giver without there being any demand from the public servant and the latter simply accepts the offer and receives the illegal gratification, it is a case of acceptance as per Section 7 of the Act. In such a case, there need not be a prior demand by the public servant.
(ii) On the other hand, if the public servant makes a demand and the bribe-giver accepts the demand and tenders the demanded gratification which in turn is received by the public servant, it is a case of obtainment. In the case of obtainment, the prior demand for illegal gratification emanates from the public servant. This is an offence under Sections 13(1)(d)(i) and (ii) of the Act.
(iii) In both cases of (i) and (ii) above, the offer by the bribe-giver and the demand by the public servant respectively have to be proved by the prosecution as a fact in issue. In other words, mere acceptance or receipt of an illegal gratification without anything more would not make it an offence under Section 7 or Sections 13(1)(d)(i) and (ii), respectively of the Act.
- 11 -
NC: 2026:KHC:3747 CRL.A No. 719 of 2023 HC-KAR Therefore, under Section 7 of the Act, in order to bring home the offence, there must be an offer which emanates from the bribe-giver which is accepted by the public servant which would make it an offence. Similarly, a prior demand by the public servant when accepted by the bribe-giver and in turn there is a payment made which is received by the public servant, would be an offence of obtainment under Sections 13(1)(d)(i) and (ii) of the Act. 88.5. (e) The presumption of fact with regard to the demand and acceptance or obtainment of an illegal gratification may be made by a court of law by way of an inference only when the foundational facts have been proved by relevant oral and documentary evidence and not in the absence thereof. On the basis of the material on record, the court has the discretion to raise a presumption of fact while considering whether the fact of demand has been proved by the prosecution or not. Of course, a presumption of fact is subject to rebuttal by the accused and in the absence of rebuttal presumption stands. 88.6. (f) In the event the complainant turns "hostile", or has died or is unavailable to let in his evidence during trial, demand of illegal gratification can be proved by letting in the evidence of any other witness who can again let in evidence, either orally or by documentary evidence or the prosecution can prove the case by circumstantial evidence. The trial does not abate nor does it result in an order of acquittal of the accused public servant.
88.7. (g) Insofar as Section 7 of the Act is concerned, on the proof of the facts in issue, Section 20 mandates the court to raise a presumption that the illegal gratification was for the purpose of a motive or reward as mentioned in the said Section. The said presumption has to be raised by the court as a legal presumption or a presumption in law. Of course, the said presumption is also subject to rebuttal. Section 20 does not apply to Sections 13(1)(d)(i) and (ii) of the Act.
- 12 -
NC: 2026:KHC:3747 CRL.A No. 719 of 2023 HC-KAR 88.8. (h) We clarify that the presumption in law under Section 20 of the Act is distinct from presumption of fact referred to above in sub-para 88.5(e), above, as the former is a mandatory presumption while the latter is discretionary in nature.
18. The complainant namely Sri.Munivenkatappa has died during the pendency of this appeal. Hence, rest of the witnesses and their evidence has to be scrutinized for the purpose of re-appreciation.
19. PW-1 is the shadow witness. PW-2 is another panch witness. PW-3 is the Chief Executive Officer, Bengaluru Rural District Zilla Panchayath, Bengaluru, who is stated to have sanctioned to prosecute the appellant in accordance with law. PW-4 was the Police Inspector, Lokayukta, who is stated to have conducted investigation and submitted the charge-sheet.
20. The evidence of PW-1 would indicate that he was called by the Lokayukta Police and requested him to be a shadow witness. It is further stated that he accompanied the complainant when he went to the office of the appellant. Firstly, the attempt of trap was failed. Subsequently, on 08.09.2014 again P.W.-1 and complainant went to the office of the accused
- 13 -
NC: 2026:KHC:3747 CRL.A No. 719 of 2023 HC-KAR and conversation had taken place between the complainant and accused. However, P.W.-1 did not hear the conversation that had taken place between the complainant and the accused. Thereafter, P.W.-1 was informed that complainant and accused were going on the motorcycle and he was requested to follow them along with other staff. It is further stated that P.W.-1 and other staff have been asked to come near Avimukteshwara Temple where it is stated that illegal gratification was paid to the accused. On reading the cross-examination of P.W.-1 a solution was made that in photographs which are marked as Ex-P.8 to P.23, the complainant was not seen in the said photographs, the same has been admitted by P.W.-1 and further it is suggested him that the alleged motor cycle was not seen in the said photographs, he has admitted the same.
