Karnataka High Court
The State Of Karnataka vs Sri K Prabhakar on 13 January, 2026
-1-
CRL.A No.615 of 2014
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 13 TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2026
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G BASAVARAJA
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.615 OF 2014
BETWEEN:
THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
BY POLICE INSPECTOR,
LOKAYUKTA POLICE STATION,
CHAMARAJANAGAR-571 313.
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI. B. S. PRASAD, SPECIAL PP.)
AND:
SRI. K. PRABHAKAR
S/O LATE KRISHNA SWAMY,
MAJOR, VILLAGE ACCOUNTANT,
KASABA HOBLI, KOLLEGAL,
RESIDENT OF NO.9/10,
JEWELLERY STREET, KOLLEGAL TOWN,
CHAMARAJANAGAR DISTRICT,
PIN CODE-571 313.
...RESPONDENT
(BY SRI. K. A. CHANDRASHEKARA, ADV.)
THIS CRL.A. IS FILED U/S.378(1) AND 378(3) CR.P.C
PRAYING TO GRANT LEAVE TO APPEAL AGAINST THE
JUDGEMENT AND ORDER OF ACQUITTAL DATED 31.05.2014
PASSED BY THE DISTRICT AND SPECIAL JUDGE,
CHAMARAJANAGARA IN SPL.C.NO.55/10 - ACQUITTING THE
RESPONDENT/ACCUSED FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/S 7, 13(1)(D)
R/W SEC.13(2) OF THE PREVENTION OF CORRUPTION ACT,
1988.
-2-
CRL.A No.615 of 2014
THIS APPEAL HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED FOR
JUDGMENT ON 12.11.2025 AND COMING ON FOR
"PRONOUNCEMENT OF ORDERS" THIS DAY, THE COURT,
DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G BASAVARAJA
CAV JUDGMENT
State has preferred this appeal against the judgment of acquittal dated 31st May 2014 passed in Special Case No.55 of 2010 by the District & Sessions Judge at Chamarajanagar (for short "the trial Court").
2. For the sake of convenience, the parties herein are referred to as per their status and rank before the trial court.
3. The case of prosecution is that Police Inspector, Lokayukta, Chamarajanagar laid charge-sheet against the accused for offence punishable under sections 7, 13(1)(d) read with 13(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. It is alleged by the prosecution that accused, being a public servant working as village accountant in revenue department of Kasaba Hobli, Kollegal, demanded illegal gratification of ₹7,000/- from the complainant for doing official favour, viz. changing the khata of the land in survey Nos.1043 and 971 situated in Kollegal, Kasaba Hobli to the names of CW1, CW4 and CW5. As CW1- complainant was not willing to pay the bribe amount, he lodged -3- CRL.A No.615 of 2014 complaint to the Lokayukta Police, which was registered in Crime No.4 of 2009 and FIR was sent to the special Judge.
Thereafter on 21st October 2009, at 4:50 pm, in the house situate at Jewellery Street, Kollegal town, when the accused demanded the bribe amount and received the same, the accused was caught red-handed along with the bribe amount by the Lokayukta Police and accordingly, accused committed criminal misconduct by demanding and obtaining pecuniary gratification from the complainant by corrupt and illegal means while holding the office of government servant and thereby accused committed the for offences punishable under the provisions of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.
After filing the charge-sheet, case came to be registered in Special Case No.55 of 2010. Accused appeared before the court and was enlarged on bail. Having heard on charges, the trial Court framed charges for the offences sections 7, 13(1)(d) read with section 13(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.
The same were read over and explained to the accused in the language known tot them. Accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. To prove the guilt of the accused, prosecution has examined seven witnesses as PWs1 to 7 and marked twenty documents as Exhibits P1 to P20 and twelve Material Objects as MOs1 to 12. On closure of prosecution side -4- CRL.A No.615 of 2014 evidence, statement of the accused under section 313 of Code of Criminal Procedure was recorded. Accused denied all the incriminating circumstances appearing against him and produced his written statement. He has not chosen to lead any defence evidence. Having heard the arguments on both sides, the trial court acquitted the accused. Being aggrieved by the impugned judgment of acquittal, State has preferred this appeal.
4. Sri B.S. Prasad, learned Special Public Prosecutor appearing for the appellant-State would submit that the impugned judgment of acquittal is contrary to law, facts of the case and weight of evidence. The reasons assigned by the learned judge while passing the order of acquittal is erroneous and hence has resulted in substantial miscarriage of justice. He would submit that PW1-the complainant, PW2 the panch witness, PW3-the shadow witness and PW7-Investigating officer, have all supported the case of the prosecution. The evidence of these witnesses establish the case of the prosecution against the respondent. He would submit that evidence of all the witnesses clearly establish the fact that the respondent, being the public servant, had received the bribe amount from the complainant for doing official work of -5- CRL.A No.615 of 2014 changing khata in the name of complainant and others. The trial court failed to appreciate that totality of the evidence of these witnesses in its proper perspective. The complainant has given evidence regarding demand by the respondent, and the respondent also admitted about the demand of bribe, but has not specified the amount. The learned judge erred in acquitting the respondent by not accepting evidence of PW1. Even when the prosecution has established the acceptance of bribe by accused, after seizure of currency notes, accused has submitted his explanation as per Exhibit P5, in which he has admitted the receipt of bribe amount. During the course of cross-
examination of material witnesses, the accused has not received any favourable answers from them. The prosecution has proved the demand and acceptance of bribe and also the pending work before the accused by placing all relevant documents. Both the pre-trap and post-trap panchanamas reveal as to the receipt of bribe amount by the accused.
Exhibit P5-report of Forensic Science Laboratory also support the case of the prosecution. Exhibit P10 is the application filed to the Tahsildar, Kollegal. However, the trial Court has not considered the evidence placed by the prosecution. On all these grounds, it is short to allow the appeal.
