Karnataka High Court
G Ramakrishna vs State By Police Inspector on 18 March, 2026
Author: M.G.S. Kamal
Bench: M.G.S. Kamal
-1-
NC: 2026:KHC:15841
CRL.A No. 851 of 2013
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 18TH DAY OF MARCH, 2026
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.G.S. KAMAL
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 851 OF 2013
BETWEEN:
G. RAMAKRISHNA
S/O SH. GIRIYAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS,
W/AS PSI (WIRELESS), BANGALORE CITY,
R/AT NO.5, 2ND FLOOR, 12TH BLOCK,
CAUVERY COMPLEX, ADUGODI POLICE
OFFICERS QUARTERS, BANGALORE.
NOW R/AT NO.1, 7TH MAIN,
ANJANEYA TEMPLE STREET, MYSORE ROAD,
R.R. NAGAR, BANGALORE - 560 039.
Digitally
signed by
SUMA B N
Location: ...APPELLANT
HIGH COURT
OF (BY SRI. SANDESH J CHOUTA, SR. COUNSEL FOR
KARNATAKA
SRI. G.S. AVINASH GOWDA, ADVOCATE AND
MS. ANANYA MANJUNATH, ADVOCATE)
AND:
STATE BY POLICE INSPECTOR
POLICE WING CITY DIVISION,
-2-
NC: 2026:KHC:15841
CRL.A No. 851 of 2013
HC-KAR
KARNATAKA LOKAYUKTHA,
BANGALORE
REP. BY STANDING COUNSEL FOR
KARNATAKA LOKAYUKTHA IN THE
HONBLE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
BANGALORE - 560 001.
...RESPONDENT
(BY SRI. B.S. PRASAD, ADVOCATE)
THIS CRL.A IS FILED U/S.374(2) OF CR.P.C PRAYING TO
SET ASIDE THE CONVICTION AND SENTENCE DATED
26.04.2013 PASSED BY THE SPL. JUDGE, PREVENTION OF
CORRUPTION ACT, BANGALORE URBAN DISTRICT, BANGALORE
CITY IN SPL.C.C.NO.157/2009 - CONVICTING THE
APPELLANT/ACCUSED FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/S 7 AND 13(1)(d)
P/U/S 13(2) OF PREVENTION OF CORRUPTION ACT, 1988.
THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR HEARING, THIS DAY,
JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.G.S. KAMAL
-3-
NC: 2026:KHC:15841
CRL.A No. 851 of 2013
HC-KAR
ORAL JUDGMENT
This appeal is filed by the accused-appellant herein being aggrieved by the Judgment and order dated 26.04.2013 passed in Spl.C.C.No.157/2009 on the file of the Special Judge, Bangalore Urban District, Bangalore City by which the appellant herein has been found guilty of offences punishable under Sections 7, 13(1)(d) and 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act, 1988') and he has been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year for the offence punishable under Section 7 of the Act, 1988 and to pay Rs.5,000/- and in default to undergo simple imprisonment for two months and has been further sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of two years for the offence punishable under Section 13(1)(d) R/w Section 13(2) of the Act, 1988 and to pay fine of Rs.10,000/- and in default to undergo simple imprisonment of 3 months.
-4-
NC: 2026:KHC:15841 CRL.A No. 851 of 2013 HC-KAR
2. A complaint dated 17.07.2008 came to be filed by one Syed Mahboob also known as Babu alleging that he is carrying on the business of furniture and that about two and a half months prior to the date of complaint, accused- appellant had came to his shop along with his friends and had introduced himself that he was working in Central Crime Branch and he had requested the complainant to supply him the furniture. Accordingly, the complainant manufactured the furniture and upon the instruction of the accused-appellant delivered the same to his home. The value of said furniture was Rs.1,00,400/-. Though the accused-appellant had promised to pay the same, he had protracted the matter for one or the other reasons. When the complainant demanded for payment of the amount, he had shown him a document and asked him to raise Rs.5,00,000/- on the basis of the said document and had asked the complainant to return the balance amount after deducting the amount due to him, to which he had not agreed. Thereafter, accused-appellant had informed him -5- NC: 2026:KHC:15841 CRL.A No. 851 of 2013 HC-KAR that he has seen a case against the complainant on the internet and if he paid him Rs.5,00,000/- he will have him released. That when the complainant refused to pay the said amount as demanded, the accused-appellant called him on his mobile number 9008435088 from his mobile number 9886831066 threatening him that if he did not pay the amount as demanded, he would have him arrested by R.T.Nagar Police.
