Karnataka High Court
Sri B Dharamanna vs The State Of Karnataka on 21 April, 2026
Author: M.G.S. Kamal
Bench: M.G.S. Kamal
-1-
NC: 2026:KHC:21692
CRL.A No. 95 of 2013
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 21ST DAY OF APRIL, 2026
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.G.S. KAMAL
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 95 OF 2013(C)
BETWEEN:
1. SRI B DHARAMANNA
S/O BEERANNA
AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS
VILLAGE ACCOUNTANT
HOLAVANAHALLI HOBLI
KORATAGERE TALUKD
R/A SIRA GATE
TUMKUR. SINCE DEAD BY LRS
1a) SMT. MANJULA S.D
W/O PURUSHOTHAM
AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS
R/AT EKANATHANAMMANA PALYA,
Digitally signed
by SUMA B N SIRA GATE, TUMKURU,
Location: HIGH KARNATAKA PIN CODE-572106.
COURT OF
KARNATAKA
1b) SMT. ROOPA S.D
W/O KANTHARAJU
AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS
R/AT MANJUNATH NILAYA
2ND CROSS, BASAVESHWARA LAYOUT
KYATHASANDRA, TUMKUR,
KARNATAKA PIN CODE-572 104.
-2-
NC: 2026:KHC:21692
CRL.A No. 95 of 2013
HC-KAR
c) SMT. LATHA S.D
W/O DEEPAK T N
AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS
R/AT LAKASHMINARASIMHASWAMY NILAYA,
NEW EXTENTION,
BEHIND ANJANEYA TEMPLE,
SRIRAMANAGARA TUMKUR,
KARNATAKA, PIN CODE-572101
1d) GAYATHRI S.D
W/O Y NAGANGOWD,
AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS
R/AT BEHIND RELIANCE TRENDS,
SIRAGATE, TUMKURU,
NORTHERN EXTENTION, KARNATAKA,
PIN CODE-572 106
2. SRI K SHANAKARANANDA
S/O K RAMANNA
AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS
HOLAVANAHALLI HOBLI
KORATAGERE TALUK
R/O SHIVA KRIPA
OPPOSITE CITY CLUB
SIRA GATE
TUMKUR
...APPELLANTS
(BY SRI. ARUN SHYAM M., SENIOR ADVOCATE A/W
SRI.SUYOG HERELE E., ADVOCATE)
AND:
THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
THROUGH LOKAYUKTHA POLICE, TUMKUR
REP BY SPECIAL PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA BUILDING
BENGALURU - 560 001.
...RESPONDENT
(BY SRI.VENKATESH S. ARABATTI, SPL. COUNSEL)
-3-
NC: 2026:KHC:21692
CRL.A No. 95 of 2013
HC-KAR
THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL IS FILED U/S.374(2) CR.P.C
PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED:05.01.2013
PASSED BY THE II ADDL. DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE,
TUMKUR IN SPL.C.NO.18/2009 - CONVICTING THE
APPELANTS/ACCUSED FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/S 7, 13(1)(d) &
13(2) OF PREVENTION OF CORRUPTION ACT, 1988. AND THE
APPELLANTS/ACCUSED ARE SENTENCED TO UNDERGO R.I.
FOR 1 YEAR AND PAY FINE OF RS.5,000/- EACH IN DEFAULT
TO UNDERGO FURTHER IMPRISONMENT FOR 3 MONTHS EACH
FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/S 7 OF PREVENTION OF CORRUPTION
ACT, 1988. FURTHER APPELLANTS/ACCUSED ARE SENTENCED
TO UNDERGO RIGOROUS IMPRISONMENT FOR 3 YEARS AND
PAY FINE OF Rs.5,000/- IN DEFAULT TO UNDERGO FURTHER
IMPRISONMENT FOR 3 MONTHS EACH FOR THE OFFENCE U/S
13(1)(d) PUNISHABLE U/S 13(2) OF THE PREVENTION OF
CORRUPTION ACT, 1988.
THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR FURTHER HEARING, THIS
DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.G.S. KAMAL
ORAL JUDGMENT
This appeal is by accused Nos.1 and 2 being aggrieved by the judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed in Special Case No.18/2009 on the file of II Additional District and Sessions Judge, Tumkuru, by which the trial Court has passed the following:
ORDER A1 and 2 are convicted u/s 235(2) Cr.P.C for the offences punishable u/s 7, 13(1)(d) and 13(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.-4-
NC: 2026:KHC:21692 CRL.A No. 95 of 2013 HC-KAR A1 and 2 are sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 1 year and pay fine of Rs.5,000/- each in default to undergo further imprisonment for three months each for the offence punishable u/s 7 of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.
Further, A1 and 2 are sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three years and pay fine of Rs.5,000/- in default to undergo further imprisonment for three months each for the offence u/s 13(1)(d) punishable u/s 13(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.
Both sentences shall run concurrently. The period of detention if any undergone by accused is to be set off against the sentence of imprisonment."
2. Case of the prosecution is that complainant namely H.K.Ravikumar-PW5 had purchased 10 acres 18 guntas of land in Sy.No.29 of Kurubarahalli from one Rangappa and others in terms of deed of sale dated 02.11.2007 in the name of his father D.Krishnaswamy-PW6. That a `J' slip was sent from the office of Sub-Registrar to the Office of Village Accountant, Sompura through Tahsildar and Revenue Inspector. In this regard, complainant-PW5 had met concerned Village Accountant-accused No.1, who had protracted the matter. Ultimately on 22.02.2008, accused No.1 had demanded a bribe in a sum of Rs.10,000/- which after bargain was reduced to Rs.7,500/-. Accused No.1 had assured that he would prepare and forward the documents no sooner complainant-PW5 made the payment of bribe amount.
-5-
NC: 2026:KHC:21692 CRL.A No. 95 of 2013 HC-KAR
3. Complainant-PW5 not being ready to pay the bribe amount had filed a complaint in this regard before the lokayuktha police on 21.02.2008, pursuant to which a case in Crime No.3/2008 was registered for the offences punishable under Sections 7, 13(1)(d) and 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. Further formalities of pre-trap mahazar were conducted. Complainant-PW5 was instructed to go along with shadow witness-PW3 to the office of the accused No.1 and to pay the bribe amount only after demand made by the accused No.1 and thereafter to give a signal. Accordingly on 21.02.2008 complainant-PW5, shadow witness-PW3 and the father of the complainant-PW6 went to the office of accused No.1. Accused No.1 after enquiring if the amount was brought and on confirmation of the same, had directed the complainant- PW5 to pay the same to the accused No.2 who in turn received the bribe amount of Rs.7,500/- by directing the complainant- PW5 to keep the same on the table. It is alleged thereafter accused No.2 counted the amount and kept the same in his shirt pocket. As such, accused Nos.1 and 2 have committed the offences.
-6-
NC: 2026:KHC:21692 CRL.A No. 95 of 2013 HC-KAR
4. After the investigation, charge sheet was filed. Since accused denied the charges matter was set down for trial. Prosecution examined eight witnesses as PW1 to PW8 and exhibited 11 documents marked as Exhibits P1 to P11 and marked 10 material objects as MOs.1 to 10. No evidence has been led on behalf of the accused. After recording of the statement under Section 313 of Cr.P.C and on denial of the incriminating evidence brought against the accused persons, the trial Court framed the following points for its consideration:
"1) Whether valid sanction has been obtained to prosecute the A1 and 2?