-6- CRL.A No.615 of 20145. On the other hand, Sri K.A. Chandrashekar, learned Counsel appearing for the respondent-accused would submit that the Exhibit P2 to reveals that the complainant has not lodged the complaint. The complaint was filed by PW4-Smt. Maheshwari, the aunt of the complainant. It is PW1 and not PW4 who has approached the Lokayukta Police. The application filed by PW4-Maheshwari as per Exhibit P2 is on 19th September 2008 and the complaint is filed by PW1 on 21st October 2009. During the course of cross-examination, PW1 has admitted that on 30th August 2009, their names were entered in the mutation register. Therefore, it is clear that no work was pending at the time of allegation made against the accused. The trial Court has observed that in the Mutation Register, the names have been mentioned on 30th August 2009, and in that there is entry about the change of names of the persons in the mutation register, the names have been mutated on 30th August 2009, and in that there is entry about the change of names of the persons in whose name the entry in the revenue records are changed. Hence, the learned cousnel would submit that trial court as properly appreciated the evidence on record in accordance with law and facts.
Absolutely, there are no materials to interfere with the -7- CRL.A No.615 of 2014 judgment of acquittal and hence sought for dismissal of the appeal.
6. Having heard the learned Counsel appearing for the parties, the following point would arise for my consideration:
1) Whether the appellant has made out a ground to interfere with the impugned judgment of acquittal?
7. I have examined the materials placed before the court. Before appreciation of evidence and record, it is necessary to mention here as to the judgments of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the Case of CONSTABLE 907 SURENDRA SINGH AND ANOTHER v. STATE OF UTTARAKHAND reported in (2025)5 SCC 433; BABU SAHEBGOUDA RUDRAGOUDAR AND OTHERS v. STATE OF KARNATAKA reported in (2024)8 SCC 149; CHANDRAPPA v. STATE OF KARNATAKA reported in (2007)4 SCC 415; and H.D. SUNDARA v. STATE OF KARNATAKA reported in (2023)9 SCC 581. In the case of H D SUNDARA (supra), the Apex Court has summarized the principles governing exercise of appellate jurisdiction while dealing with an appeal against judgment of acquittal under section 378 of Code of Criminal Procedure as under:
-8- CRL.A No.615 of 2014"8. ...8.1. The acquittal of the accused further strengthens the presumption of innocence;
8.2. The appellate court, while hearing an appeal against acquittal, is entitled to re-appreciate the oral and documentary evidence;
8.3. The appellate court, while deciding an appeal against acquittal, after re-appreciating the evidence, is required to consider whether the view taken by the trial court is a possible view which could have been taken on the basis of the evidence on record;
8.4. If the view taken is a possible view, the appellate court cannot overturn the order of acquittal on the ground that another view was also possible; and 8.5. The appellate court can interfere with the order of acquittal only if it comes to a finding that the only conclusion which can be recorded on the basis of the evidence on record was that the guilt of the accused was proved beyond a reasonable doubt and no other conclusion was possible."
In the said judgment, it is further observed that thus it is beyond the pale of doubt that the scope of interference by an appellate court for reversing the judgment of acquittal recorded by the trial court in favour of the accused has to be exercised within the four corners of the following principles:
"41.1. That the judgment of acquittal suffers from patent perversity;-9- CRL.A No.615 of 2014
41.2. That the same is based on a misreading/omission to consider material evidence on record; and 41.3. That no two reasonable views are possible and only the view consistent with the guilt of the accused is possible from the evidence available on record."
8. In the case on hand, to prove the guilt of the accused, prosecution has examined seven witnesses as PWs1 to 7 and marked 20 documents as Exhibits P1 to P20 and 12 material objects as MOs1 to12. A careful examination of the entire evidence on record would make it clear that, the trial court has properly considered the oral and documentary evidence placed before it court. At paragraphs 14 to 19 of the judgment, the trial court has observed as follows:
"14. After carefully going through the prosecution case in complaint .P.1, the oral evidence on record and the legal principles relied by both the parties and involved in this case and also the arguments advanced on both sides, it is clear that: (1)The prosecution requires to prove (a). The official work pending with the accused, at the time of filing complaint in this case. . (b) Demand by the accused with the complainant; (c).The acceptance of the bribe amount by the accused; 14(2) If 1(a) with regard to the official work pending with the accused at the relevant point of time, if the prosecution case and evidence on record, is considered, it is clear that: (1) The complaint Ex.P.1 discloses that:
- 10 -CRL.A No.615 of 2014
(a) The application for change of Khata was given on 19.9.2008 to Kollegal Taluk Office enclosing the concerned RTC and death extracts.
(b) In the month of May (2009), enquired about the change of Khata in the office of the RI and it was informed to produce Survey sketch and partition deed.
(c) Then, they approached the survey office and got the survey sketch.
(d) Then, they gave the survey sketch and partition deed to RI office.
(e) Then, as per the check list of the computer section, it was sent to RI office and then to village accountant (accused).
(f) Since one month, i.e., from 21.9.2009, he was meeting the accused in connection with the change of khata. He demanded 8,000/-.
(g) Then, about one week back, i.e., around 15.10.2009, as per his bargain, being poor the amount was reduced to Rs.7,000/- to the least.
(2) In this regard, as per the prosecution case and evidence, Ex.P.7- trap mahazer discloses at para 3 that, at that time, when they asked the accused to produce the documents pertaining to the work of the complainant, the accused produced the documents which were in his possession as detailed at page No. 6 (numbered in pencil) at para 3, CE No 10-181 09-10 -Form No. 21 -Khata change notice given to public regarding complainant's aunt. Maheshwari's application for change of khata after
- 11 -
CRL.A No.615 of 2014death and other documents page 1 to 22. 14(3) The said documents are marked in this case as Ex.P.10 and Ex.P.10(f) is Form 21 notice (Rule 65) dated 30.8.2009 issued by the village accountant regarding change of khata from the name of Ramakrishna to the extent of 4- 28 to the name of Maheshwari, to the extent of 2.14 and Nataraju to the extemt pf 2/14 jointly with R.Mahesh.(complainant) and in it, 5 villagers names are mentioned. Further, Ex.P.10(E) is the check list sent to computer section and nobody has signed it, but it referred to the application dated 29.8.2009. as that of Ex.P.10(F), except missing the names of villagers. Ex.P.10(D) is the endorsement of the Taluk Office in RRT No. 529/08-09 regarding the applicants' application producing the 11E sketch and they were sent to the concerned Tahsildar, for further action, on 29.8.2009. Ex.P10(A) is the application ;of Maheshwari for change of khata dated 19.9.2008. Ex.P.10(B) dated 21.11.2008, issued to Maheshwari in RRT NO. 529/08-09 on the application filed by her for change of khata, calling upon her to produce 2 documents i.e., Partition deed and Survey sketch and report, for taking further steps on her application. Further, in the said documents, it is noticed that there is genealogy xerox copy at page No. 143 and xerox copy of the partition deed at page 145 to 152. 14(4) In this regard, P.W,1, in chief, has stated that:
(a)Maheshwari had given an application in the year 2008 for changing the Khata. In that connection, he had met the accused Prabhakar.
