Karnataka High Court
The State Of Karnataka vs P.S. Gangadharappa on 16 February, 2026
Author: V.Srishananda
Bench: V.Srishananda
-1-
Crl.A.No.100064 of 2017
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, AT DHARWAD
DATED THIS THE 16TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2026
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V.SRISHANANDA
CRIMINAL APPEAL No.100064 OF 2017
BETWEEN
THE STATE OF KARNATAKA,
REPRESENTED BY SPECIAL PUBLIC
PROSECUTOR,
KARNATAKA LOKAYUKTA POLICE,
HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
BENCH HAT DHARWAD, DHARWAD.
(LOKAYUKTA POLICE, HOSPETE)
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI. ANIL KALE, ADVOCATE)
AND
P.S. GANGADHARAPPA S/O SHIVARUDRAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS,
PANCHAYAT DEVELOPMENT OFFICE,
KANAHOSALLI,
R/O: PATTANASETTARA PAMAPANA COMPOUND,
GUDEKOTE ROAD, KUDLIGI.
...RESPONDENT
(BY SRI. HANUMANTHAREDDY, ADVOCATE)
CHANDRASHEKAR
LAXMAN THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL IS FILED 378 (1) AND (3) OF CR.P.C.
KATTIMANI
1973, SEEKING TO GRANT LEAVE TO APPEAL AGAINST THE
JUDGMENT AND ORDER OF ACQUITTAL PASSED BY THE I ADDL.
Digitally signed by
CHANDRASHEKAR
DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE AND SPECIAL JUDGE, BALLARI
LAXMAN
KATTIMANI (SITTING AT HOSAPETE) IN SPECIAL CASE NO. 49 OF 2012 AND TO
Date: 2026.02.17
16:59:10 +0530
SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND ORDER OF ACQUITTAL PASSED BY
THE I ADDL. DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BALLARI (SITTING AT
HOSAPETE) IN SPECIAL CASE NO. 49 OF 2012 AND TO CONVICT THE
SENTENCE THE RESPONDENT/ACCUSED PERSON FOR THE OFFENCES
PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTION 7, 13(1), (d) READ WITH SEC. 13(2) OF
PREVENTION OF CORRUPTION ACT 1988.
THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED
FOR JUDGMENT ON 28.01.2026 AND COMING ON FOR
PRONOUNCEMENT THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN
AS UNDER:
-2-
Crl.A.No.100064 of 2017
CAV JUDGMENT
(PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V.SRISHANANDA) The State represented by Lokayukta, Hosapete, is the appellant challenging the judgment of acquittal passed in Special Case No.49/2012 dated 27.10.2016 by the III Additional District and Sessions Judge, Ballari, sitting at Hosapete.
2. Facts in the nutshell, which are utmost necessary for disposal of the present appeal are as under:
Complainant by name Sharanappa (P.W.1) lodged a complaint with Lokayukta Police, Hosapete, alleging that he had joined the job of a driver-cum-conductor in BMTC in the year 2004. He is discharging his work in Bengaluru. He possesses landed property at Khana Hosalli village, Kudligi Taluk, bearing Sy.No.907/B measuring 2 acres 12 guntas which is an ancestral property. His mother Smt.Durugamma and wife Smt.Rekhamma are residing in the said village. They are eking out their livelihood by working under National Rural Employment Guarantee Scheme ('NREGA' for short). They have been given the job card bearing No.243 pertaining to Smt.Durugamma and No.245 pertaining to Smt.Rekhamma. They have discharged the -3- Crl.A.No.100064 of 2017 work of constructing a bund in the land bearing Sy.No.907/B under NREGA scheme.
3. However, since the payment was not made towards discharge of the said work, complainant had approached the Panchayath Development Officer ('PDO' for short) on 06.04.2011 who demanded amount in a sum of Rs.1,500/- as illegal gratification for passing the cheque. Rs.500/- was demanded to be paid immediately and balance sum of Rs.1,000/- was asked to be paid later.
4. The complainant paid Rs.500/- and he was not willing to part away the balance amount. Therefore, he lodged a complaint with the Lokayukta police, Hosapete.
5. On receipt of the complaint, Lokayukta police secured two independent Government servants as panchas. Ten currency notes of Rs.100/- denomination were secured and recorded the serial numbers of the said currency notes on a separate paper. Phenolphthalein powder was smeared on those currency notes and demonstrated the chemical reaction of phenolphthalein powder with sodium carbonate solution. Thereafter, experimental mahazar was drawn.