2) Whether prosecution proves beyond reasonable doubt that A1 & 2 being the public servants, at the relevant point of time working respectively as village account & revenue inspector at Holavanahalli circle, Koratagere taluk and in order to change khata of land in Sy.No.29 of Kurubarahalli to the name of complainant's father, A1 demanded & received bribe of Rs.7,500/- through A2 and thereby A1 & 2 have committed the offence punishable u/s 7 of Prevention of Corruption Act 1988?
3) Whether prosecution further proves beyond reasonable doubt that on 21-02-2008 while working as such public servants, A1 & 2 by corrupt or illegal means and abusing their position as public servants received illegal gratification of Rs.7,500/- from complainant and thereby committed an offence of criminal misconduct within the meaning of section 13(1)(d) punishable u/s 13(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act 1988?
4) What order?"-7-
NC: 2026:KHC:21692 CRL.A No. 95 of 2013 HC-KAR
5. On appreciation of the evidence, the trial Court answered point Nos.1 to 3 in the affirmative and consequently passed the impugned order as noted above. Being aggrieved the present appeal.
6. Sri.Arun Shyam M., learned Senior counsel appearing for Sri.Suyog Herele, learned counsel for the accused/appellants submits:
(a) that trial Court has grossly erred in passing the impugned order without appreciating the serious lapses and lacuna in the prosecution case, which if read in the light of settled principles of law, should enure to the benefit of the accused.
(b) that voice recorder which was sent by the Investigating Officer through the complainant-PW5 has not been seized and produced which amounts to withholding of the material evidence and an adverse inference to the case of the prosecution has to be drawn.
(c) that according to the deposition of complainant-PW5, the trap mahazar has been drawn in the police station and not at the spot of the incident which vitiates the entire case of the prosecution.-8-
NC: 2026:KHC:21692 CRL.A No. 95 of 2013 HC-KAR
(d) That there has been no demand either by accused No.1 or accused No.2.
(e) Complainant-PW5 has deposed that he had kept the money on the table of accused No.2 and he has not spoken either about the demand or about accused No.2 keeping the money in his pocket.
(f) that it is only the shadow witness-PW3 who has spoken about demand by accused No.1 and accused No.2 which has not been corroborated.
(g) Trap witness-PW4 has spoken about he seeing the money on the table of the accused No.2. He is also not clear whether the mahazar was drawn at the police station or at the spot.
(h) that the sanction order issued by PW7 cannot be relied upon inasmuch as even according to PW7, he had affixed the signature on the draft prepared by his clerk. The said sanction order not only bears the signature of PW7, but also signature of some other person, which has not been proved and established by the prosecution.
(i) As per Ex.P7 the notice was received by the shadow witness only on 22.02.2008. Whereas, his presence at the spot is shown to be on 21.02.2008 instant.
(j) That the FIR was registered at 12.30 p.m. on 21.02.2008, which was sent to the Court at 13.00 hours in a sealed cover which was received by the -9- NC: 2026:KHC:21692 CRL.A No. 95 of 2013 HC-KAR jurisdictional Court at 2.30 p.m. However, the pre-trap panchanama indicate the process having commenced at 12.45 p.m. even before dispatching the FIR to the jurisdictional Court.
(k) That the issue regarding validity or otherwise of the sanction order could be raised even at the stage of appeal.
(l) The irregularities in conducting the trap mahazar has to be read in favour of the case of the accused persons.
(m) That PW4 in his deposition has deposed that he was summoned to the police station at 11 a.m. on 21.02.2008 which is far ahead of even registering the FIR. This gives rise to several questions with regard to propriety of the very initiation of the proceedings. Therefore, the manipulation, insertion and alteration of the case of prosecution cannot be ruled out.
(n) He relies upon the following judgments in support of his contentions:
1. NANJAPPA Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA- (2015)14 SCC 186.
2. CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION Vs. ASHOK KUMAR AGGARWAL- (2014) 14 SCC 295
3. MANSUKHLAL VITHALDAS CHAUHAN Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT-
(1997) 7 SCC 622
4. AMEER JAN Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA-2000 SCC Online KAR 396
5. STATE OF KARNATAKA Vs AMEER JAN-(2007) 11 SCC 273
- 10 -
NC: 2026:KHC:21692 CRL.A No. 95 of 2013 HC-KAR
6. STATE OF KARNATAKA BY LOKAYUKTHA POLICE TUMKUR Vs S.I. AHAMED BASHA - 2012 SCC ONLINE KAR 5370
7. SRI. HANUMANTHAPPA Vs STATE OF KARNATAKA BY LOKAYUKTHA POLICE MYSORE- 2012 SCC ONLINE KAR 5798
8. SURESH PRAKASH GAUTHAM Vs STATE OF UP IN CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION NO.42264/2025 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
9. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA Vs. C. LASUMANAIK IN CRIMINAL APPEL No. 100230/2015; DD: 22/06/2017
10. SRI GIRISHCHANDRA AND ANOTHER Vs. THE STATE BY LOKYUKTHA POLICE, YADGIR, - ILR 2013 KAR 983.
11. BIJOY SINGH AND ANOTHER Vs. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA - (2002) 9 SCC 147
12. ARJUN MARIK AND OTHERS Vs. STATE OF BIHAR - (1994) SUPP (2)SCC 372
13. JITENDRA AND ANOTHER Vs. STATE OF M.P -(2004) 10 SCC
562.
14. ASHOK @ DANGRA JAISWAL Vs. STATE OF M.P - (2011) 5 SCC 123.
15. A. KARUNANITHI VS. THE STATE REPRESENTED BY INSPECTOR OF POLICE- 2025 SCC Online SC 1677
16. SRI. CHANDRAKANTH REDDY CHATNALLI VS. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA IN WPNO.200687/2025; DD DATE 23.09.2025
17. DILEEPBHAI NANUBHAI SANGHANI Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT AND ANOTHER - 2025 SCC ONLINE SC 441.
and seeks for allowing of the appeal.
7. Sri.Venkatesh S. Arabatti, learned counsel appearing for the prosecution submits:
- 11 -
NC: 2026:KHC:21692 CRL.A No. 95 of 2013 HC-KAR
(a) that though the accused are entitled to raise the issue with regard to validity of the sanction, they will have to point out the requirement of "failure of justice", as contemplated under sub-Section (3) of Section 19.
Mere irregularity, errors and omissions cannot be considered as "failure of justice".
(b) Even if the sanction order contained a second signature, the same is inconsequential as the accused have failed to demonstrate any failure of justice having caused to them.
(c) In terms of Section 461 of Cr.P.C, instances have been listed which vitiates the proceedings in which discrepancy as pointed out by learned counsel for the accused with reference to depositions of PW3, PW4 and PW5 of they assembling in the police station allegedly prior to registration of the FIR is not a ground to vitiate the proceedings.
(d) That the FIR has been registered at 12.30 p.m. the same has been dispatched at 1.00 p.m. which is just within 30 minutes of the registration. Witnesses have been examined after expiry of over 4 years of registration of FIR. Deposition indicating difference of time of registration by 1 or 2 hours cannot be a ground to accept the contention that the same vitiates the proceedings.
- 12 -
NC: 2026:KHC:21692 CRL.A No. 95 of 2013 HC-KAR
(e) That it is not the case of the accused that PW4 and PW5 were never present at the spot of incident. Said discrepancy if any cannot be the ground to grant any favour to the accused. The discrepancy in Exhibit P7 in mentioning the date as 22.02.2008 instead of 21.02.2008 cannot be a grave, it could be a human error. Since the presence of PW4 at the spot is not being disputed, error in mentioning the date would be of no significance.
(f) Though PW5 complainant had only seen and spoken about he keeping bribe amount on the table, the shadow witness-PW3 has spoken about the next incident namely accused No.2 taking the said amount, counting in his hand and keeping the same in his pocket. Shadow witness has spoken about both accused No.1 and accused No.2 demanding the money.
