Karnataka High Court
The State vs Babu Nagappa Sulebhavi on 10 February, 2025
Author: Hemant Chandangoudar
Bench: Hemant Chandangoudar
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC-D:2619
CRL.A No. 100041 of 2015
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH
DATED THIS THE 10TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 100041 OF 2015 (A)
BETWEEN:
THE STATE,
BY THE POLICE SUB INSPECTOR,
KARNATAKA LOKAYUKTA POLICE STATION,
BELAGAVI.
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI. SANTOSH B.MALAGOUDAR, SPP)
AND:
BABU NAGAPPA SULEBHAVI,
AGE: 50 YEARS, OCC: SANITARY HEALTH
INSPECTOR, CITY CORPORATION, BELAGAVI.
...RESPONDENT
(BY SRI. M.B.GUNDAWADE AND
SRI. A.M.GUNDAWADE, ADVOCATES)
Digitally signed by B THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL IS FILED U/S 378(1) AND (3) OF
K
MAHENDRAKUMAR CR.P.C. SEEKING TO, GRANT LEAVE TO THE APPELLANT TO
Location: HIGH
COURT OF
KARNATAKA
APPEAL AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND ORDER OF ACQUITTED
DHARWAD BENCH
Date: 2025.02.13 DATED 08.09.2014 SPL. CASE NO.26/2012 ON THE FILE OF IV ADDL.
11:17:36 +0530
DIST. & SESSIONS JUDGE & SPL. JUDGE, BELAGAVI AND ALLOW
THE APPEAL AND SET ASIDE THE AFORESAID JUDGMENT AND
ORDER OF ACQUITTAL AND CONVICT THE ACCUSED FOR THE
CHARGED OFFENCES IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW.
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:2619
CRL.A No. 100041 of 2015
ORAL JUDGMENT
1. The appellant, Lokayukta, has preferred this appeal challenging the judgment of acquittal passed by the learned Trial Court, wherein the accused was acquitted of the offences punishable under Sections 7, 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.
2. The case of the prosecution is that the accused was serving as a Sanitary Health Inspector at the Belagavi City Corporation Office. The complainant (P.W.3/C.W.1), who owns a Xerox and computer typing shop, approached C.W.7, an official responsible for issuing the Trade License Book for his shop. The said official, P.W.5, informed the complainant that the Trade License Book was in the possession of the accused, a Sanitary Health Inspector, and directed him to collect the same from him. Upon approaching the accused and requesting the return of the Trade License Book, the accused allegedly demanded an illegal gratification of ₹1,000/-, which, after negotiation, was reduced to ₹700/-. Unwilling to pay the bribe, the complainant approached the Lokayukta Police, who registered an FIR and laid a trap on 21.07.2021. During the trap operation, the accused was allegedly caught red-handed while accepting ₹700/- from the complainant. The accused's hands were subsequently washed in a chemical solution, which turned pink, indicating the presence of phenolphthalein powder. A trap panchnama was prepared by the investigating officer.
-3-NC: 2025:KHC-D:2619 CRL.A No. 100041 of 2015
3. To substantiate its case, the prosecution examined nine witnesses (P.Ws.1 to 9), produced documentary evidence marked as Exs.P.1 to P.40, and identified material objects marked as M.O. Nos.1 to 12. The accused also marked documentary evidence as Exs.D.1 to D.1(c).
4. The learned Trial Court, upon appreciating the evidence on record and considering the arguments advanced by both parties, framed points for determination and held:
"The prosecution has failed to establish the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubt, and therefore, the accused is acquitted of the alleged offences."
5. The learned counsel for the appellant-Lokayukta contended that the evidence of P.W.3 (complainant) and P.W.4 (shadow witness), coupled with the recovery of the Trade License Book from the possession of the accused at the time of the trap, clearly establishes that the accused demanded and accepted an illegal gratification of ₹700/-.
6. It was further argued that the mere non-examination of the chemical analyst would not nullify the evidence of P.Ws.3 and 4, which clearly establish the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt.
7. In response, the learned counsel for the respondent- accused contended that the accused was not the competent authority to issue or renew the Trade License Book. Furthermore, -4- NC: 2025:KHC-D:2619 CRL.A No. 100041 of 2015 as of the date of the trap, the complainant had outstanding tax dues, rendering him ineligible for the renewal of his trade license.
8. The learned counsel for the respondent further argued that P.W.4 (shadow witness) failed to establish that the accused demanded gratification at the time of the trap. The shadow witness merely stated that the accused received the tainted money from the complainant, without providing any evidence regarding the accused's demand for the illegal gratification. Hence, the prosecution failed to prove both the demand and acceptance of the bribe, which are sine qua non for an offence under Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.
9. Additionally, the prosecution failed to examine the author of the Chemical Examination Report (Ex.P.40) to establish that the amount received by the accused was tainted money.
10. After carefully considering the submissions of both parties and thoroughly reviewing the records of the Trial Court, the primary point for consideration is:
"Whether the prosecution has successfully established the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubt and whether the judgment of acquittal rendered by the Trial Court is legally sustainable?"
11. The complainant (P.W.3) supported the prosecution's case and categorically stated in his testimony that the accused demanded and accepted an illegal gratification. However, the testimony of P.W.3 alone is insufficient to establish the guilt of the -5- NC: 2025:KHC-D:2619 CRL.A No. 100041 of 2015 accused beyond reasonable doubt, as it must be corroborated by independent evidence, particularly that of the shadow witness.
12. P.W.4, the shadow witness, failed to testify that he overheard the accused demanding the bribe amount. Moreover, he did not specify where he was positioned at the time of the trap, which was conducted in front of the complainant's shop. Thus, his testimony does not establish that the accused made a demand for gratification, which is a mandatory ingredient for an offence under Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.
13. The complainant (P.W.3) was provided with a voice recorder to record the conversation at the time of the trap. However, during cross-examination, P.W.3 admitted that he did not switch on the recorder. Although the prosecution produced a transcript of the alleged conversation and P.W.8 identified the voice of the accused, the transcript was not supported by a certificate under Section 65(B) of the Indian Evidence Act, rendering it inadmissible as evidence.
14. Further, as of the date of the trap, the accused was serving as a Sanitary Health Inspector, whereas the order issued by the competent authority explicitly stated that the responsibility for issuing and renewing trade licenses lay with the Senior Health Inspector and not with the accused. The accused also produced documentary evidence (Ex.D.1) to substantiate that the complainant was ineligible for trade license renewal due to unpaid tax dues.
-6-NC: 2025:KHC-D:2619 CRL.A No. 100041 of 2015
15. Although the phenolphthalein test conducted on the accused's hands and the currency notes turned positive, indicating their exposure to the chemical, the prosecution failed to examine the author of the Chemical Examination Report (Ex.P.40). Consequently, the prosecution did not prove that the currency notes received by the accused at the time of the trap were tainted money.
16. In light of these findings, the learned Trial Court correctly concluded that there was insufficient evidence to establish that the accused had the authority to grant any official favor to the complainant and that he had demanded and accepted an illegal gratification. The prosecution's failure to prove these essential ingredients of the offence beyond reasonable doubt led to the accused's acquittal.
17. Upon a thorough reappraisal of the evidence, this Court does not find any illegality or perversity in the impugned judgment of acquittal passed by the learned Trial Court. The prosecution has failed to discharge its burden of proof beyond reasonable doubt.
Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed.
Sd/-
(HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR) JUDGE AC,KMS Ct:vh List No.: 1 Sl No.: 203