3. Pursuant to the above complaint, Police Inspector, Police Wing of Karnataka Lokayutha, Bengaluru Urban Division registered a case in Crime No.41/2008, as per Ex.P23 for the offences punishable under Sections 7, 13(1)(d) and 13(2) of the Act, 1988.
4. A pre-trap mahazar as per Ex-P.3 was drawn on 17.07.2008 and an amount of Rs.50,000/- was handed over to the complainant, the details of the numbers of the said notes and denominations was recorded. Complainant was asked to go along with one Naresh Kumar a shadow -6- NC: 2026:KHC:15841 CRL.A No. 851 of 2013 HC-KAR witness examined as PW-1. Accordingly, complainant and PW.1 went to the house of the accused-appellant at 08.25 p.m. The complainant handed over the said sum of Rs.50,000/- to the accused-appellant and as instructed, he had signaled the trap team, which was waiting nearby. Upon identification, accused-appellant was apprehended. Soon thereafter, he had thrown the cash amount of Rs.50,000/- from the second floor of his house. The process of identification of the currency and the chemical examination of his hand wash, was conducted and it was found that the sum of Rs.50,000/- which was sent through the complaint along with the shadow witness-PW.1 was the same amount which was received and thrown by the accused-appellant. Accordingly, charge sheet was filed. Charges were framed. Since the accused-appellant pleaded not guilty and sought for trial, the matter was taken up for trial.
-7-
NC: 2026:KHC:15841 CRL.A No. 851 of 2013 HC-KAR
5. Prosecution to prove the guilt of the accused, has examined five witnesses namely; Naresh Kumar-PW.1; Syed Mehaboob-PW.2; Govindaiah-PW.3; N.B. Pappanna- PW.4 and Prasanna V.Raju-PW.5 and has marked 27 documents as Exhibits P-1 to P-27 and 10 material objects as MO.1 to MO.10. No evidence has been recorded on behalf of the defendants. The Trial Court framed the following points for its consideration:
I. Whether the prosecution proves that the accused while working as Sub-Inspector of Police (wireless) Bangalore City, being a public servant, threatened the complainant that a case was registered against him and demanded bribe of Rs.5,00,000/- for absolving the case and on 17.07.2008 at about 8.15 p.m., in the office of the accused i.e., Cauvery Complex, Adugodi Police Officers Quarters, Bangalore demanded and accepted illegal gratification of Rs.50,000/- from complainant Sri.Syed Mahaboob @ Babu, to render official favour under Section 7 of Prevention of Corruption Act?
II. Whether the prosecution further proves that the accused being a public servant on 17.07.2008 at about 8.15 p.m in the office of the accused i.e., Cauvery Complex, Adugodi Police Officers Quarters, Bangalore by illegal means abused his position as a public servant demanded and obtained Rs.50,000/- of cash to make pecuniary advantage, against public interest, from CW-1 N.Nagaraju the complainant and thereby committed an offence punishable under Section 13(1)(d) of Prevention of Corruption Act which is punishable under Section 13(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act?
III. What offence the accused has committed?
IV. What order? -8- NC: 2026:KHC:15841 CRL.A No. 851 of 2013 HC-KAR
6. On appreciation of the evidence answered the points in the affirmative and convicted and sentenced the accused-appellant for the offences punishable Sections 7, 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of the Act, 1988. Being aggrieved by the said judgment and order, the accused- appellant is before this Court.
7. Learned Senior counsel Sri.Sandesh J Chouta appearing for the accused-appellant taking this Court through the records submits;
(a) That the prosecution has miserably failed to prove and establish the indispensable ingredient of demand and acceptance of bribe which is condition precedent.