(g) Though in the complaint allegation of demand was attributed only to accused No.1, since demand by accused No.2 has occurred at the time of payment of amount, he has been arraigned as accused No.2, which in the factual circumstances of the case is normal and not uncommon and has to be read in a holistic manner taking into consideration version of all the parties involved during the trap mahazar and version of single witness or person cannot be the criteria.
- 13 -
NC: 2026:KHC:21692 CRL.A No. 95 of 2013 HC-KAR
(h) Read holistically, no error which could throw away the case of prosecution is made out. The statement of the accused recorded soon after the trap proceedings indicate that no defence of thrusting of money is raised. The money was recovered from the pocket of accused No.2 and not from the table. That the instances of accused No.1 demanding the money and directing the complainant to hand over the same to accused No.2 and accused No.2 thereafter confirming the amount having been brought and receiving the money complies with the requirement of proof of demand and receipt.
(i) Recovery of money from the pocket of accused No.2, counting and keeping of which is spoken to by shadow witness-PW3 satisfy the requirement of receipt of the amount. Conjoint reading of these two factors fulfils the elementary requirement of demand and proof beyond reasonable doubt.
(j) The further circumstance in the nature of Phenolphthalein solution test on accused No.2 turning positive completes the chain of events. That the documentary evidence indicate pendency of the work at the end of accused Nos.1 and 2 which has neither been disputed nor controverted. Thus the prosecution has completed all chains of link in proving the guilt of the accused.
- 14 -
NC: 2026:KHC:21692 CRL.A No. 95 of 2013 HC-KAR
(k) The minor discrepancies, if any, shall not take away the core of the prosecution.
(l) He relies upon the following judgments in support of his contentions:
1.VINOD KUMAR Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB- (2015) 3 SCC 220
2. RAM BIHARI YADAV vs. STATE OF BIHAR AND OTHERS-
(1998) 4 SCC 517
3. H.N. RISHBUD AND ANR Vs. STATE OF DELHI- AIR 1955 SC 196 -(1954) 2 SCC 934
4. SYED AHMED Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA- (2012) 8 SCC 527 .
5. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH VS. VIRENDER KUMAR TRIPATHI- (2009) 15 SCC 533
6. STATE OF BIHAR AND OTHERS VS. RAJMANGAL RAM - (2014) 11 SCC 388
7.ASHOK TSHERING BHUTIA Vs. STATE OF SIKKIM- (2011) 4 SCC 402.
8.SONELAL TIWARI Vs. STATE OF M.P.,-(1998) 2 SCC 431
9.HAZARI LAL Vs. STATE (DELHI ADMINISTRATION)- (1980) 2 SCC 390.
10. M. NARSING RAO Vs. STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH -(2001) 1 SCC 691
11. P. SARANGAPANI (DEAD) THROUGH LR PAKA SAROJA V. STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH IN CRL.A.NO. 2173/2011 DATED 21.09.2023
12. NEERAJ DUTTA V. STATE (GOVT OF NCT OF DELHI) -(2023) 4 SCC 731
13. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA VS. MAHESH G. JAIN -(2013) 8 SCC 119
14. STATE OF KARNATAKA LOKAYUKTA POLICE Vs. S. SUBBEGOWDA-(2023) 17 SCC 699
- 15 -
NC: 2026:KHC:21692 CRL.A No. 95 of 2013 HC-KAR
15. STATE OF KARNATAKA Vs. T. NANJAPPA - AIR 2015 SC 3060
16. STATE BY POLICE INSPECTOR Vs. T. VENKATESH MURTHY- AIR 2004 SC 5117
17. SITA SOREN Vs. UNION OF INDIA -(2024) 5 SCC 629
18. STATE OF KARNATAKA BY LOKAYUKTA Vs. C. CHAND SAHEB
- ILR 2007 KAR 1106
19. PRAKASH CHAND Vs. STATE (DELHI ADMINISTRATION) - (1979) 3 SCC 90 and seeks for dismissal of the appeal.
8. Heard and perused the records.
9. Points that arise for consideration are:
"(1) Whether the prosecution has proved commission of offence by accused Nos.1 and 2 by demanding and accepting the bribe amount of Rs.7,500/- on 21.02.2008 at the office of revenue inspector of Holavanahalli?
(2) Whether the trial Court is justified in convicting the accused notwithstanding the defence raised with regard to validity or otherwise of the sanction order?"
DISSCUSION AND ANALYSIS:
10. According to the complainant-PW5, he had purchased land in Sy.No.29 of Kurubarahalli in terms of deed of sale dated 02.11.2007 in the name of his father and a `J' slip in this regard was raised and forwarded from the office of Sub- Registrar to the office of Village Accountant, Sompura. Accused
- 16 -
NC: 2026:KHC:21692 CRL.A No. 95 of 2013 HC-KAR No.1 was the Village Accountant at the relevant point in time. There is no denial by the accused with regard to `J' slip being forwarded from the office of the Sub-Registrar to the office of the accused. The line of questions/suggestions put forth on behalf of the accused to PW7, the sanctioning authority, indicate that a `J' slip was indeed raised and forwarded to the office of the accused, which was received on 21.01.2008. Paragraph 5 of the cross-examination of PW7 is as under:
"5. ¤¦-4 ¦gÁ墣À°è 'eÉ' ¹è¥ï gÉ«£ÀÆå E£ïì¥ÉPÀÖgïgÀªÀgÀ ªÀÄÄAzÉ vÁB21.01.2008 PÉÌ §A¢zÉ JAzÀÄ £ÀªÀÄÆ¢¹zÁÝgÉ JAzÀgÉ ¸Àj. ¸ÁQë 'eÉ' ¹è¥ï vÁB07.01.2008 PÉÌ ¨sÀÆ«ÄPÉÃAzÀæPÉÌ §A¢zÀÄÝ vÁB21.01.2008 gÀAzÀÄ ªÀÄÄåmÉõÀ£ï jf¸ÀÖgï£À°è £ÀªÀÄÆzÁVzÉ JAzÀÄ £ÀÄrAiÀÄÄvÁÛgÉ. JA.M-7 gÀ ¥ÀÄl ¸ÀASÉå-1 gÀ°è F §UÉÎ £ÀªÀÄÆzÀÄ EzÉ. vÁB21.01.2008 gÀAzÀÄ DPÉëÃ¥ÀuÉUÀ¼À£ÄÀ ß PÉÆÃj £ÉÆnøÀ£ÀÄß PÉÆnÖzÁÝgÉ. 22.02.2008 gÀ ªÀgÉUÉ vÀPÀgÁgÀÄ ¸À°è¸À®Ä F §UÉÎ PÁ¯ÁªÀPÁ±À EvÀÄÛ JAzÀgÉ ¸Àj. AiÀiÁgÀÆ vÀPÀgÁgÀÄ ¸À°è¸ÀzÉà EzÀÝ°è ªÀÄÄA¢£À £ÀqÀªÀ½PÉ DUÀÄvÀÛzÉ JAzÀgÉ ¸Àj."
11. The aforesaid line of cross examination indicate admission on the part of the accused of pendency of the work at their end at the relevant point in time and the date as alleged in the complaint.