-4-Crl.A.No.100064 of 2017
6. On 07.04.2011, the complainant and shadow witness proceeded to the office of the Lokayukta at 10.00 a.m. Thereafter, they proceeded to the office of the accused around 11.30 a.m. The complainant was told by the head of the raid party to hand over the tainted currency only on demand and shadow witness was told to observe the activities that would take place in the office of the accused and furnish the pre-designated signal by washing the face with the kerchief.
7. After half an hour, complainant and shadow witness came out of the office of Grama Panchayath and intimated that accused was not available as he has gone to attend a meeting at Kudligi and he would return at about 02.30 pm. Therefore, all of them, i.e., the complainant and the raid team returned.
8. Again at about 02.40 p.m., the complainant and the raid team went to the house of the accused, as the accused had asked the complainant to come to his house at 2.30 pm. At about 02.55 p.m., the complainant gave a pre-designated signal. -5- Crl.A.No.100064 of 2017
9. Immediately, the raid party went to the place where the accused was found and recovered Rs.1,000/- from the accused. Colour test was conducted which stood positive. Ten currency notes of Rs.100/- denomination were recovered and its serial numbers were tallied with the details mentioned in the experimental mahazar.
10. Thereafter, accused was arrested and he was sent to judicial custody. After detailed investigation, charge sheet came to be filed.
11. Thereafter, learned Trial Judge took cognizance of the offences alleged against the accused and secured his presence and framed charges.
12. Accused did not plead guilty and therefore trial was held.
13. In order to prove the case of the prosecution, in all fourteen witnesses were examined as PWs-1 to 14 and as many as 47 documents were placed on record which were exhibited and marked as Exs.P-1 to P-47.
14. During the course of cross-examination of PW-1, a contradiction is marked on behalf of the defence as Ex.D-1. -6- Crl.A.No.100064 of 2017
15. Prosecution placed on record 20 material objects which were marked as MOs-1 to 20.
16. Thereafter accused statement as is contempleated under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure was recorded wherein, accused has denied all the incriminatory materials alleged against him.
17. Subsequent there to, learned Trial Judge heard the arguments of the parties and by the impugned judgment has acquitted to accused.
18. Being aggrieved by the same, State has filed the present appeal on the following grounds:
• "The court below ought to have seen the evidence of PW-1 and PW-2 is consistent with regard to demand and acceptance of bribe by accused and the prosecution has proved beyond reasonable doubt about the recovery of money from the accused as such the conviction ought to have rendered for the offences charged with to the accused.
• The fact that accused was PDO of Panchayat the wages of complainant's mother and wife were not paid on the date of trap is not disputed. The explanation of accused at Exhibit P-26 at the time of raid given by -7- Crl.A.No.100064 of 2017 accused and produced in the case, showed that accused do not dispute about the money being recovered and his explanation was that money was forcible given by PW-1. This fact is neither proved nor a suggestion is put to any of the witnesses i.e., PW-1 and 2 in the cross examinations thereby admitting the amount being received. There is no reason to disbelieve the evidence of PW-1, 2 and the investigating officer.
• The evidence of PW-1 and PW-2 clearly shows that demand of money and receipt of the same by accused for releasing the wages of complainant's wife and mother under NAREGA. Minor discrepancies in the evidence has been much considered by the court below thereby rendering judgment of acquittal.
• The recovery of money during the duty is also not disputed by the accused as such presumption under Section 20 of Prevention of Corruption Act fully attracts and there is no rebuttal to disprove the said presumption.
• The court below ought to have seen that PW-2 shadow witness has clearly stated regarding the demand and acceptance of money from the complainant and the stood the test of cross examination but nothing has been elicited to disbelieve the version.-8- Crl.A.No.100064 of 2017
• The reading of entire judgment do not find appreciation of evidence moreso when no defence evidence is available to rebut the charge.
• The evidence of PW-5 and PW-6 clearly shows that Durugamma i.e., mother of complainant was required to be paid wages under NAREGA scheme and the said cheque was in the file which was supposed to be given by the accused."
19. Sri Anil Kale, learned counsel for the appellant reiterating the grounds urged in the appeal memorandum vehemently contended that the learned Trial Judge has not properly appreciated the material evidence on record and wrongly acquitted the accused.