(b) Referring to the evidence of PW-2, the complainant, he submitted that admittedly the said witness had deposed that though he was specifically instructed by the Investigating Officer to take Nareshkumar PW-1, the shadow witness, while going to the house of the accused, he had asked the said -9- NC: 2026:KHC:15841 CRL.A No. 851 of 2013 HC-KAR Nareshkumar to stay back in the first floor on the premise of accused getting alert. Thus he submits the very purpose of deputing PW1, has admittedly been defeated. That the purpose of sending a shadow witness along with the complainant is to ensure the complainant who is otherwise interested in the matter shall not manipulate the situation to suit his design.
(c) This itself is a sufficient indication that the ingredient of demand and acceptance has not been proved by the prosecution in the manner known to law.
(d) That there are contradiction and variation and improvement in the version of case of the prosecution. While the complaint PW-2 had alleged accused demanding Rs.5,00,000/-, in the deposition he has reduced the said amount to Rs.50,000/-. This reduction of alleged bribe amount from Rs.5,00,000/- to Rs.50,000/- has remained unexplained.
(e) That in the complaint at Ex.P1, the complainant has stated about he handing over his mobile to the I.O
- 10 -
NC: 2026:KHC:15841 CRL.A No. 851 of 2013 HC-KAR while the I.O in his deposition has deposed that the complainant had handed over the cassette containing the conversation between the complainant and the accused. That even if such a device was handed over, no certificate required under Section 65B of the Indian Evidence Act has been produced. Therefore, the said evidence has no acceptability in the eye of law.
(f) That the evidence of PW-2 not being reliable, lacking cogency requires corroboration and the prosecution has failed to corroborate the evidence inasmuch as the only person who could have spoken about the incident was shadow witness and he admittedly having kept out, there is no corroboration as required under law. He refers to following judgments in support of his submission.
i. Ramesh Desai v. State of Karnataka by Raichur Lokayukta, 2011 SCC Online Kar 4212 ii. Lakshmikantha SG v. State by Karnataka Lokayukta Police, Crl.P. No.3750/2013
- 11 -
NC: 2026:KHC:15841 CRL.A No. 851 of 2013 HC-KAR iii. State of Karnataka Lokayukta Police v.
Lakshmikantha SG Criminal Appeal No(S) 1066/2017 (Supreme Court) iv. State of Karnataka v. Loknath and Another Criminal Appeal No.200040/2021 v. Mohd Iqbal Ahmed v. State of Andhra PRadesh (AIR 1979 SC 677) vi. R.Samba Murthy v. State of Karnataka Criminal Appeal No.662/2010 vii. Neeraj Dutta v. State (Government of NCT Delhi) (2023) 4 SCC 731 viii. Aman Bhatia v. State (GNCT of Delhi) (2025 SCC Online SC 1013) ix. State, Lokayukta Police, Davanagere v.
C.B.Nagaraj (2025 SCC Online SC 1175) x. Dileepbhai Nanubhai Sanghani v. State of Gujarat, 2025 SCC Online SC 441.
xi. Panalal Damadar Rathi v. State of Maharashtra, (1979) 4 SCC 526 xii. Mir Mustafa Ali Hasmi v. State of A.P., (2024) 10 SCC 489 xiii. Madan Lal v. State of Rajasthan, (2025) 4 SCC
624. xiv. M.Sambasiva Rao v. State of A.P., 2025 SCC Online SC 1463.
- 12 -
NC: 2026:KHC:15841 CRL.A No. 851 of 2013 HC-KAR
8. In response, Sri. B.S.Prasad learned counsel appearing for the respondent-State submits:
(a) That demand and acceptance need not be proved by direct documentary or oral evidence. It can even be inferred from the circumstances.
(b) That unlike the offences under Indian Penal Code, the degree of proof need not be beyond reasonable doubt in the cases of the offences alleged under Prevention of Corruption Act.
(c) He refers to Section 20 of the Act to contend that a burden is casted on the person who is found to be in possession of the currency to explain the circumstances under which he came in possession of the same. He refers to the statement of the accused recorded purportedly soon after the trap mahazar wherein the accused apparently stated to have received loan amount of Rs.50,000/- from the complainant. That he has also stated complainant had represented himself to be possessing knowledge of
- 13 -
NC: 2026:KHC:15841 CRL.A No. 851 of 2013 HC-KAR discovering treasure and that he would assist in digging out from the threshold of his house and it is in this regard accused had received Rs.50,000/- from the complainant. He submits that this being the stand of the accused, it was incumbent upon him to have discharged the burden as contemplated and required under Section 20 of the Act.