12. Complainant -H.K.Ravikumar who is examined as PW5 at paragraph 2 of his deposition has stated as under:
- 17 -
NC: 2026:KHC:21692 CRL.A No. 95 of 2013 HC-KAR "2. ನಂತರ ಾ ಗಳ , ಇ ೆಕ ಮತು ಾನು ೕ ೕ ಾ ಯ 1 ೆ ಆ ೋ"ಯ ಆ#ೕ ಹ&ರ'ೆ( )ೋ*, ಅ ಂದ ಅ ಾಂತ, ನನ- ತಂ.ೆ ಮತು ಾನು ಆ#ೕ ಒಳಗ0ೆ )ೋ.ಾಗ, 1 ೆ ಆ ೋ" ಇದು1, ಾನು ಲಂಚ 'ೊಡಲು )ೋ.ಾಗ ಅದನು- ಪಕ(ದ ರೂ6ನ ದ1 2 ೆ ಆ ೋ" ೆ 'ೊಡ7ೇ'ೆಂದು )ೇ8ದ19ಂದ ಾನು ಅ:ೌಂಟನು- ಅವರ >ೇಬ@ Aೕ ಟು Bಗ-@ 'ೊ>ೆ ನು. ಅಷ ರ ಇ ೆಕ ಮತು ಜನ ಬಂದರು. 2 ೆ ಆ ೋ" ೆ ಾನು ದುಡEನು- 'ೊ>ೆ ೆಂದು )ೇ8.ಾಗ, ಇ ೆಕ ತಮF ಪ9ಚಯ :ಾ 'ೊಂಡು 'ೆ6ಕ@ನ 2 ೆ ಆ ೋ"ಯ 'ೈಯನು- HೊIೆ.ಾಗ ಅದ'ೆ( "ಂJ ಕಲ ಬಂತು. ಅದನು- 7ಾಟ ೆ )ಾK Bೕ@ :ಾ ದರು. ಮು.:ಾ.3 9ಂದ 5 ಅವರ 'ೈ HೊIೆಸುವMದ'ೆ( ಮುಂNೆ ಇದ1 'ೆ6ಕ@ ಮತು ಅವರ ಬಲ ೈ ಮತು ಎಡ ೈ HೊIೆBದ 'ೆ6ಕ@ ಅಷ ರ ಜನ PಾBQಾದ19ಂದ ಅ ಂದ ಾRೆSಾ 'ೊರಟ ೆ ೆ ೆ ೕಷ ೆ )ೋ.ೆವM. ಅ ಎSಾ >ೈT :ಾ B ನನ- ಸU Hೆ ೆದು'ೊಂಡರು".
13. Though the said witness has spoken about he having seen and he keeping the money on the table of accused No.2, the fact of accused No.1 demanding the amount and upon the instruction of accused No.1 he keeping the money on the table of the accused No.2 has been reiterated in his cross- examination and nothing has been elicited to discredit his version to this extent.
14. Manjunath-PW3 is the shadow witness who had accompanied the complainant-PW5, in his chief examination at paragraph 2 has deposed as under:
"2. ಮXಾYಹ- ಸು:ಾರು 2 ಗಂ>ೆ ೆ .ೋ. ಾ 1ರ 'ಾ9ನ ಇತರರು ಮತು ಾನು )ೊಳವನಹ8Zಯ ಕಂ.ಾಯ ಕ[ೇ9 ಪಕ(ದ PÁgÀÄ ¤°è¹ .ೋ. ಾ 1, 5 ಮತು
- 18 -
NC: 2026:KHC:21692 CRL.A No. 95 of 2013 HC-KAR ನನ-ನು- ಒಳ ೆ ಕ8Bದರು . zÀÄqÀÄÝ vÀA¢¢ÝÃgÀ JAzÀÄ 1£Éà DgÉÆæ .ೋ ಾgÀನು- 'ೇಳSಾ* ತಂ\.ೆ1ೕ ೆ ಎಂದು ಅವರು )ೇ8ದರು. ಆಗ ಅ:ೌಂಟನು- 2£Éà ಆ ೋ" ೆ 'ೊಡ7ೇ'ೆಂದು 1£Éà ಆ ೋ" )ೇ8 ಕ8Bದರು. ಅ:ೌಂ] ತಂ\\1ೕರ ಎಂದು 2 ೆ ಆ ೋ" 'ೇ8ದ19ಂದ .ೋ. ಾ 1 Hೆ ೆದು'ೊಂಡು )ೋ*ದ1 ಹಣವನು- >ೇಬ@ AೕSೆ ಇಡSಾ* 2£Éà ಅ ೋ" ಅದನು- Hೆ ೆದು'ೊಂಡು ಎ_B ತಮF Pೇ`ನ ಇಟು 'ೊಂಡರು. ನಂತರ ಆNೆ ಬಂದು .ೋ. ಾ 1 ತSೆ 'ೆ ೆದು'ೊಂಡು ಸ ೆ- :ಾಡSಾ* ಆ#ೕಸgïì ಒಳಗ0ೆ ಬಂದು ಪ9ಚಯ :ಾ 'ೊಂಡು .ಾaವಣವನು- ತQಾರು :ಾ B ಅದರ 2£Éà ಆ ೋ"ಯ 'ೈಗಳನು- HೊIೆB.ಾ* ಅದ'ೆ( "ಂJ ಕಲ ಬಂತು . ಅದನು- Bೕ ೆ ೆ )ಾK Bೕ@ :ಾ ದರು ಮು:ಾ `3 9ಂದ 5 ಅವರ 'ೆ( HೊIೆಸುವMದ'ೆ( ಮುಂNೆ ಇದ1 .ಾaವಣ ಮತು ಅವರ ಬಲ ೈ ಮತು ಎಡ'ೆ( HೊIೆBದ .ಾaವಣ ".
15. Perusal of the aforesaid portion of deposition indicate that even accused No.2 had demanded the bribe amount and the same was kept on the table of accused No.2 who had counted and kept in his pocket.
16. Narasimha Murthy-PW4 is the mahazar witness. He has spoken about taking the money out of the pocket of the accused No.2 and conducting of the further proceeding of the trap mahazar. The said witness in the cross examination though initially had stated that he had seen the bribe money on the table of accused No.2, has thereafter voluntarily stated that the bribe money was found in the pocket of accused No.2.
- 19 -
NC: 2026:KHC:21692 CRL.A No. 95 of 2013 HC-KAR
17. The phenolphthalein test was conducted on accused No.2. The test report indicate the bribe money having been handled by the accused. To this extent prosecution has made out its case.
18. However, the relevant submission of the learned Senior counsel for the accused as noted above is with regard to non seizure of voice recorder which according to him has been deliberately withheld as if it had been produced would have given the different version in favour of the accused. Investigation Officer who has been examined in this regard in his examination-in-chief has stated that in the mahazar produced at Ex.P3 following is mentioned with regard to non- seizure of voice recorder.
" ಾabೕ*ಕ ಪಂಚ ಾA 'ಾಲದ ತcdಾe'ಾ9ಗಳ ¦gÁå¢UÉ 'ೊf ದ1 Rಾg ೇ'ಾಡhರನು- ಆ :ಾ 'ೇಳSಾ* ಆ ೋ"ತರ ಮತು ¦gÁå¢ ನಡುRೆ >ಾaT ಸಮಯದ ನ0ೆದ ಸಂ7ಾಷiೆ ಅಸjಷ Rಾ* ೆ'ಾkh ಆ*ರುವMದನು- ತcdಾe'ಾ9ಗಳ ಎಲರ ಸಮlಮ )ಾK 'ೇಳSಾ*, Hಾಂ&aಕ Hೊಂದ ೆmಂದSೊ ಮತು ¦gÁåದು.ಾರರು ೆ'ಾkhರನು- ಆ :ಾ ದ ನಂತರ ಸು:ಾರು 20c6ಷ ತಮF ಬ8ಯ nೕ ಇ9B'ೊಂ ದ19ಂದ )ೊರಗ0ೆ ಓ0ಾಡುವ Rಾಹನ ಶಬ1ಗಳ ಇತ ೆ ಜನಗಳ :ಾತ ಾ ರುವMದು ಸ)ಾ .ಾಖSಾ*ರುತ.ೆ ಮತು ಆ ೋ"ತರ ಕ[ೇ9ಯ ಬಹಳ ಜನ ಇದು1 ಅವರ ಗSಾ>ೆಯ ಅಸjಷ Rಾ* ೆ'ಾkh ಆ*ದ19ಂದ ಅದನು- ತcdಾe'ಾ9ಗಳ ಅ:ಾನತುಪ B 'ೊಂ ರುವM\ಲ."