20. He would further contend that evidence of PWs-1 and 2 though consistent with regard to the demand and acceptance of illegal gratification, the learned Trial Judge has wrongly recorded an order of acquittal.
21. He would further contend that accused being the PDO of the Grama Panchayath, without paying the wages to the beneficiaries i.e., the mother and wife of the complainant who -9- Crl.A.No.100064 of 2017 worked under the NREGA scheme, demanded illegal gratification to pay the wages.
22. Therefore, all the ingredients required to prove the offence under Section 7, Section 13(1)(d) r/w Section 13(2) stands established which has not been properly appreciated by the learned Trial Judge and therefore, sought for allowing the appeal.
23. He would further contend that the learned Trial Judge has not properly appreciated the principles of law enunciated in the decisions placed on record on behalf of the prosecution and wrongly concluded that accused is innocent of the offences alleged against him and thus, sought for allowing the appeal.
24. Per contra, Sri Hanumanthareddy Sahukar, learned counsel for the respondent/accused would support the impugned judgment.
25. He would contend that in the cross-examination of PW-2, it is specifically elicited that it is the complainant alone who went inside the house of the accused during the trap. Therefore, the shadow witness was not at all present at the spot to establish the demand and acceptance of alleged illegal gratification.
- 10 -
Crl.A.No.100064 of 2017
26. He would further contend that the very fact that accused has paid Rs.500/- and not willing to pay Rs.1,000/- exposes the hollowness in the case of the prosecution and thus sought for dismissal of the appeal.
27. He would also contend that Bill Collector of the Grama Panchayath has deposed about recovery of the action plan which is marked at Ex.P-31, attendance register vide Ex.P-32 and bill book at Ex.P-33, which would not establish that accused was demanding the illegal gratification.
28. He also contended that the material evidence placed on record is hardly sufficient for the purpose of establishing the necessary ingredients to attract the alleged offence. There is no proof in the voice recorder as to the demand and acceptance of the illegal gratification and thus sought for dismissal of the appeal.
29. Having heard the arguments of both sides, this Court perused the material on record meticulously.
30. On such perusal of the material on record, the following points would arise for consideration:
- 11 -Crl.A.No.100064 of 2017
(i) Whether the prosecution successfully established all the ingredients to attract the offence punishable under Section 7, 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988?
(ii) Whether the impugned judgment is suffering from legal infirmity or perversity and thus calls for interference?
(iii) If the answer to point No.(i) is affirmative, what is the sentence?
(iv) What Order?
31. REGARDING POINT Nos.(i) AND (ii): In the case on hand, acquaintance of the accused with the complainant is established. Admittedly, complainant was working at Bengaluru as a driver-cum-conductor in BMTC. According to him, his mother Smt.Durugamma and his wife Smt.Rekhamma worked under the NREGA scheme. Photocopy of the job card of Durugamma is marked at Ex.P-2. Particulars of the name and wages payable is found in Ex.P-2 and Ex.P-2(a). Likewise, list of beneficiaries under the NREGA scheme is found at Ex.P-15.
32. The explanation offered by the accused is at Ex.P-26 which reads as under:
- 12 -Crl.A.No.100064 of 2017
"«µÀAiÀÄPÉÌ ¸ÀA§A¢ü¹zÀAvÉ CªÀjUÉ £Á£ÀÄ AiÀiÁªÀÅzÉà jÃwAiÀÄ°è ºÀt¨ÉÃrPÉ EnÖgÀĪÀÅ¢®è. CªÀgÀÄ £À£ÀUÉ §®ªÀAvÀªÁV ºÀt PÉÆqÀĪÀÅzÀPÉÌ §AzÁUÀ £À£ÀUÉ PÉÆqÀĪÀÅzÀPÉÌ §AzÁUÀ £Á£ÀÄ ºÀt vÉUÉzÀÄPÉÆAqÀĪÀÅzÀ CAvÀ ºÉýzÀgÉ ¸ÀºÀ £À£Àß ºÀwÛgÀ §AzÀÄ §®ªÀAvÁ ºÀt PÉÆqÀĪÀÅzÀPÉÌ §A¢zÁÝgÉ. DzÀÝjAzÀ vÁªÀÅUÀ¼ÀÄ £À£ÀߣÀÄß PÀë«Ä¸À¨ÉÃPÁV «£ÀAw."