(d) He refers to the mahazar drawn while recovering the currency notes from the ground floor and submits that these circumstances coupled with the phenolphthalein test conducted on the accused are circumstances sufficient enough to hold that the accused had indeed demanded the money which was paid by the complainant even though the shadow witness did not hear the actual demand made by the accused and payment by the complainant.
(e) He vehemently submits that this legal aspect of the matter has been settled by the Constitutional Bench of the Apex Court in the judgment rendered in Neeraj Dutta vs State (Government of NCT of Delhi reported in
- 14 -
NC: 2026:KHC:15841 CRL.A No. 851 of 2013 HC-KAR (2023) 4 SCC 731. He specifically refers to paragraph 88.4(d) of the said judgment to contend that for the offence under Section 7 of the Act , circumstantial evidence are sufficient and there is no requirement of corroboration as sought to be contented by learned counsel for the appellant.
(f) Referring to pre-trap panchanama and post-trap panchanama he contends that the fact the currency notes with the denomination, details of which were recorded in the pre-trap panchanama, tallies with the post-trap panchanama, which itself is a strong evidence against the accused. PW-4 post-trap panchanama witness has withstood the test of cross-examination and nothing has been elicited to discredit his testimony.
(g) That the cases of this nature where the prosecution has successfully established the recovery of money from the possession of the accused, the same do not warrant proof beyond reasonable doubt more
- 15 -
NC: 2026:KHC:15841 CRL.A No. 851 of 2013 HC-KAR particularly when the accused does not dispute he receiving the money from the complainant.
(h) Though according to the accused it was a loan transaction, if so, there was no need for him to have thrown the said money from the second floor. That he might have well explained the reason for he borrowing Rs.50,000/- by producing the documents regarding his financial ability.
(i) That this is a fit case where the circumstantial evidence is required to be taken note of which the trial Court has done in this matter warranting no interference in the matter.
(j) He relies upon the following judgments:
i. Sita Soren vs Union of India, AIR ONLINE 2024 SC 191 ii. Mukut Bihari and another vs State of Rajasthan , (2012) 11 SCC 642 iii. Sri.Jinnappa S/o Bujabal Regoudar vs The State of Karnataka, Criminal Appeal No.200200/2021 Hence, seeks for dismissal of the appeal.
- 16 -
NC: 2026:KHC:15841 CRL.A No. 851 of 2013 HC-KAR
9. Heard and perused the records.
10. The point that arise for consideration is:
"Whether the Trial Court is justified in convicting and sentencing the appellant/accused for the offences punishable under Sections 7, 13(1)(d) and 13(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act"?.
11. Apex Court in the case of Neeraj Dutta (supra) at paragraph 88 has summarized the position of law which requires prosecution to establish and prove the guilt of the accused under Section 7 and Section 13(1)(d) (i) and (ii) of the Act which reads as follows:
88. What emerges from the aforesaid discussion is summarised as under:
88.1. (a) Proof of demand and acceptance of illegal gratification by a public servant as a fact in issue by the prosecution is a sine qua non in order to establish the guilt of the accused public servant under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d)(i) and (ii) of the Act.
88.2. (b) In order to bring home the guilt of the accused, the prosecution has to first prove the demand of illegal gratification and the subsequent acceptance as a matter of fact. This fact in issue can be proved either by direct evidence which can be in the nature of oral evidence or documentary evidence.
- 17 -
NC: 2026:KHC:15841 CRL.A No. 851 of 2013 HC-KAR 88.3. (c) Further, the fact in issue, namely, the proof of demand and acceptance of illegal gratification can also be proved by circumstantial evidence in the absence of direct oral and documentary evidence.