- 12 -
CRL.A No.615 of 2014(b) Initially, he told that he would do and after some days, he told that survey sketch has to be done and therefore, it is not possible to do.
(c) They had given the khata changing application on 2nd November, but the survey sketch was done only on 1st November. It was told that it will be late for another survey sketch.
(d) Thereafter, the survey was obtained and by putting the check list given it was sent to computer section.
(e) Thereafter, the said application had gone to the office of RI.. Thereafter, the village accountant -accused Prabhakar, sent information.
In cross, he has stated that :
(a) He admits that after receiving (application) registered as RRT No. 529/2008-2009 on 4.10.2008.
(b) He admits that he has given his complaint about one year thereafter.
(c) He admits that on 3.2.2009, he wrote the family tree in front of the accused.
(d) To the suggestion that at the time of giving the complaint, the accused had left no work undone, he says that except change of khata, there was no other work.
(e) He states that he ascertained from computer section as to where his application had gone. Earlier it was in the RRT section and RRT section had numbered it and sent to RI.
- 13 -
CRL.A No.615 of 2014(f) He admits that RRT have to issue notice calling for any objections. They have to wait for one month, if any body files objections.
(g) On 2.1.2009, the accused had made submission wherein, it is stated that as the necessary documents are not produced, it was placed before the Tahsildar for his information.
(h) He admits that before giving the complaint, the Tahsildar had sent it to computer section, i.e., on 29.8.2009.
(i) He does not know whether the documents were sent from computer section to the accused, as it was the office procedure.
(j) To the suggestion whether he knows when the documents were received by the accused, he says that the accused had told him that he would send information to him when he receives the documents.
(k) He does not know the date when the accused sent information for the first time.
(l) He admits that on 30.8.2009, the accused had come to the spot conducted panchnama to the effect that his aunt gets 2.14 cent and he and his brother jointly gets 2.14 cent.
(m) He admits that in the mutation register, their names have been mentioned on 30.8.2009. In that there is entry about the change of right and the names of the persons in whose names the rights are changed.
- 14 -
CRL.A No.615 of 2014(n) He says that on 30.8.2009, the documents were with the accused and they were not given to their hands. 14(5) If the above complaint is considered with oral and documentary evidence in this regard, it goes to show that, (i) Application for change of khata was given in the month of September 2008, but kept quiet without pursuing the same and enquiring. But, as per the complaint itself, after a lapse of more than seven months, he approached the concerned. Further, in this regard, admittedly, the said application was given RRT number and called some documents and the same being complied. . But, there is no any compliance of furnishing the genealogy and partition deed, but they are in the records at Ex.P.10, as detailed above. In this regard, the delay for change of khata occurred on account of the applicant not pursuing the same and not complying all the requirements in this regard. (ii) In complaint, there is no any mention as to the procedure required to be followed by the Taluk office after receiving the Khata change application. Likewise, not mentioned the details as to the movement of the said application from concerned section to section in the Taluk Office and the officials concerned in this regard in each section at that time. Further, there is no any specific mention as to what was the details of the work to be done by each of such officials and more particularly, the village accountant accused relating to the said khata change application and actually when the accused received the said file and what required steps he had taken and still what was required to be done by him yet. So, in the absence of such particulars and details, merely because the application was filed and the same was not done, it cannot be said and held or inferred that the accused is responsible or liable for the same. (iii) In
- 15 -
CRL.A No.615 of 2014this case, prosecution has to prove and establish through IO, that after receiving the khata change application, what steps the Taluk office has to take, from initial stage to the last stage, step by step and the responsibility of the concerned officials and the details of the work to be done by each such officials, and to whom finally the said application or file would go for final order in this regard.(khata change) Further, in this regard, more particularly and specifically as to when the accused has received the said application or file and what work he was required to do and had done and from him, to whom or to the section to which the said application had to proceed and whether, in this case, the accused had done his part of required duty or not and details of the same. So, in the absence of such case, evidence and material regarding the complainant's said application, merely because, the said application was pending and the said work was not done, the prosecution case and evidence that the accused being only a village accountant and admittedly, he is not the first and final authority in disposing off the said application, therefore, the prosecution is required to investigate in this regard and place all the materials before the Court in this regard , so as to hold the accused is only responsible and liable for not completing the said work or he intentionally kept the said application or file, with out attending the same, as required by him and thereby, demanded the bribe for doing the said required work. But, in this case, there is no any such case, materials or evidence in this regard. (iv) . Further, in this regard, it is important to note that, as per the complaint, in May 2009 itself, the RI informed to produce the survey sketch and partition deed. But, if Ex.P.10(B) is considered in this regard, in November 2008 itself, issued notice
- 16 -
CRL.A No.615 of 2014calling for the said two documents, but the complainant has not cared to produce the same. As such, in May 2009 when the complainant enquired in this regard, the same was informed and as per Ex.P.10(B) in November 2008 only sketch was produced and did not produce the partition deed, nor explained the same on any ground. So, it goes to show that in May 2009, accused asking the sketch itself appears to be not true and correct. Further, it goes to show that P.W.1 was not doing anything in this regard, from the date of the application, but only subsequently, he tried to get the said work done. So, it appears P.W.1 was not knowing fully about the same and he is not deposing the true facts. Further, it is not clear and explained, as to who and when and to whom actually the partition was produced before the concerned. Therefore, it creates doubt in the prosecution case and evidence in this case. (v) Further, as per the complaint, the khata change application dated 19.9.2008 and as such, its copy was produced in this case as per Ex..10(A). But, in Ex.P.10(E)-the check list, the application referred is dated 29.8.2009. So, from the above materials, it is not clear as to when the khata change application was filed. The same is not explained by the prosecution, on any grounds. So, it creates doubt in the prosecution case and evidence in this case. (v) Further, in this regard, it is important to note that as per x.P.10(F) the Village Accountant has issued the said Form 21 notice dated 30.8.2009. The signature of village accountant in the said notice is different from the signature of the accused. Further, in this regard, P.W.1, in the cross-examination, has stated that the RRT have to issue notice calling for any objections. So, it is not clear who has actually issued the said notice. So, if the accused has not issued the said