- 20 -
NC: 2026:KHC:21692 CRL.A No. 95 of 2013 HC-KAR
19. Learned counsel for the accused relied upon the judgment of the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in the case of State of Karnataka Vs C.Lasumanaik in Criminal Appeal No.100230/2015 dated 22.06.2017 wherein the Co- ordinate Bench of this Court at paragraph 15 has held that "the defence of the accused that he never demanded the bribe amount and it was forcibly thrusted into his hand by the complainant himself and during the course of the proceeding it has come on record that the accused insisted the Investigation Officer to seize/produce the tape recorder, which will go to prove his defence. It is his consistent case that had the prosecution produced the tape recorder before the Court, it would have been established that he never demanded the bribe amount and therefore non production of the tape recorder also taken away the opportunity of the defence to prove his defence." Referring to this observation of Co-ordinate Bench of this Court and learned Senior counsel vehemently submitted, even the instant case, had the prosecution produced the tape recorder, it would have revealed the actual conversation that had taken place between the complainant and the accused persons. Perhaps to hide or shield this evidence, the
- 21 -
NC: 2026:KHC:21692 CRL.A No. 95 of 2013 HC-KAR prosecution has not produced the same which shall in any event benefit the accused persons.
20. The aforesaid submission cannot be accepted for the reason that in the case relied upon as noted above, a specific defence had been set up by the accused persons that they had insisted the Investigation Officer to seize and produce a tape recorder which is not the case at hand. Further in the said case they also had setup a defence of accused therein forcibly thrusting the money into their hands which is absent in the instant case. The statement of the accused persons recorded at the time of trap mahazar in the instant case indicate that no such defence has been raised by the accused persons. In any event the prosecution in the mahazar at Ex.P3 provided the explanation for non-seizing of the tape recorder as noted herein above. Therefore, non production of the tape recorder in the instant case cannot be considered as a serious consequence or withholding of the evidence by the prosecution.
21. The other ground raised is with regard to grant of sanction. Learned counsel relied upon the judgment of the Apex Court in the cases of Nanjappa Vs State of Karnataka,
- 22 -
NC: 2026:KHC:21692 CRL.A No. 95 of 2013 HC-KAR CBI Vs Ashok Kumar Aggarwal, Mansukhlal, Vithaldas Chauhan Vs State of Gujarat, Ameer Jan Vs State of Karnataka supra. The principles laid down in the said judgments regarding accused being entitled to raise the issue with regard to validity of the sanction even at the stage of appeal cannot be disputed. The further principle laid down in the said judgments with regard to requirement of application of mind by the sanctioning authority also cannot be disputed. The argument of learned Senior counsel for accused in the instant case with reference to the sanction order is with reference to the deposition of the PW7 found at paragraph 6 which read as under:
"6. ಇನೂ- 30 \ನಗಳ ಅವe ಕIೆ\ಲRಾದರೂ ಸಂಬಂಧಪಟ , .ಾಖSಾ&ಗಳನು- ಪ9sೕ ಸ.ೆ Qಾಂ&aಕRಾ* ಅtbೕಜ ಾ ಮಂಜೂ ಾ& ಆ.ೇಶ cೕ .ೆ1ೕ ೆ ಎಂದ ೆ ಸ9ಯಲ, ಮಂಜೂ ಾ& ಆ.ೇಶ'ೆ( ಸU :ಾ ದ \ನದ Hಾ9ೕಖನು- ನಮೂ\B.ೆ1ೕ ೆ. ನಮF Bಬuಂ\ ತQಾ9Bದ ಕರಡನು- ಪ9sೕ B ಏ ಾದರೂ &ದು1ಪ ಇದ1 :ಾ B ಆ.ೇಶವನು- )ೊರ ಸುHೇ ೆ. c"ನು- 5£ÀÄß vÁjÃRÄ 2-2-09 ಸU :ಾ zÉÝä ಎಂದ ೆ ¸Àj. EzÀPÉÌ £ÀªÀÄä ¹§âA¢ ¢£ÁAPÀ 3-2-09 ಸU :ಾ zÉÝä ಎಂದ ೆ ಾ ಅದು Qಾರ ಸU ಎಂದು ನನ ೆ ೊ&ಲ ಎಂದು ನು ಯುHಾ ೆ. c"-5'ೆ( ಾನು 2-2-09 'ೆ( ಸU :ಾ ಲ ಎಂದ ೆ ಸ9ಯಲ, ಸದ9 ಆ.ೇಶ 3-2-09 'ೆ( ತQಾ ಾ*.ೆ ಎಂದ ೆ ಸ9ಯಲ, ಆದ 'ಾರಣ ನಮF Bಬuಂ\ ನಮF ಸUಯ ನಂತರ 3-2-09 ಎಂದು Hಾ9ೕಖನು- ನಮೂ\B.ಾ1 ೆ ಎಂದ ೆ ನನ ೆ ೊ&ಲ".
22. Referring to the aforesaid deposition of PW7, learned Senior counsel for the accused insisted that the witness himself has admitted that he carried out the correction to the draft
- 23 -
NC: 2026:KHC:21692 CRL.A No. 95 of 2013 HC-KAR prepared by his staff member. He also pointed out the ignorance pleaded by PW7 sanctioning authority with regard to the second signature and the date 03.02.2009 would also indicate that the said document could have been prepared by someone other than the PW7. Reiterating the principles of law, enunciated in the judgments relied upon by him, he submits that the sanction order not meeting the requirement of law, vitiate the entire proceedings. Anything done thereafter cannot be countenanced.
23. Sri.Venkatesh Arabatti learned counsel for respondent in response relied upon the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of State of MP Vs Virendra Kumar Tripathi reported in (2009) 15 SCC 533 and State of Bihar and others Vs Rajmangal Ram reported in (2014)11 SCC 388. Referring to paragraphs 8 to 12 in the case of Virendra Kumar Tripathi, he submits unless the accused makes out a case of "failure of justice" and in the absence of raising a specific defence in this regard, any error as contemplated under subsection (3) of Section 19 cannot result in reversal or altering of the order of the trial Court.
- 24 -
NC: 2026:KHC:21692 CRL.A No. 95 of 2013 HC-KAR
24. He also referred to judgment of the Apex Court in the case of State of Maharashtra through CBI Vs Mahesh G. Jain, reported in (2013) 8 SCC 119 wherein at paragraph 14, the Apex Court referring to its earlier judgments has culled out the principles governing the process of issuing the sanction which is as under:
"14. From the aforesaid authorities the following principles can be culled out:-
14.1 It is incumbent on the prosecution to prove that the valid sanction has been granted by the sanctioning authority after being satisfied that a case for sanction has been made out.
14.2 The sanction order may expressly show that the sanctioning authority has perused the material placed before him and, after consideration of the circumstances, has granted sanction for prosecution.
14.3 The prosecution may prove by adducing the evidence that the material was placed before the sanctioning authority and his satisfaction was arrived at upon perusal of the material placed before him.