88.4. (d) In order to prove the fact in issue, namely, the demand and acceptance of illegal gratification by the public servant, the following aspects have to be borne in mind:
(i) if there is an offer to pay by the bribe-giver without there being any demand from the public servant and the latter simply accepts the offer and receives the illegal gratification, it is a case of acceptance as per Section 7 of the Act. In such a case, there need not be a prior demand by the public servant.
(ii) On the other hand, if the public servant makes a demand and the bribe-giver accepts the demand and tenders the demanded gratification which in turn is received by the public servant, it is a case of obtainment. In the case of obtainment, the prior demand for illegal gratification emanates from the public servant. This is an offence under Sections 13(1)(d)(i) and (ii) of the Act.
(iii) In both cases of (i) and (ii) above, the offer by the bribe-giver and the demand by the public servant respectively have to be proved by the prosecution as a fact in issue. In other words, mere acceptance or receipt of an illegal gratification without anything more would not make it an offence under Section 7 or Sections 13(1)(d)(i) and (ii), respectively of the Act.
Therefore, under Section 7 of the Act, in order to bring home the offence, there must be an offer which emanates from the bribe-giver which is accepted by the public servant which would make it an offence. Similarly, a prior demand by the public servant when accepted by the bribe-giver and in turn there is a payment made which is received by the public servant, would be an offence of obtainment under Sections 13(1)(d)(i) and (ii) of the Act.
88.5 (e) The presumption of the fact with regard to the demand and acceptance or obtainment of an illegal gratification may be made by a court of law by way of an inference only when the foundational facts have been proved by relevant oral and documentary evidence and not in the absence thereof. On the basis of the material on record, the Court has the discretion
- 18 -
NC: 2026:KHC:15841 CRL.A No. 851 of 2013 HC-KAR to raise the presumption of fact while considering whether the fact of demand has been proved by the prosecution or not. Of course, a presumption of fact is subject to rebuttal by the accused and in the absence of rebuttal presumption stands.
88.6. (f) In the event the complainant turns "hostile", or has died or is unavailable to let in his evidence during trial, demand of illegal gratification can be proved by letting in the evidence of any other witness who can again let in evidence, either orally or by documentary evidence or the prosecution can prove the case by circumstantial evidence. The trial does not abate nor does it result in an order of acquittal of the accused public servant.
88.7. (g) Insofar as Section 7 of the Act is concerned, on the proof of the facts in issue, Section 20 mandates the court to raise a presumption that the illegal gratification was for the purpose of a motive or reward as mentioned in the said Section. The said presumption has to be raised by the court as a legal presumption or a presumption in law. Of course, the said presumption is also subject to rebuttal. Section 20 does not apply to Sections 13(1)(d)(i) and (ii) of the Act.
88.8. (h) We clarify that the presumption in law under Section 20 of the Act is distinct from presumption of fact referred to above in sub-para 88.5(e), above, as the former is a mandatory presumption while the latter is discretionary in nature.
12. The aforesaid principles have been reiterated by the Apex Court in its subsequent judgments in the case of Aman Bhatia Vs State (NCT of Delhi) reported in 2025 SCC Online SC 1013. Thus the line of precedents have reiterated the position of law, namely prosecution proving and establishing the foundational facts of demand and
- 19 -
NC: 2026:KHC:15841 CRL.A No. 851 of 2013 HC-KAR acceptance being sine qua non to establish the offences under Section 7 and Section 13(1)(d)(i) and 13(2) of the Act. Inference or presumption if any, can only be drawn even under Section 20 of the Act only if these requirements are fulfilled.
13. In the case of Aman Bhatia,(supra) the Apex Court at paragraph Nos.64 to 67 specifically dealing with the presumption under Section 20 of the Act has held as under:
64. Insofar as the presumption under Section 20 of the PC Act is concerned, such presumption is drawn only qua the offence under Sections 7 and 11 respectively and not qua the offence under Section 13(1)(d) of the PC Act. The presumption is contingent upon the proof of acceptance of illegal gratification to the effect that the gratification was demanded and accepted as a motive or reward as contemplated under Section 7 of the PC Act. Such proof of acceptance can follow only when the demand is proved.