- 17 -
CRL.A No.615 of 2014notice, it goes to show that the said file has not gone to the accused. The same is n;ot explained by the prosecute on any grounds. So, it creates doubt in the prosecution case and evidence in this case . (vi) Further, in the complaint Ex.P.1; there is no any mention of arrears of kandayam in; respect of the said lands , nor mentioned that the same being paid by the complainant at any time. But, on the contrary, P.W.1's cross examination discloses:
He has stated that he does not know about the balance of kandayam for ten years which was informed to him when he went to Taluk Office and enquired. After the death of his father, he does know about payment of kandayam and he admits that his father died in the year 2006. He has stated that they have not paid the Kandayam. He says that even after the Lok Ayuktha police got changed the khata, they were not required to pay the kandaya. He says that the accused did not ask payment of arrears of Kandaya. Further, in this regard, the prosecution has not made out any case , nor explained the same on any grounds. So, it may be one of the circumstances, in not effecting the khata as per the said application in this case. So, it creates doubt in the prosecution case and evidence in this case . (vii) Further, in this regard, it is important to note that as per the evidence of P.W.1, in chief and cross, the accused had gone to the land and done the panchnama and demanded some requirements to be complied, to attend the said work or attended the said work. So, it goes to show that the accused, after receipt of the application or file, started attending the said work as per law. If actually, he was having any intention not to do the said work unless and until, some amount is paid, then, he would not have attended the said work at all and before starting the said work itself, he would have
- 18 -CRL.A No.615 of 2014
demanded the said amount, as alleged in this case. So, it goes to show that bona fide on the part of the accused while doing the entrusted work. (viii) Therefore, for the above reasons and under these circumstances, merely because: (a) At the relevant time and place, the accused was a village accountant. (b) The complainant's khata change application was not attended and done even for two years. (c) The complainant's said application or file being seized from the accused, are nto the sole grounds to accept the prosecution case and evidence in this case, for the reasons stated above in detail. Therefore, for the above reasons and under these circumstances, from the above materials, as it is, are considered, it cannot be said and held that the said work was pending with accused only, as contended and as required by law in this regard and he is only responsible and liable in this regard. Further, in this regard, it is important to note that P.W.1, in the cross-examination, has stated that on the date of the trap, when the complainant went to him to enquire about the khata change, the accused told one son being not shown and the complainant told that he was a Saku Maga and he has been given share and therefore, he was not shown. So, it goes to show that the complainant had not fully complied fully and had complied with all the requirements in this regard. Therefore, it appears that the delay in effecting khata or not effecting the khata, was on account of the complainant not going to the concerned and complying with the requirements or furnishing the required information and satisfying the requirements fully in this regard. Therefore, for the above reasons, I hold that the prosecution failed to prove and establish that the said work of the complainant, was pending with the accused at the time of filing complaint in this case, nor
- 19 -CRL.A No.615 of 2014
the accused was do any work of the complainant at the time of filing of this complaint, as alleged and as required by law in this regard. Therefore, for the above reasons and under these circumstances, I hold that the prosecution has failed to prove and established that the complainant's official work was pending with the accused at the time of filing this complaint.
15. Now, coming to the two Demands alleged to have been made by the accused with the complainant and acceptance of the bribe amount by the accused as detailed at para 14(1)(b) above, is considered, it goes to show that: (1) If the requirements shown at (b) is considered, it goes to show that in this regard, there are two stages of demand to be proved, one initial demand before filing the complaint and the second on the day of trap. If the first demand is considered, it is clear that: (a) The complaint Ex.P.1, discloses that: In respect of S.No. 1043, as per the check list of the computer section, it was sent to RI and from the office of their, it had gone to the Village Accountant Prabhakar-accused. Since one month, he was meeting the said Prabhakar in connection with the change of khata and for changing the Khata, the said VA-
accused demanded Rs.8,000/-; and about one week back, i.e., on 14.10.2010, when he bargained to reduce the amount since they were poor, he(accused) to pay Rs. 7000/- at least for doing the said work. (b) Further, ;in this regard, P.W.1, in chief, has stated that, (i) He went and met the accused. At that time, he told that Rs. 8000/- should be given for changing the khata. When he pleaded his difficulties, he told that the bribe amount of atleast Rs. 7000/- should be given. (ii) He was not willing to get the work done by paying the bribe amount.
- 20 -
CRL.A No.615 of 2014Therefore, he informed this matter to his aunt Maheshwari and his brother Nataraju and he also told them about he giving a complaint to Lok Ayuktha Police in this regard. They told him to do like that only. (c) P.W.4- Maheshwari, in chief has stated that After the death of her husband, she signed the Khata change application and gave it to Mahesh as per Ex.P.2 and after 1-2 months she was informed that bribe of Rs. 8000/0 was being demanded for changing the khata and he told that he has agreed for Rs. 7000/-. Thereafter, Mahesh told about giving the complaint and she agreed for that. In the cross-examination, she has stated that she does not know as to when and which office the said Mahesh was going after giving the complaint. She had not given the amount of Rs.7000/- that was being demanded by the accused.