14.4 Grant of sanction is only an administrative function and the sanctioning authority is required to prima facie reach the satisfaction that relevant facts would constitute the offence. 14.5 The adequacy of material placed before the sanctioning authority cannot be gone into by the court as it does not sit in appeal over the sanction order.
14.6 If the sanctioning authority has perused all the materials placed before him and some of them have not been proved that would not vitiate the order of sanction. 14.7 The order of sanction is a pre-requisite as it is intended to provide a safeguard to public servant against frivolous and vexatious litigants, but simultaneously an order of sanction should not be construed in a pedantic manner and there should not be a hyper-technical approach to test its validity.
- 25 -
NC: 2026:KHC:21692 CRL.A No. 95 of 2013 HC-KAR
25. In the case of State of Bihar and others Vs Rajmangal Ram, at paragraph 9 and 10, the Apex Court has held as under:
"9. In the instant cases the High Court had interdicted the criminal proceedings on the ground that the Law Department was not the competent authority to accord sanction for the prosecution of the respondents. Even assuming that the Law Department was not competent, it was still necessary for the High Court to reach the conclusion that a failure of justice has been occasioned. Such a finding is conspicuously absent rendering it difficult to sustain the impugned orders of the High Court.
10. The High Court in both the cases had also come to the conclusion that the sanction orders in question were passed mechanically and without consideration of the relevant facts and records. This was treated as an additional ground for interference with the criminal proceedings registered against the respondents. Having perused the relevant part of the orders under challenge we do not think that the High Court was justified in coming to the said findings at the stage when the same were recorded. A more appropriate stage for reaching the said conclusion would have been only after evidence in the cases had been led on the issue in question."
26. Thus from the aforesaid enunciation of law by the Apex Court, it becomes clear that not every error or discrepancy would make the sanction order nonest, but only those which result in failure of justice. This also requires a specific plea of defence to be raised by the accused before the trial Court as found in the case of Virender Kumar supra.
- 26 -
NC: 2026:KHC:21692 CRL.A No. 95 of 2013 HC-KAR
27. In the instant case, except paragraph 6 of the cross examination extracted herein above, nothing is brought on record to indicate that the error so pointed out has resulted in any failure of justice to the accused persons. Heavy reliance placed on the deposition of PW7 regarding he correcting the draft, as rightly pointed out by learned counsel for the respondent is misreading inasmuch as the said answer perhaps was to a general question and not specifically to the sanction order in the instant case. Therefore, the contention urged regarding sanction order not being valid cannot be accepted.
28. As regards delay in registering the FIR and initiation of the pre-trap mahazar proceedings even before dispatching of the FIR to the jurisdictional Magistrate, learned Senior counsel for accused relied upon the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Girish Chandra and Another Vs The State by Lokayuktha Police, Yadgir reported in ILR 2013 Kar 983, wherein the Division Bench of this Court at paragraph 9, 10 and 11 has held as under:
"9. Therefore, in all trap cases, it is just and necessary that recording of complaint and submission of FIR to the jurisdictional Court before embarking upon the protocol of raid is mandatory. If this type of investigation by surprise raid in trap cases is permitted, it would demoralize the public
- 27 -
NC: 2026:KHC:21692 CRL.A No. 95 of 2013 HC-KAR administration and the SHOs of Lokayuktha police stations would tend to misuse the powers of investigation. It is therefore necessary that the Director General of Police shall properly educate all SHOs of Lokayuktha Police Stations in the State about the legal requirements of investigation to be complied in trap cases. Besides, written guidelines be laid down to be followed in the protocol of investigation in a trap case. Non- adherence to protocol of investigation by the investigating officer should necessarily result in disciplinary action.
10. With regard to the question whether registration of FIR should precede the investigation or that FIR could be registered under the midst of the process of investigation would always depend upon the facts and circumstances of each case. In a situation where an offence is committed right in the presence of a police officer, it would be imprudent to insist that he should rush to the police station to record the FIR. The police officer should immediately act, like apprehending the accused, sending the victim to medical treatment etc., and thereafter registration of FIR would be an ideal investigation procedure. Otherwise, in all other type of cases, registration of FIR is mandatory since an FIR is to be sent to the Court at the earliest stage, so that no manipulating and tampering of facts would be possible. If the FIR is sent to the Court, all further investigation should necessary be consistent with the FIR.
11. In the context of facts of the case on hand, the conduct of investigation by surprise raid in the absence of FIR is untenable. Accordingly, the substantial question of law formulated for consideration is answered in the affirmative."
29. The consequence of delay in filing the FIR has also been dealt with by the Apex Court in the case of Arjun Marik and others Vs State of Bihar reported in 1994 Supp (2) SCC 372 wherein at paragraph 24 it has been held as under:
"24.The matter does not stop here. There is yet another serious infirmity which further deepens the suspicion and casts cloud on the credibility of the entire prosecution story and which has also been lost sight of by the trial court as well as the High Court and it is with regard to the sending of occurrence report (FIR) to the Magistrate concerned on 22-7-
- 28 -
NC: 2026:KHC:21692 CRL.A No. 95 of 2013 HC-KAR 1985 i.e. on the 3rd day of the occurrence. Section 157 of the Code of Criminal Procedure mandates that if, from information received or otherwise, an officer in charge of police station has reason to suspect the commission of an offence which he is empowered under Section 156 to investigate, he shall forthwith send a report of the same to the Magistrate empowered to take cognizance of such offence upon a police report. Section 157, CrPC thus in other words directs the sending of the report forthwith i.e. without any delay and immediately. Further, Section 159 CrPC envisages that on receiving such report, the Magistrate may direct an investigation or, if he thinks fit, to proceed at once or depute any other Magistrate subordinate to him to proceed to hold a preliminary inquiry into the case in the manner provided in the Code of Criminal Procedure. The forwarding of the occurrence report is indispensable and absolute and it has to be forwarded with earliest despatch which intention is implicit with the use of the word "forthwith" occurring in Section 157, which means promptly and without any undue delay. The purpose and object is so obvious which is spelt out from the combined reading of Sections 157 and 159 CrPC. It has the dual purpose, firstly to avoid the possibility of improvement in the prosecution story and introduction of any distorted version by deliberations and consultation and secondly to enable the Magistrate concerned to have a watch on the progress of the investigation."
30. The facts involved in the case of Girish Chandra supra as seen at paragraph 11 extracted above was with regard to the investigation by a surprise raid, in the absence of FIR, which is not the case at hand. In the case of Bijoy Singh supra, the incident had taken place on 25.08.1991 while the FIR was registered and report received by the Magistrate on 27.08.1991.
- 29 -
NC: 2026:KHC:21692 CRL.A No. 95 of 2013 HC-KAR
31. In the case of Arjun Marik, FIR had been registered 3 days after the incident.
32. It is under these circumstances, Division bench of this Court and the Apex Court respectively in the said judgments have held that delay in filing the FIR has to be construed strictly and with caution.
33. FIR in the instant case produced at Exhibit P6 indicate that the same was registered at 12.30 p.m. on 21.02.2008 and was dispatched at 13 hours (1.00 p.m.) in a sealed cover which has been received by the jurisdictional Magistrate at 2.30 p.m. In other words, within 30 minutes from the time of registration of FIR, the same has been dispatched. This under no circumstance can be construed as deliberate and inordinate delay, giving rise to any attempt of manipulation, insertion, deletion, addition, as contended by the learned Senior counsel for accused.