65. In that case, the prosecution evidence alone cannot be considered for the purpose of coming to the conclusion. The evidence led by the prosecution and, the suggestions made by the defence witnesses, if any, are also required to be considered. It is then to be seen as to whether the total effect of the entire evidence led before the court is of a nature by which the only conclusion possible was that the
- 20 -
NC: 2026:KHC:15841 CRL.A No. 851 of 2013 HC-KAR public servant accepted the amount. If the answer is in affirmative, then alone it can be held that the prosecution established the case beyond reasonable doubt.
66. Undoubtedly, the presumption under Section 20 arises once it is established that the public servant accepted the gratification. However, in determining whether such acceptance occurred, the totality of the evidence led at the trial must be appreciated. The evidence led by the prosecution, the suggestions made by the defence witnesses, if any, the entire record is required to be considered. Only if the cumulative effect of all the evidence is such that the sole possible conclusion is that the public servant accepted the gratification can it be said that the prosecution has established its case beyond reasonable doubt.
67. On examination of the entire evidence, we are of the opinion that the prosecution has failed to establish beyond all reasonable doubt, the demand of bribe and its acceptance, in a trap laid by the ACB. In such circumstances, there is no question of a presumption under Section 20. Consequently, we find ourselves compelled to conclude that it would be entirely illegal to uphold the conviction of the appellant under Sections 13(1)(d) (i) and (ii) r/w Section 13(2) of the Act.
14. Thus, the aforesaid position of law leaves no doubt that foundational requirement of proof of demand and acceptance has to be established and the said burden has to be discharged by the prosecution beyond reasonable doubt. It is only thereafter any inference can
- 21 -
NC: 2026:KHC:15841 CRL.A No. 851 of 2013 HC-KAR be drawn from the circumstances. Even the judgment relied upon by the learned counsel for the respondent in the case of Mukut Bihari (supra), the Apex Court at paragraph 11 has held as under:-
11. The law on the issue is well settled that demand of illegal gratification is sine qua non for constituting an offence under the 1988 Act. Mere recovery of tainted money is not sufficient to convict the accused, when the substantive evidence in the case is not reliable, unless there is evidence to prove payment of bribe or to show that the money was taken voluntarily as bribe. Mere receipt of amount by the accused is not sufficient to fasten the guilt, in the absence of any evidence with regard to demand and acceptance of the amount as illegal gratification, but the burden rests on the accused to displace the statutory presumption raised under Section 20 of the 1988 Act, by bringing on record evidence, either direct or circumstantial, to establish with reasonable probability, that the money was accepted by him, other than as a motive or reward as referred to in Section 7 of the 1988 Act. While invoking the provisions of Section 20 of the Act, the Court is required to consider the explanation offered by the accused, if any, only on the touchstone of preponderance of probability and not on the touchstone of proof beyond all reasonable doubt. However before the accused is called upon to explain as to how the amount in question was found in his possession, the foundational facts must be established by the prosecution. The complainant is an interested and partisan witness concerned with the success of the trap and his evidence must be tested in the same way as that of any other interested witness and in a proper case the court may look for independent corroboration before convicting the accused person.
15. The facts in the instant case are required to be appreciated in the light of the aforesaid settled position of law. PW2-complainant in his cross-examination recorded on 31.01.2013 has deposed that:
- 22 -
NC: 2026:KHC:15841 CRL.A No. 851 of 2013 HC-KAR • That he has not mentioned the date of demand of the bribe by the accused in the complaint. • That he has not stated about accused scaling down the demand from Rs.5,00,000/- to Rs.50,000/- in the complaint.
• That he has recorded the calls made by the accused in his mobile.
• That he handed over mobile to PW.5 and they extracted the data.
• Transcription of conversation was not reduced to writing.
• That he was specifically instructed by the Inspector that he should take Naresh Kumar- PW.1, while going to the house of the accused. • That he asked Naresh Kumar-PW.1 to stay back in the first floor, telling that the accused may be alerted.
16. PW.1-shadow witness in his deposition recorded on 31.01.2013 has stated as under:
• Complainant produced voice recorder. • That he was instructed to follow with the complainant.
• That the complainant was instructed to pay the amount, only after demand of the accused and flash the signal in form of wiping his face with kerchief.