33. In the case on hand, complainant has partly supported the case of the prosecution. Admittedly, when the trap was to be laid in the morning session, it was a failed trap inasmuch as accused was not available in the office. It is the complainant who has stated that he had a conversation with the accused over mobile telephone wherein accused said to have told the complainant to visit his house at 02.30 p.m. and handover the bribe amount.
34. In his cross-examination, he has admitted that he does not know what happened in the house of the accused in the afternoon when the accused demanded for the payment of money. Further, he denied having given a statement as per Ex.D-1 (a line marked in Ex.P.18 at page No.105) which reads as under:
- 13 -Crl.A.No.100064 of 2017
"£ÀAvÀgÀ vÀªÀÄä ¸ÀÆZÀ£É ªÉÄÃgÉUÉ ¥ÀAZÀ-2gÀªÀgÀÄ £À£Àß CAUÀ ±ÉÆÃzsÀ£É ªÀiÁrzÀÄÝ, £À£Àß°è F PÉù£À ¥ÀæxÀªÀÄ ªÀvÀðªÀiÁ£À ªÀgÀ¢ ªÀiÁvÀæ EzÀÄÝ £ÀAvÀgÀ vÀªÀÄä ¸ÀÆZÀ£É ªÉÄÃgÉUÉ ¦ü£Á¥ÀÛ°£ï ¥ÀÄr ºÀaÑzÀ £ÉÆÃlÄUÀ¼ÁzÀ gÀÆ.1,000/- UÀ¼À£ÀÄß ¥ÀAZÀ-1gÀªÀgÀÄ £À£Àß µÀnð£À JqÀUÀqÉ eÉé£À°è ElÖgÀÄ."
35. Complainant also deposed that he does not know what conversation took place which is recorded in the voice recorder.
36. PW-3/Rekhamma did not support the case of the prosecution. Likewise, PW-7 who is the co-worker of the accused stated that he does not know about the accused withholding the wages of mother and wife of the complainant and demanding illegal gratification for payment of said wages.
37. Thus, when the prosecution is unable to prove the fact of demand and acceptance of bribe money which is a sine qua non parameter, this Court has to look into whether there is any material evidence through the oral testimony of shadow witness who is examined as PW-2.
- 14 -
Crl.A.No.100064 of 2017
38. Sri Suresh is the shadow witness who is examined as PW-2 has deposed about the entrustment mahazar and signatory to the trap mahazar.
39. In his cross-examination, he specifically admits that in the second attempt to trap the accused in his house, it is the complainant alone who went inside the house and he did not go inside the house. Therefore, he does not know what transpired inside the house of the accused.
40. But the contents of trap mahazar would go to show that shadow witness had also accompanied the complainant and has observed the demand and acceptance of the tainted currency. He also did not answer about recording of the voice of accused and the complainant at the time of demand and acceptance.
41. Thus, there is no material evidence which would specifically establish that there was demand and acceptance.
42. It is settled principles of law and requires no emphasis that prosecution has to establish the fact of demand and acceptance of bribe money by placing cogent evidence on record in order to bring home the guilt of the accused to establish the offence
- 15 -
Crl.A.No.100064 of 2017punishable under Sections 7, 13(1)(d) r/w Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act.
43. Further, explanation marked at Ex.P-26 referred to supra, shows that the money was thrusted into the hands of the accused.
44. Admittedly, when PW-2 did not accompany the complainant inside the house of the accused at 02.55 p.m., on 07.04.2011, only on the basis of the contents of the trap mahazar, there cannot be a finding that prosecution has established that the accused willfully received the tainted currency (illegal gratification) from the custody of the accused.
45. Complainant also having turned hostile to what transpired inside the house of the accused and no useful material having been elicited in the cross-examination of the complainant, this Court does not find any good ground to interfere with the finding recorded by the learned Trial Judge in establishing the fact that the prosecution has failed to prove the case against the accused.
46. Thus from the above discussion, point Nos.(i) and (ii) are answered in the negative.
- 16 -
Crl.A.No.100064 of 2017
47. REGARDING POINT No.(iii): Since the finding of this Court on point No.(i) is in the negative, this point would not arise for consideration.
48. REGARDING POINT No.(iv): In view of the finding of this Court on point Nos.(i) to (iii) as above, the following:
ORDER
(i) Appeal dismissed.
(ii) Bail bond stands discharged.
Sd/-
(V.SRISHANANDA) JUDGE kcm CT-CMU