(d) In this regard, P.W.5-Shivabasappa, in chief has stated that: P.W.1 approached him and stated that even after a lapse of one year, the khata after the death, has not been done even after giving application in this regard. Then, he advised him to approach the Tahsildar in this regard, but, he told that he could not meet the Tahsildar as he was not available. He further states that he further told that the concerned village accountant (the accused) was demanding bribe pf 8.000/- and later, it was fixed at Rs 7,000/- and he wanted to file complaint. So, as he was having the Lokayuktha SP's phone number. So, he contacted him and he informed about the same and the SP told to send him on the next day to his office. Then, on the next day, as he telephoned to SP office, he was not there, but the driver received the same and later, the SP phoned to him to send him (complainant). Then, he came to know that the complainant had filed the complaint. In the cross-examination, he has stated that: The
- 21 -
CRL.A No.615 of 2014complainant told that he had given the application, but he had not gone with him either to the Tahsildar office or the village accountant. His application had gone to VA but, he was delaying. But, he had not gone to the accused and enquired in this regard. But, he denied that as he(complainant) had not produced the required information and the document and he was asked to come and has to verify the same. (2) If the above evidence on record is considered, it is clear that, (a) As per complaint Ex.P.1, even though the khata change application given on 19.9.2008, but none persuaded the same nor made any enquiry, but kept quiet for long time and the said act and conduct on the part of the applicant, is not explained on any grounds. So, in the absence of such explanation, it can only be inferred that the applicant was not interested in this regard, or they were not having correct and required records in this regard. Further, in this regard, it is important to note that: (i) P.W.4, in; chief, has stated that after the death of her husband, she signed the khata change application and gave it to Mahesh and it is as per Ex.P.2 and after 1-2 months, she was informed that bribe of Rs. 8000/- was being demanded for changing the khata and told that he had agreed for Rs.7000/- Thereafter, P.W.1 told about giving the complaint and she agreed for that. But, in this regard, that is not the prosecution case or evidence of P.W.1, but on the contrary, P.W.1 first enquired in May 2009 and the accused is alleged to have made demand of Rs. 8,000 one month before the complaint i.e., 21.9.2009 and the said amount was reduced to Rs. 7,000/- one week before the complaint i.e., 15.10.2009. Further, in this regard, admittedly, P.W.5 has not given the said amount of Rs.7,000/- to P.W.1, nor enquired about the same, nor was knowing
- 22 -
CRL.A No.615 of 2014from where and from whom, P.W.1 got that amount and paid and in this regard, the prosecution has not made out a specific case in this regard, not led any evidence, nor explained the same on any grounds. Therefore, the prosecution case and the evidence of the above said witnesses, is not consistent in this regard. Therefore, it creates a serious doubt about the accused demanding any bribe and settling the same, as alleged in this case against the accused. (ii) The said application of the complainant was given RRT number 529/2009-09, as can be seen from Ex.P.10(B) and Ex.P.10(D). But, it is not clear when and why the said number was given and in this case, the said entire file, with order sheet, is not produced, from the date of the said application, in this case, nor explained the same on any grounds. Further, in this regard, as already held above in detail, while considering the pending official work with the accused at
(a), the details of the procedure required to be complied in this regard and the detail work of the accused-village accountant in this regard. But, in this case, the prosecution has not made out any case, nor complainant stated in the complaint Ex.P.1, as to why , in the usual course, immediately after the application, the same was not attended and work done, as required by law in this regard. The fact that the applicant and the complainant kept quiet without pursuing the same for more than one year, without verifying as to where the said application was struck and for its reason. Further, it is not clear whether at that time also, the accused was the VA or not and whether they approached him or not. But, only, they approached the accused one month before filing of this complaint and he made demand of Rs. 8000/- and about one week earlier to filing of the complaint, the same was
- 23 -
CRL.A No.615 of 2014reduced and fixed at Rs. 8,000/-. But, in this regard, it is important to note that P.W.1, in the chief examination, has stated that after giving the said application, he met the accused and he initially told that he would do the work after some days and told that survey sketch has to be done. Then, the said file went to RI and computer section and was not with the accused. So, it is not clear when actually the said file reached to the accused and for what official work was required to be done by him. In this regard, P.W.1, in the cross-examination, has admitted that in the mutation register, their names were mentioned on 30.8.2009. in that, there was entry about the change of rights and names of the persons in whose names were changed; and further stated that on the said date, the documents were with the accused and they were not given to their hands. If it is considered with the evidence of IO in this regard, it goes to show that, the accused has no authority to change the khata, but he has to make report to the RI after collecting the required documents in this regard. But, in this case, whether the accused done the same or not,, being not made out by the prosecution,; nor there is any clear evidence in th is regard, therefore, unless and u;ntil such case is made out and materials are produced, the case against the accused that he demanded bribe amount for change of khata, appears to be not acceptable. (b) Further, in this regard, except the complainant's self serving statement and the evidence of his relative P.W.4, and a known person, there is no any independent supporting evidence like mobile calls, voice recorded conversation or any other independent witness for having witnessed the same. Therefore, it is one of the circumstances in not accepting the prosecution case and evidence in this case. Therefore,
- 24 -
CRL.A No.615 of 2014for the above reasons and under these circumstances, I hold that the evidence of P.W.1 is not believable and acceptable in this regard. Hence, I hold that the prosecution has failed to prove and establish the Ist demand, as alleged and as required by lalw, in this case.
16 Now. Coming to the alleged 2nd demand and acceptance of the bribe amount of Rs. 7,000/- by the accused, as alleged, as detailed at para 14(1)(b)(c) above, with the prosecution case and materials on record, it goes to show that , (1)(a) ,The trap mahazer Ex.P.7 discloses at page 2 that the complainant P.W.1 and P.W.3
-the panch No.2, at 5 PM, the complainant gave signal, as mentioned in the said panchnama. Then, the IO, panch NO.1 and his staff entered into the house of the accused and on enquiry, came to know about the accused having demanded and received Rs. 7,000/- from P.W.1. So, the accused was arrested at 5.10 PM and then conducted the other procedure, for confirmation of the same by conducting phenolpthalein tests of hands and shirt pocket and seized the amount etc., as stated in the mahazer. (1)(b) the chief examination of P.W.1 discloses that: (i) At 5 PM, they went to the house of the accused. The TATA SUMO was parked behind the house of the accused. From there, Panch witness 2-Vinay was sent along with him.