• That the complainant asked him to stay at the first floor, as complainant felt that the accused may get alerted. As such, he was in the first floor.
• That he has been commission as witness in six to seven cases.
- 23 -
NC: 2026:KHC:15841 CRL.A No. 851 of 2013 HC-KAR • That there is a criminal case registered against him in respect of bribery case.
• That since complainant did not have knowledge of Kannada, complaint was recorded in the statement in his presence.
• Complainant gave a tape recorder to the Inspector and that he neither listened to the contents and nor the transcription was prepared.
• When he went to Adugodi Quarters, there was no power supply. When he went to Second Floor, the amount had fallen down.
• He did not see the money being thrown by the accused.
• The explanation of the accused was asked in the office of the Dy.SP-PW.5. It was not read over to the complainant in their presence. • He has not seen demand for bribe by the accused.
• That from the place he was standing the house of the accused was not visible.
17. PW.5- Prasanna V. Raju, Dy.SP in his deposition recorded on 13.02.2013 has stated as under:
• Complainant gave micro cassette where conversation between accused and complainant took place and demand was made.
• The cassette was played in front of the witnesses and voice was very clear regarding demand of the accused.
• He took the cassette and put it in the empty cover and seized as MO.3.
- 24 -
NC: 2026:KHC:15841 CRL.A No. 851 of 2013 HC-KAR • On receiving the signal from the complainant, he and witnesses went to the second floor and accused who was holding money in his hand, threw the same to the ground floor.
18. PW.3 who had granted sanction has pleaded ignorance about whether the conversation was recorded on the cassette. That he had also stated that no cassette were supplied to him.
19. PW.4 in his evidence has stated that the complainant had given a audio cassette to the Investigating Officer and it was not played before him. That the complainant did not give any mobile recorded conversation to the Investigating Officer. That it was not visible to him as to who put down the money whether the complainant or the accused.
20. As rightly pointed out by the learned Senior counsel appearing for the appellant, the deposition of the aforesaid witnesses, more particularly with the proof of demand is inconsistent and contrary to the case of complainant.
- 25 -
NC: 2026:KHC:15841 CRL.A No. 851 of 2013 HC-KAR
21. PW.2-Complainant in his deposition has stated that he had recorded his conversation with the accused on his mobile, which he had handed over to the Dy.SP-PW.5 and it was PW.5, who had extracted the data. Whereas, PWs.1, 3, 4 and 5 have spoken about complainant given voice recorder and the cassette in this regard as produced as per MO.3.
22. PW.3- V.Govindaiah the sanctioning authority though initially pleaded ignorance about cassette being supplied to him, he has stated that the cassette was not supplied to him.
23. Thus, the very factum of demand has not been proved and established by the prosecution.
24. As regards the proof of factum of acceptance, the categorical admission of the PW.2-complainant of he instructing PW1- Naresh kumar shadow witness to stay at the first floor and PW.2 alone going to the house of the accused situated in the second floor and thereafter allegedly giving signal as instructed, gives rise to serious
- 26 -
NC: 2026:KHC:15841 CRL.A No. 851 of 2013 HC-KAR doubt about the case of the prosecution of it establishing the factum of acceptance. The very purpose of deputing PW1-shadow witness stands defeated.
25. Apex Court in the case of Panalal Damodar Rathi vs State of Maharashtra reported in (1979) 4 SCC 526 while emphasizing the requirement of corroboration of the evidence of the witness at para 8 has held as under:-
8. "There could be no doubt that the evidence of the complainant should be corroborated in material particulars. After introduction of Section 165-A of the Indian Penal Code making the person who offers bribe guilty of abetment of bribery, the complainant cannot be placed on any better footing than that of an accomplice and corroboration in material particulars connecting the accused with the crime has to be insisted upon. It has to be borne in mind that the marked notes were recovered from the possession of the second accused and not the appellant. It is the case of the prosecution that the marked notes were paid to the second accused for the purpose of being handed over to the appellant.