34. Learned Senior counsel for accused emphatically submitted as against the registration of the FIR at 12.30 p.m. witness-PW4 in his deposition has stated that he was summoned and was present in the police station at 11 a.m. on
- 30 -
NC: 2026:KHC:21692 CRL.A No. 95 of 2013 HC-KAR 21.02.2008. Whereas PW4 has stated that he was present at the police station at about 12.45 p.m. He also referred to the pre-trap panchanama at Ex.P2 wherein the proceedings stated to have commenced at 12.45 p.m. Referring to these timings, he submits that even before registration of FIR, PW4 was summoned and even before dispatch of the FIR, proceedings were initiated. However, he is unable to point out any provisions of law which would adversely affect the credibility of the prosecution even if the proceedings of pre-trap mahazar were initiated after registration of the FIR and before the same being received by the Magistrate. The precedents relied upon by him would only indicate inordinate and unexplained delay in the registration of FIR, which is not the case at hand as already noted.
35. As regard the deposition of the witnesses of they being present before the Investigating Officer between 11.00 a.m to 12.45 p.m., as pointed out by learned counsel for the respondent, the said witnesses have spoken after 4 years of the incident and human memory lapse cannot be ruled out. In any event, the difference of the time is only of about 1 hour to 2 hours from the records and the oral evidence.
- 31 -
NC: 2026:KHC:21692 CRL.A No. 95 of 2013 HC-KAR
36. As regards the wrong mentioning of the date in Ex.P7, wherein the date of endorsement is shown as 22.02.2008.
37. Perusal of the said document Ex.P7 indicate that the same was the communication issued by the Investigation Officer to the Deputy Director, Department of Public Instruction, Tumkur seeking to depute his staff having put in 10 years of service. The endorsement on the said document indicate that one Manjunath, SDA was deputed as requested. The said endorsement is dated 22.02.2008. The witness who was deputed is one Manjunath who is the shadow witness examined as PW3. There is no dispute of the fact that said Manjunath was indeed working in the Department of Public Instruction during the relevant point in time. It is also not in dispute that said Manjunath was present during the entire trap mahazar process. The said witness has supported the case of the prosecution. Mere wrong mentioning of the date on the said document, cannot have the effect of the very presence, nonexistence of the said witness at the time of mahazar.
- 32 -
NC: 2026:KHC:21692 CRL.A No. 95 of 2013 HC-KAR
38. In the case of Syed Ahmed Vs State of Karnataka reported in (2012) 8 SCC 527, at paragraph 34, Apex Court has answered the question, "what is a minor discrepancy". Paragraph 34 reads as under:
34. In our opinion, the discrepancy with regard to the attire of Syed Ahmed, the Rs 10 currency note and the forensic examination of the wallet are rather minor matters. What is a minor discrepancy? This has been the subject-matter of discussion in Abdul Nawaz v. State of W.B. and Jugendra Singh After referring to a few earlier decisions of this Court, it was held that a discrepancy would be minor if it did not affect the substratum of the prosecution case or impact on the core issue.
In such an event, the minor discrepancy could be ignored."
39. The points of discrepancy raised by learned counsel for the accused in the process of registration of FIR and conducting of the mahazar as noted above cannot but be termed as a minor discrepancy not taking away the core and substratum of the case of the prosecution. This in the light of prosecution having proved and established demand of bribe by accused No.1 and payment of the bribe amount by the complainant-PW5 to the accused No.2.
40. This brings to the aspect of demand by accused No.2.
41. Learned counsel for the accused relied upon the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of A Karunanithi Vs
- 33 -
NC: 2026:KHC:21692 CRL.A No. 95 of 2013 HC-KAR The State represented by Inspector of Police reported in 2025 SCC online SC 1677 arising out of SLP (Crl.)No.9964 of 2019, which involved facts in the nature of demand by a Village Administrator officer accused No.1 and a Village Assistant accused No.2 and complainant approaching accused No.1 who allegedly demanding Rs.500/- as a bribe and during the trap accused No.1 instructing accused No.2 to collect the money. And complainant handing over marked notes to accused No.2 who had counted and kept the same as directed by accused No.1. The Apex Court at paragraphs 14, 15, 16 and 18 of the said judgment has held as under:
14. A Constitution Bench of this Court in Neeraj Datta v. State (NCT of Delhi)2 has held that for recording a conviction under Section 7 and Sections 13(1)(d)(i) and (ii) of the Act, the prosecution has to prove the demand and acceptance of illegal gratification either by direct evidence which can be in the nature of oral evidence or documentary evidence or circumstantial evidence. In other words, to convict a person under the aforesaid provision demand and acceptance of illegal gratification is a sine qua non.
15. We first take up the case of A-2. It is no one's case that A-2 ever demanded any illegal gratification. He undoubtedly accepted the money on the directions of A-1 and kept the same with him. So, there was no demand of illegal gratification on his part. The demand made by A-1 cannot be attributed to A-2 as no evidence was adduced which could establish that A-2 was a habitual offender working in aid with A-1 or was facilitating A-1 in demanding and receiving illegal gratification. Accordingly, in the absence of any allegation or evidence that A-2 demanded bribe from the complainant or he was acting in connivence with A-1, he cannot be prosecuted for the commission of the crime of demanding and receiving illegal gratification.
- 34 -
NC: 2026:KHC:21692 CRL.A No. 95 of 2013 HC-KAR
16. Admittedly, A-2 was not charged with the abetment of the aforesaid crime. He had accepted the money on the direction of A-1 only. He could have received the money innocently on the direction of A-1 or he may have received it knowingly. Both the views are possible. However, as no evidence was adduced to prove that both of them have connived to demand and accept the bribe, even if a fair trial may have been given to the A-2, it cannot be said with any certainty that he was an accomplice to the crime. Accordingly, in the absence of charge of abetment and the proof of connivance between A-1 and A-2, we are of the opinion that A-2 could not have been convicted.
18. Now, coming to the conviction of A-1. The evidence on record amply proves that he demanded bribe from the complainant not only once but twice, and thereafter when the trap was laid. The bribe on his behalf was accepted by A-2. The evidence proves that A-2 accepted the money on the dictates of A-1. Therefore, both the ingredients of demand and receipt stand duly proved against A-1. The evidence in this regard of PW-1 and PW-2, despite some minor contradictions stand unshaken. Therefore, in our opinion, his conviction as held by the Trial Court and affirmed by the High Court is not liable to be interfered with."
42. The facts emanating in the present case are almost identical to the facts involved in the said case. According to the complaint in the instant case, the demand for bribe was made by accused No.1. Complaint was filed specifically alleging the demand being made by accused No.1. Trap was laid keeping in mind the demand made by the accused No.1. Instruction was given to pay the money only when the demand is made by accused No.1. It so happens during the process accused No.1 on clarification about complainant-PW5 having brought the bribe amount had instructed that the amount to be paid to the
- 35 -
NC: 2026:KHC:21692 CRL.A No. 95 of 2013 HC-KAR accused No.2 who was in the other room. Complainant-PW5 as noted above has not spoken about demand being made by accused No.2. He has also not seen accused No.2 counting and keeping the money in his pocket. It is only PW3-shadow witness has spoken about demand being made by accused No.2 and he picking up the money from the table, counting and keeping the same in his pocket. Except PW3 shadow witness speaking about the so called demand made by accused No.2, there is no material evidence brought on record. In the cross examination, the allegation of demand made by accused No.2 has been denied. Though the prosecution has brought on record the material with regard to the demand made by the accused No.1, who eventually directed the complainant-PW5 to pay the amount to accused No.2, may satisfy the requirement of proof of demand and acceptance against accused No.1, in the considered view of this Court, the same would not meet the requirement of demand and acceptance by accused No.2. At the most, accused No.2 has received the money and there is no demand. The factual and fundamental requirement of proof of demand, more particularly by accused No.2 is absent in the instant case, which is sine qua non for the purpose of
- 36 -
NC: 2026:KHC:21692 CRL.A No. 95 of 2013 HC-KAR establishing the guilt against the accused No.2 as held by the Apex Court in the case of Neeraj Dutta Vs State (Govt. of N.C.T of Delhi) reported in 2023 SCC Online SC 280.