(ii) He switched on the Voice recorder and kept it in his pocket and went to the house of the accused. (iii) He went ahead and Panchwitness Vinay followed him. He went and met the accused and enquired about the khata change. He asked him as to why he did nt come to him since long. For that, he replied that there was festival. The accused told that on the excuse of festival he cannot remain silent, he should adjust the money and come. (iv)
- 25 -
CRL.A No.615 of 2014Thereafter, when he told "can he take leave of him", for that, the accused asked him to give the money. (v) At that time, he took out the money by his right hand from his left side shirt pocket and gave the same to the right hand of the accused and he received the same with his right hand and counted with both his hands and he kept the amount in the shirt pocket, which was hung to a chair. (vi) He asked the accused as to how long it would take to change the khata. For that, the accused replied, it may take fifteen days. (vii) The accused asked him as to why they had omitted to mention the name of one more son. For that, he told that he was fostered son and he has already been given property. (viii) Thereafter, the accused asked about panch witness-1 who had accompanied him. He told that he was his friend. (ix) Thereafter, he came out and gave signal by moving his hand on his hand. (x) Thereafter, the Lok Ayuktha Inspector, staff and another panch witness all came there and after entering inside the house, he was asked as HE ONLY ? He showed the accused and told as HE ONLY. Thereafter, the Lok Ayuktha staff held both the hands of the accused. In the cross examination, he has stated that
(i) At the time of the trap, all the documents were with the accused and that they might have talked with the accused for about one minute in his house (1)(c) P.W.3- Vinay, in chief has stated that (i) While the complainant was in Tata Sumo, telephoned the accused and asked him where he has to come. At that time, the accused informed to come to his house. (ii) Thereafter, they went to the house of the accused situated at Jewelry Street. They parked the vehicle at some distance there. After going there, Jayaramu asked as to what all has to be done and also told about the voice recorder. (iii) He and the
- 26 -
CRL.A No.615 of 2014complainant were asked to go to the house of the accused. The others remained there itself at a distance.
(iv) Thereafter, he and the complainant went to the house of the accused. He was sitting in the Hall. Then, he talked with the complainant. Then, the accused asked him as to why he (complainant) did not come. For that, the complainant told that he was having festival and therefore, it was not possible to come. At that time, the accused told about omission of one person in the family tree. He (complainant) told that he was fostered son - Saku Maga and therefore he has been left out. (v) Thereafter, the complainant asked about the Khata change. At that time, the accused told to pay the amount. At that time, the complainant gave the amount that was in the left pocket, to the hand of the accused. The accused received it, counted it and kept in the shirt pocket that was hung behind his chair. Thereafter, the accused asked about him. The complainant told that he was his friend. (vi) Thereafter (the accused) told that it takes fifteen days. Thereafter, they came out. Thereafter, the complainant informed by giving signal. At that time, Jayaram, his staff and another pancha, came inside the house. Thereafter, the went along with them. (vii) He further says that thereafter, they(police) gave their identity to the accused and his staff held the hand of the accused. Then, Jayaram asked them and the complainant, as to whether the amount was kept. At that time, the complainant informed about the amount. (viii) The accused was asked about he having received the money. For that, the accused told that he did not demand for any specific amount, mistake is committed and he would not do in future and accordingly, the accused wrote and gave.
(ix) Thereafter, they asked about the said writing and
- 27 -
CRL.A No.615 of 2014they told that it was true, the accused demanded and received the money. In the cross-examination he has stated that, (i) The inspector, while giving the voice recorder, asked the complainant to record the conversation, while giving the money. At that time, instructions were given how to use the said voice recorder. But, they did not record voice of any person and made them to hear. (ii) When they went to the house of the accused, it was about 4.45 PM. They were in the house of the accused for about 45 minutes to one hour. When they were there and after trapping the accused, one VA came there. (iii) He was by the side of the accused right from the beginning. He says that he certainly could say that the complainant asked about his work, for that the accused questioned the complainant as to why he did not come for so many days. For that, the complaint told that because of the festival, he did not come. For that, the accused asked about omitting the son of Kamashetty in the family tree. For that, the complainant told that he was fostered son (Saku Maga) and he has been given his share. At that time, the accused asked about the said amount with the complainant. At the time of the said conversation, the voice recorder was switched on. (iv) He further says that after the completion of the above said activities in the house of the accused, the said voice recorder was played and made him to hear. (v) He further says that in the said conversation, there was no clarity and noise. (1) (d) P.W.2-Balasubramanyam says in chief that: (i) They are all went to Kollegala in the departmental vehicle. At that time it was about 4.50 pm. Prior to leaving the place at Kollegla complainant telephone to the accused , at that time the accused instructed to come to the home office.
- 28 -
CRL.A No.615 of 2014(ii) Then, Lokayuktha Police sent the complainant along with PW3- Vinay. They were standing at a distance of about 30 mts from the home office of the accused. (iii) After lapse of about 10 minutes, Mahesha came out and wiped his head. (iv) Lokayuktha Inspector enquired the complainant, the complainant stated that the accused received the bribe amount. (v) Thereafter, Lokayukta Police came and held both the hands of the accused. (vi) The complainant disclosed that accused after receiving the bribe amount, put it in the shirt pocket which was hung on the chair. Vinay also stated in the same manner.
(vii)Thereafter, on asking to produce the money, the accused produced money taking from his shirt pocket which was hung on the chair. (viii) Said amount was given to him totally with the note sheet. He tallied and said it was correct. (ix) Then, bribe amount was seized and sealed and his signature was obtained. He has identified-the same as MO-8 -bribe amount. (x) Then the voice recorder was played. The voice of accused was identified by Mahadevaswamy- (xi) When Lokayuktha Inspector enquired with the accused, accused confessed that he has taken the bribe amount and hereafter, he will not take any money. (xii) In this regard accused gave a written explanation as per Ex-P5. In the cross- examination,, he admits that: (i) Lokayuktha police put Rs.7000/- in the shirt pocket of complainant-Mahesha. He Volunteers that he himself put the said Rs.7000/- in the shirt pocket of complainant-Mahesha (ii) The Lokayuktha police handed over micro voice recorder to the complainant and instructed to record the conversation between the complainant and the accused. (iii) The Lokayuktha police practically shown how to operate it. At the time of practical, nobody talk, no voice was recorded.
- 29 -
CRL.A No.615 of 2014(iv) Thereafter, they came to the home office of the accused. He was at the distance of 25 to 30 feet away from the complainant and therefore, he was not able to hear what was the conversation between the complainant Mahesha and accused. (v) Mahesha was in the home office of the accused for about 10 minutes. During that time he was outside the home office along with Lokayuktha Inspector. (vi) They were stood in the position , it was able to see the home office of the accused. At first complainant Mahesh came out of home office. (vii) Thereafter, Lokayuktha police enquired the complainant Mahesh before entering into the home office of the accused. (viii) When they went inside , Mahesh was there and he shown where the money was. (ix) After entering the home office of the accused, the Lokayuktha police did not ask the accused whether he had received the bribe amount. (x) The Rs.7,000/- was in the shirt pocket of the accused. (xi) He Volunteers to say that the accused received it voluntarily. (xii) He denies that he came to know that the accused was not demanded for any illegal gratification from the complainant. (xiii) When Digital voice recorder was played in the home office of the accused , the voice was clear. He did not hear the voice of Mahesha or accused prior to that . (xiv) Thereafter, the voice recorder was seized and kept by the Lokayuktha police.