The evidence of the complainant regarding the conversation between him and the accused has been set out earlier. As the entire case of the prosecution depends upon the acceptance of the evidence relating to the conversation between the complainant and the appellant during which the appellant demanded the money and directed payment to the second accused which was accepted by the complainant, we will have to see whether this
- 27 -
NC: 2026:KHC:15841 CRL.A No. 851 of 2013 HC-KAR part of the evidence of complainant has been corroborated. The prosecution relies on the testimony of PW-3, the panch witness, as corroborating the evidence of the complainant on this aspect. It may be reiterated that according to the complainant when he asked the appellant to relieve him from the case and to see that he was given a lesser sentence, the appellant asked him if he had brought the money and the complainant told him that he had and the appellant asked the complainant to pay the money to Dalvi, the second accused, and asked the accused to receive the money from the complainant. On this aspect the evidence of PW-3 is as follows:
They saw the appellant coming out of the court hall and the complainant informed them that he was the Police Prosecutor. Then there was a talk between the complainant and the appellant in the verandah. The witness was at a distance of 3 to 4 feet from them and was in a position to overhear the conversation. According to the witness he heard the appellant asking the complainant "Have you come", the complainant then said "Yes". The witness further heard the appellant saying that he would see that heavy punishment is not inflicted and the case as it is, was difficult. The complainant had then asked the appellant whether his work will be achieved the appellant assured him in the affirmative. The appellant told the complainant to give what was to be given to the second accused".
26. The case of this nature hinges upon the conversation which takes place between the complainant and the accused which invariably contain the ingredients of demand and acceptance. It is for this purpose, a
- 28 -
NC: 2026:KHC:15841 CRL.A No. 851 of 2013 HC-KAR shadow witness is deputed who would be independent having no interest in the matter to depose dispassionately such that his evidence is relied upon by the Court.
27. In the instant case as already noted above, the said witness having been asked to stay outside of the house and the explanation given by the accused of he receiving Rs.50,000/- as a loan, would clarify that the prosecution has failed to prove the case beyond reasonable doubt.
28. Co-ordinate Bench of the Court in the case of R.Samba Murthy vs State of Karnataka order dated 20.12.2019 in Criminal Appeal No.662/2010, emphasizing the requirement of corroboration, referring to the judgments of the Apex Court at para 16 observed as under:-
16."Therefore, in view of the above cited decisions, this Court will have to see whether, the Trial Court is justified in recording conviction against the accused. In trap cases, the complainant will be an interested witness, in the sense that he would be interested in trapping the accused who is stated to have not done what ought to have been done legally,
- 29 -
NC: 2026:KHC:15841 CRL.A No. 851 of 2013 HC-KAR according to him. The evidence of the complainant needs corroboration in material aspects and this should be corroborated by the shadow witness who would have accompanied him at the time of alleged demand and receipt of bribe money by the accused".
29. Thus the evidence brought on record as noted above and in the absence of corroboration by the prosecution by leading acceptable evidence, in the considered view of this Court, do not meet the requirement of law laid down by the Apex Court in Neeraj Dutta (Supra), followed in the other judgments.
30. Incidentally, the trial Court though has taken note of the shadow witness not being present at the time of alleged demand and payment of the bribe amount, as seen in paragraph 61 to 63 of the impugned judgment, has referred to provisions of Section 20 of the Prevention of Corruption Act and has held that the accused who had admitted a receipt of Rs.50,000/-, was required to have disproved the presumption. It is solely based on this premise the trial Court has proceeded to convict and hand
- 30 -
NC: 2026:KHC:15841 CRL.A No. 851 of 2013 HC-KAR over the sentence of imprisonment to the accused. This reasoning of the trial Court admittedly in the absence of prosecution failing to prove the requirement of demand and acceptance runs contrary to the law which is clarified by the Apex Court as noted above in the case of Panalal Damodar (supra).
31. For the aforesaid reasons and analysis, point raised above is answered. Accordingly, appeal is allowed.
i. Judgment and order dated 26.04.2013 passed in Spl.C.C.No.157/2009 on the file of the Special Judge, Bangalore Urban District, Bangalore City is set aside.
ii. Appellant is acquitted of the offences alleged.
iii. Bail bonds and sureties if any stands cancelled.
Sd/-
(M.G.S. KAMAL) JUDGE VS/- List No.: 1 Sl No.: 1