43. Though learned counsel for the respondent insisted that the recovery of the amount from the person of accused No.2 and he not explaining the same may have to be read in the light of Section 20, the same would be of no avail inasmuch as statutory presumption under Section 20 can be drawn only when the fundamental ingredients of demand and acceptance are proved. As noted above, the prosecution in the considered view of this Court has failed to establish the factum of demand and proof of acceptance by accused No.2. Therefore calling upon the accused No.2 to discharge the statutory burden is of no avail. The Apex Court in the case of State of Karnataka Vs Chandrasha reported in 2024 SCC online SC 3469 and paragraph 21 has held as under:
"21. It is settled law that the two basic facts viz., 'demand' and 'acceptance' of gratification have been proved, the presumption under Section 20 can be invoked to the effect that the gratification was demanded and accepted as a motive or reward as contemplated under Section 7 of the Act. However, such presumption is rebuttable. Even on the basis of the preponderance of probability, the accused can rebut the same. In the present case, the prosecution proved its case beyond reasonable doubt, in respect of the 'demand' and 'acceptance'
- 37 -
NC: 2026:KHC:21692 CRL.A No. 95 of 2013 HC-KAR of the bribe amount from the complainant and recovery of tainted currency notes from the possession of the respondent. The said operation is preceded by recording of the demand in the tape recorder. In such circumstances, the respondent has to rebut the presumption by disproving the case of the prosecution either in the cross-examination of the prosecution side witnesses or by adducing material evidence that the receipt of Rs. 2,000/- was not a bribe amount, but a legal fee or repayment of loan. However, he failed to do so and on the contrary, we find the prosecution to have proved the case beyond any doubt."
44. Further there is no specific charge framed as against accused No.2 of he demanding any money. The charge framed reads as under:
.ೋwಾ ೋಪiೆ "`. 7ಾಲಕೃಷy, `.ಎ¹ì, ಎ@.ಎ@.`॰, 2 ೇ ಅeಕ zSಾ ಮತು ಸತa ಾYQಾeೕಶರು, ತುಮಕೂರು, ಆದ ಾನು cಮF AೕSೆ ಈ 'ೆಳಕಂಡಂHೆ .ೋwಾ ೋ"ಸುHೇ ೆ:
1. `.ಧಮhಣY ` `ೕರ|ಯ, 55 ವಷh, ಾaಮSೆK(ಗರು, ೊಂಪMರ ವೃತ, )ೊಳವನಹ8Z ºÉÆç½, 'ೊರಟ ೆ ೆ Hಾಲೂಕು Rಾ¸À: s ಾ ೇ ತುಮಕೂರು,
2. 'ೆ. ಶಂಕ ಾನಂದ ` , PÉ. ಾಮಣY, 55 ವಷh, ಾಜಸ}c9ೕlಕರು, )ೊಳವನಹ8Z )ೋಬ8, 'ೊರಟ ೆ ೆ Hಾಲೂಕು. Rಾಸಃ sವಕೃಪ (Bf ಕ• ಎದುರು) s ಾ ೇ], ತುಮಕೂರು, cಮF ೈK 1 ೆಯವರು ಾaಮSೆK( ೆ ಮತು 2 ೆಯವರು ಾಜಸc9ೕlಕ ಾ* ಾವhಜcಕ ೇವಕ ಾ*ದು1, \£ÁAPÀ 21-02-08 ರಂದು ಮXಾYಹ- ಸು:ಾರು 2.20 ಗಂ>ೆಯ ತುಮಕೂರು zSೆಯ 'ೊರಟ ೆ ೆ HಾಲೂKನ )ೊಳವನಹ8Z )ೋಬ8ಯ ೋಂಪMರದ cಮF ೈK 2 ೆಯವರ ಕ[ೇ9ಯ .ೋ.¸Á.1 )ೆ€.'ೆ.ರ•ಕು:ಾ £À )ೆಸ9 ೆ dಾHೆ ಬದSಾವiೆ :ಾ 'ೊಡಲು cವhUಸ7ೇ'ಾ*ದ1 ಪ\ೕಯ 'ಾಯh'ೆ( ¥Á9HೋಷಕRಾ* ಅವ9ಂದ cಮF ೈK 1 ೆಯವರ c.ೇhಶನದಂHೆ 2 ೆಯವರು ಅವ9ಂದ ರೂ 7,500/- ಲಂಚವನು-
- 38 -
NC: 2026:KHC:21692 CRL.A No. 95 of 2013 HC-KAR ಪ0ೆ\ದ19ಂದ cೕವM ಭawಾ Nಾರ ತqÉ ಅecಯಮ 1988 ರ ಕಲಂ ರ ಯ sƒಾಹh ಅಪ ಾಧವನು- ಎಸ*\9 ಮತು ಇದು ನನ- ¸ÀAYÉÕÃAiÀÄ'ೊ(ಳಪf .ೆ.
ಎರಡ ೆಯ.ಾ*, ಅ.ೆ \ನ, ಆ.ೆ ಸಮಯ ಮತು ಅ.ೆ ಸ„ಳದ cೕವM ಾವhಜcಕ ೇವಕ ಾ*ದು1, .ೋ. ಾ 1 9ಂದ 'ಾನೂನು7ಾUರRಾ* ಲಂಚವನು- ಪ0ೆದು ಅಪ ಾeಕ ದುನhಡHೆಯನು- ಎಸ*ದ19ಂದ ಭawಾ Nಾರ ತ0ೆ ಅecಯಮ 1988 ರ ಕಲಂ 13(2) ರ ಯ sƒಾಹh ಅಪ ಾಧವನು- ಎಸ*\9 ಮತು ಇದು ನನ- ¸ÀAYÉÕÃAiÀÄ'ೊ(ಳಪf .ೆ.
Aೕಲ(ಂಡ .ೋwಾ ೋಪiೆ ೆ ನc-ಂದ cಮF ಅe•Nಾರiೆ ಆಗತಕ(.ೆಂದು ಈ ಮೂಲಕ c.ೇhsಸುHೇ ೆ".
45. The trial Court in the considered view of this Court has erred in convicting the accused No.2.
46. In that view of the matter, this Court is of the view that the judgment of conviction as against the accused No.1 is required to be sustained and against accused No.2 required to be set aside.
47. As regards the sentencing is concerned, the trial Court has imposed imprisonment for a period of one year with fine of Rs.5,000/- and in default of payment of fine to undergo imprisonment for a period of 3 months for the offence punishable under Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act and imprisonment for a period of three years with fine of Rs.5,000/- and in default to undergo imprisonment for period of
- 39 -
NC: 2026:KHC:21692 CRL.A No. 95 of 2013 HC-KAR 3 months for the offences punishable under Section 13(1)(d) and 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act.
48. Accused No.1 is stated to have passed away during the pendency of proceedings and his legal heirs have been brought on record. Therefore, as regard the punishment is concerned, the matter stands abated. However, the Judgment of conviction is sustained.
49. Accused No.2 is acquitted of the offences punishable under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) and 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act.
Appeal is thus partly allowed.
Sd/-
(M.G.S. KAMAL) JUDGE SBN List No.: 1 Sl No.: 1