(2) If the above evidence on record is considered, it is clear that: (a) P.W.1 met the accused regarding his work and on that day, fixed Rs.7000/- to be paid to the accused in this regard. But, no any case or evidence or mention in the complaint regarding at what stage, the file or application of the complainant, was, and for doing what
- 30 -
CRL.A No.615 of 2014actually work, was required to be done by the accused, for which, the accused demanded the said bribe amount. But, on the contrary, P.W.1's cross examination goes to show that he admits that before giving the complaint, the Tahsildar had sent it to the computer section on 29.8.2009. Further, has stated that he does not know whether the documents were sent from computer section to the accused, as it was the office procedure. Further, to the suggestion that whether he knows when the documents were received by the accused, he says that the accused told that he would send information when he receives the documents. Further, he has stated that he does not know the date on which the accused sent the information for the first time. So, the above evidence goes to show that on the date of the trap, the accused had not intimated the complainant calling him as the file had come to him and he was required to do any required work, after receiving the fixed bribe amount. But, on the contrary, the complainant, without knowing where actually his file was pending at what stage, it was and what was the work that was required to be done by the accused and even not complaining the higher ups of the accused, like the RI, RRT shirastedars or the Tahsildar, simply himself asked the accused on the date of the trap to meet him and as such, the accused called him to his house where he was actually present. So, it goes to show that the said trap date, was not fixed or given by the accused calling the complainant for payment of the fixed bribe amount on that date. If the same is considered with the fact that, when P.W.1 went to the accused on the date of the trap, the conversation was recorded and mentioned in the trap panchnama Ex.P.7 and accordingly, P.Ws. 1 and 3 have stated about the same and it goes to
- 31 -
CRL.A No.615 of 2014show that: When PW.1 asked about the khata change, the accused asked as to why he did not come for so many days. Then, he told about the festival. Then, he enquired another son is left out in genealogy. Then he told that the said son is son of one Kamashetty and he is a Saku Maga. Then, he asked how many days required for changing the khata. Then, he told 15 days. Then, he asked his leave to go. Then, the accused said "KODUMATHE". Then, P.W.1 said bye to the accused and left. But, there is no any mention about asking of any amount, or specifically Rs. 7,000/-, nor there is any reply by P.W.1 that he has brought Rs.7,000/- and about giving the same to the accused at that time. Therefore, in the absence of such conversation, by mere said conversation only, the prosecution case and evidence in this regard, cannot be accepted. Further, it is important to note that on that date, the accused told that still fifteen days required for change of khata, but it is not clear, nor any case made out or led any evidence as to what was required to be done by the accused in the said file at that time, nor there is any case or materials that, earlier to the said trap date, the accused had received the said file for doing any particular work and the details of the same so as to infer that the accused intentionally was not doing the said work because of non payment of the demanded bribe amount by P.W.1, in this regard. Therefore, for the above reasons and under these circumstances, the prosecution case and the evidence of P.Ws. 1 and 3, appears to be not believable and acceptable in this regard. (b) Further, as per the complaint, one month before the complaint i.e on 21.9.2009, he went to the accused for enquiry. Then, the accused demanded Rs. 8,000/-. Then, before one week of filing the complaint, i.e., on 15.9.2009, fixed the said
- 32 -
CRL.A No.615 of 2014amount to Rs. 7,000/- But, in this regard, the evidence of P.W.1 in chief, shows that in 2008 only, the application for khata change, was given and when he met the accused for the first time, he consented to do the said work. Then, after some days, he asked for survey sketch . Then,, they received the survey sketch and check list was done and send to computer section. Then, his application went to RI's office. Then, the VA (The accused) sent for him. Then, he met the accused and at that time, he demanded the bribe, as alleged in this case. But, he has not given the dates of his meeting the accused and the alleged demand, as per his own complaint. So, it goes to show that P.W.1 has not stated as per his complaint itself, but has given his own version in this regard. So, it creates doubt in his complaint and evidence. Further, in this regard, it is important to note that in Ex.P.7, at page 7 voice recorded conversation discloses that the accused asked the complainant when he met him on the date of the trap, to the effect that "IDYAKE ISHTA DIVASA" (WHY SO MANY DAYS) So, the above evidence goes to show that, as per the prosecution case in complaint, the complainant has met the accused one week before filing this complaint or trap in this case. If it was true and correct, then, the accused would not have questioned the complainant when he met him on that day, as "WHY SO MANY DAYS" as detailed above. The same is not explained by the prosecution, or by P.W.1, So, in the absence of such explanation, it can only be inferred that to suit their convenience, the complaint is filed in this case. So, it also creates a serous doubt in the prosecution case and evidence in this regard.