21. The learned Special Prosecutor relied on the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Neeraj Dutta Vs. State (Government of NCT of Delhi) stated supra especially in paragraph Nos.89 and 90, reads as under:
89. In view of the aforesaid discussion and conclusions, we find that there is no conflict in the three-Judge Bench decisions of this Court in B. Jayaraj [B. Jayaraj v. State of A.P., (2014) 13 SCC
- 14 -
NC: 2026:KHC:3747 CRL.A No. 719 of 2023 HC-KAR 55 : (2014) 5 SCC (Cri) 543] and P. Satyanarayana Murthy [P. Satyanarayana Murthy v. State of A.P., (2015) 10 SCC 152 :
(2016) 1 SCC (Cri) 11] with the three-Judge Bench decision in M. Narsinga Rao [M. Narsinga Rao v. State of A.P., (2001) 1 SCC 691 : 2001 SCC (Cri) 258] , with regard to the nature and quality of proof necessary to sustain a conviction for the offences under Sections 7 or 13(1)(d)(i) and (ii) of the Act, when the direct evidence of the complainant or "primary evidence" of the complainant is unavailable owing to his death or any other reason. The position of law when a complainant or prosecution witness turns "hostile"
is also discussed and the observations made above would accordingly apply in light of Section 154 of the Evidence Act. In view of the aforesaid discussion, we hold that there is no conflict between the judgments in the aforesaid three cases.
90. Accordingly, the question referred for consideration of this Constitution Bench is answered as under:
In the absence of evidence of the complainant (direct/primary, oral/documentary evidence) it is permissible to draw an inferential deduction of culpability/guilt of a public servant under Section 7 and Section 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of the Act based on other evidence adduced by the prosecution.
22. On careful reading of these paragraphs it would indicate that when the direct evidence of the complainant is unavailable on account of the death of the complainant or any other reason, it is permissible to draw inferential deduction of culpability of a public servant based on the other evidence adduced by the prosecution.
- 15 -
NC: 2026:KHC:3747 CRL.A No. 719 of 2023 HC-KAR
23. Regard being had to the proposition of law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in respect of the said issue now it is relevant to refer the evidence of P.W.-1 who is the material witness to the case.
24. On reading of the evidence of P.W.-1 it appears that, he has not supported the case of the prosecution in respect of demand of illegal gratification. When the prosecution is failed to prove the case regarding demand of illegal gratification, it is needless to say that mere recovery of the amount would not sufficient to hold that the accused has demanded illegal gratification to discharge official duty. As such I am of the considered opinion that the prosecution has failed to establish the demand of illegal gratification, the Trial Court has committed error in appreciating the evidence. Hence, it is appropriate to set aside the conviction rendered by the Trial Court.
25. In the light of the observations made above, I proceed to pass the following:
- 16 -
NC: 2026:KHC:3747 CRL.A No. 719 of 2023 HC-KAR ORDER i. This Criminal Appeal is allowed. ii. The judgment of conviction and order on sentence dated 25.03.2023 passed in Spl.C.No.117/2015 on the file of IX Additional District and Sessions Judge and Special Judge, Bangalore Rural District, Bangalore. Wherein, the appellant has been convicted for the offence punishable under Section 7, 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, is hereby, set aside. iii. The appellant is acquitted for the offences stated supra.
iv. The bail bonds executed, if any, stands cancelled.
Sd/-
(S RACHAIAH) JUDGE NM List No.: 2 Sl No.: 1