- 33 -
CRL.A No.615 of 2014(3) In this regard, there is evidence of voice recorded conversation between P.W.1 and the accused. If the same is considered with the prosecution case, evidence and materials on record, with the submissions made by the defence counsel and the legal principles involved in this regard, it is clear that, (i) In Subash Chand Chauhan Vs. CBI, 2005 (2) AICLR 459 , it is held that: " If the tape recorder is not subjected to voice spectrograph test with sample voice of accused, no reliance can be placed on such tape recorder" (ii) So, bearing in mind the said principles and applied to this case, admittedly in this case, it is not the prosecution case and evidence that in this case, after recording the conversation between P.W.1 and the accused on the voice recorder, so as required by law in this regard to prove and establish the same before the Court, for the voice identification of the P.W.1 and the accused, their specimen voice samples were taken, nor sent the same for analysis or voice spectrography, nor explained the same on any grounds. Therefore, in the absence of taking such legal steps, mere oral evidence in this regard, or the averments in the top panchanama, etc, cannot be considered, nor on the basis of the same, the prosecution case and evidence against the accused, could be accepted or relied. Therefore, the above reasons and under these circumstances, I declined to go in detail the said evidence in this case, but hold that the said evidence is not helpful to the prosecution in this case. (4) Further, as per the prosecution case and evidence, the accused, immediately after the trap, when asked by the IO, to give his explanation, he has given his written explanation, as per Ex.P.5, admitting that he had asked payment of the amount possible to pay, but he did not made any specific amount demand and received the amount and pleaded it
- 34 -
CRL.A No.615 of 2014was a mistake and he will not repeat the same and prayed for excuse. In this regard, the learned defence counsel submitted that the said explanation was taken by the IO as per his (IO) say after trop and arrest. So, as it is, it is inculpatory in nature and in admissible under law. In support of his argument, he relied on the decision reported in 1997 SCC (Crl.) 129 (Uddi Achut Ramaiah Vs. State of AP). So, if the same is considered with the prosecution case and evidence, it goes to show that after the trap and arrest of the accused, the IO has taken the explanation as per Ex.P.5 from the accused. So, the said explanation is given when he was in police custody. Therefore, as in Ex.P.5, the accused admitted his guilt, so, it is inculpatory in nature, as it amounts to confession. So, it is inadmissible under law. Therefore, the prosecution case and evidence and Ex.P.5, are not helpful in this case, to prove its case, as required by law. (5) Apart from it, it is important to note that 1n this regard, under law; (a) Mere acceptance of money by the accused is not sufficient. The demand and acceptance of bribe has to be established. (b) Mere proof of receipt of money by the accused, in the absence of proof of demand and acceptance of money, as illegal gratification, is not sufficient to establish the guilt of the accused. (c) Further, as held in 2000 (5) SCC 21 (Meena Vs. State of Maharashtra), it is held that: "Corroboration of trap evidence - Wanting -Held -Mere recovery of the currency notes and positive result of phenolphthalein test, not enough in peculiar circumstances of the case, to establish the guilt of the appellant on the basis of the perfunctory nature of materials prevaricating type of evidence.- Charge must be proved beyond reasonable doubt". (d) Further, in 2010 (3), KCCR 1851 (State of Karnataka Vs.
- 35 -
CRL.A No.615 of 2014M.Gopalakrishnaiah and others), it is held that: "Section 20 - Even to draw a presumption under section 20 of the Act, the prosecution is required to prove that there was a demand and acceptance. for the purpose of official favour, is proved by the prosecution beyond reasonable doubt, the burden may shift on the accused. But, if the initial burden is not proved, the presumption under section 20, does not arise." (e). Further, in 2006(3), KCCR 1445 (St ate of Karnataka v. K.T. Hanumanthaiah), it is held that:
"There should be independent corroboration for proving the case of demand and acceptance of bribe for the offence under section 7 and 13(1)(d) r/w section 13(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act." (f). Further, in 2009 AIR SCW 3386 (State of Punjab Vs. Sohan Singh), it is held that "Independent witness to raiding party, not examined by the prosecution without giving reasons, serious discrepancies in evidence, as regard to events that have taken place prior to raid - Prosecution even failing to prove demand by the accused - Accused entitled to acquittal." So, bearing in mind the above principles and applied to this case, it is clear that : (i) Mere acceptance of money by the accused, is not sufficient, but the prosecution is required to prove demand and acceptance of bribe amount. (ii) Like wise, mere proof of receipt of money by the accused, in the absence of proof of demand and acceptance of money, as illegal gratification, is not sufficient to establish its case. Therefore, from the prosecution case and evidence, even if it is accepted that the accused received the money or accepted the money, it is not sufficient to accept the prosecution case and evidence, in this case, as required by law. Therefore, I hold that the prosecution has failed to prove and establish
- 36 -CRL.A No.615 of 2014
the 2nd demand and acceptance of the bribe amount, as alleged against the accused in this case.
17. Therefore, for the above reasons and under these circumstances, without going to other aspects and looking from any angle, the prosecution case, evidence on record and the defence of the accused, merely because (i) P.W.1 filed a complaint against the accused. (ii) The IO registered the case and conducted the entrustment mahazer. The IO laid trap of the accused and done the trap panchanama and recovered the bribe amount and the concerned files, as per Ex.P.10, (iii) Obtaining the sanction to prosecute the accused. (iv) Filing of the charge sheet against the accused. are all not the sole and sufficient grounds to accept the prosecution case and evidence, for the reasons stated above in detail.
18. Therefore, for the above reasons and looking from any angle, it appears that the complainant, even after filing the khata change application in September 2008, but did not persuade the same nor complied all the requirements in this regard, but kept quiet for long and lastly, tried to get the same from the concerned, without complying the requirements like payment of kandayam arrears etc. so as there was sufficiendelay, to over come the legal compliance of legal requirements and to get his work done by some how and therefore, he might have filed this complaint against the accused even though no official work was pending with the accused, as held above in detail. Further, in this case, the concerned IO without ascertaining as to where the complainant's work was struck, even there was a lapse of more than one year after giving the application for change of khata, and
- 37 -CRL.A No.615 of 2014
where actually the said file was pending and reasons for the same and even he has not made any investigation, the actual work that was to be done by the accused in the said khata change work, simply acted upon on the say of P.w.1-complainant and finally, filed the filed the case against him. But, the prosecution failed to prove and establish the essential ingredients of the above said offences, alleged against the accused, as required by law, beyond reasonable doubt, as detailed above. Therefore, the prosecution case and evidence and submissions made by the learned Spl. PP, cannot be accepted. On the contrary, the defence of the accused and the submissions made by the learned counsel for the accused, the case is foisted against the accused, at the instance of the complainant.
19. In view of the above reasons, I hold that the prosecution has failed to prove the guilt of the accused, beyond reasonable doubt; and therefore the accused is entitled for the benefit of doubt and acquittal. Accordingly, I answer point NO.2 in the negative."
9. On re-appreciation, re-examination and reconsideration of the entire evidence on record, the same would make it clear that the trial court has discussed the evidence of prosecution at length and has passed the impugned judgment of acquittal. I do not find any legal or factual error in the judgment of acquittal. Hence, considering the facts and circumstances of the case, as also, keeping in mind the
- 38 -
CRL.A No.615 of 2014decisions of the Hon'ble Apex Court, I answer the point that arose for my consideration in the negative.
10. Resultantly, I proceed to pass the following:
ORDER Appeal is dismissed.
Sd/-
(G BASAVARAJA) JUDGE lnn