Karnataka High Court
Suresh Nagappa Joshi vs The Karnataka Lokayukta on 11 February, 2025
Author: Hemant Chandangoudar
Bench: Hemant Chandangoudar
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC-D:2698
CRL.A No. 100165 of 2014
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH
DATED THIS THE 11TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 100165 OF 2014 (C)
BETWEEN:
SHRI. SURESH NAGAPPA JOSHI
AGE: 52 YEARS, OCC: HEAD CONSTABLE,
SAVADATTI PS, R/O. SAVADATTI,
DIST: BELGAUM.
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI. ASHOK R.KALYANASHETTY, ADVOCATE)
AND:
THE KARNATAKA LOKAYUKTA
BY ITS LOKAYUKTA POLICE BELGAUM.
...RESPONDENT
(BY SRI. SANTOSH B.MALAGOUDAR, SPP)
THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL IS FILED U/S 374(2) OF CR.P.C.
SEEKING TO, ACQUIT HIM OF ALL THE CHARGES BY SETTING
Digitally signed by B
K
MAHENDRAKUMAR
ASIDE THE JUDGMENT OF CONVICTION AND ORDER OF
BK
MAHENDRAKUMAR
Location: HIGH
COURT OF
KARNATAKA
SENTENCE DATED 31.07.2014 PASSED BY THE IV-ADDL. DIST. &
DHARWAD BENCH
Date: 2025.02.14 SESSIONS JUDGE, & SPL. JUDGE (PCA) BELGAUM, IN SPL.
13:19:51 +0530
CRIMINAL CASE NO.15/2012.
THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY,
JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC-D:2698
CRL.A No. 100165 of 2014
ORAL JUDGMENT
1. The appellant has preferred this appeal challenging the judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed by the trial court, wherein he has been convicted for the offences punishable under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for a period of one year.
2. The prosecution alleges that a complaint was registered against the son of the complainant. In connection with the said complaint, the complainant approached the accused, who was serving as a Head Constable, for assistance. It is alleged that the accused demanded an illegal gratification of Rs.2,000/- from the complainant for converting the criminal case into a petty case. The complainant agreed to pay the bribe in the future, upon which the accused issued a challan for depositing the required amount before the jurisdictional court.
3. Subsequently, the complainant approached the Lokayukta Police, alleging that the accused had demanded a bribe. However, since there was insufficient evidence to substantiate the allegation at that stage, the complainant was provided with a voice recorder to capture any incriminating conversation.
4. Thereafter, the complainant approached the accused, recorded their conversation, and submitted the recorded conversation to the Lokayukta Police. Based on the contents of the recording, an FIR was registered, and a trap was laid by the -3- NC: 2025:KHC-D:2698 CRL.A No. 100165 of 2014 Lokayukta Police. During the trap operation, the accused was allegedly caught red-handed while accepting the gratification amount of Rs.2,000/- from the complainant.
5. The prosecution, in order to prove its case, examined 19 witnesses, who were designated as P.Ws.1 to P.W.19. The prosecution also relied upon documentary evidence marked as Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.64 and material objects marked as M.O.1 to M.O.13.
6. The trial court, after appreciating the evidence on record and considering the submissions of both parties, framed the following points for determination:
• Whether the prosecution has proved beyond reasonable doubt that the accused demanded illegal gratification of Rs.2,000/-?
• Whether the accused was caught in possession of the tainted money pursuant to the demand and acceptance of gratification?
• Whether the accused is liable to be convicted under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988?
7. After due consideration, the trial court answered the points in the affirmative, holding that the prosecution had successfully established the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubt. Consequently, the trial court convicted the -4- NC: 2025:KHC-D:2698 CRL.A No. 100165 of 2014 accused and sentenced him to undergo imprisonment for a period of one year.
8. Sri Ashok Kalyanshetti, learned counsel for the appellant, contended that:
• As of the date of the alleged demand for bribe, no official work of the complainant was pending before the accused.
• The prosecution failed to produce the transcript of the recorded conversation between the accused and the complainant, and even if such a transcript existed, it was not supported by a certificate under Section 65B of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, making it inadmissible in evidence.
• There were material contradictions and inconsistencies in the statements of P.W.3 (the complainant) and P.W.4 (the shadow witness).
• In the absence of conclusive proof of both demand and acceptance of the bribe amount, the conviction of the appellant was unsustainable in law.
9. Learned counsel for the respondent-Lokayukta Police argued that:
• The evidence of P.W.3 (complainant) and P.W.4 (shadow witness) clearly established that the accused demanded and subsequently accepted the bribe amount of Rs.2,000/-.-5-
NC: 2025:KHC-D:2698 CRL.A No. 100165 of 2014 • The work in question pertained to the conversion of a criminal case into a petty case against the complainant's son. Since the accused was the Head Constable dealing with the case, his demand for bribe was directly linked to his official function.
• The contention of the appellant that no official work was pending was untenable, as the complainant had approached him regarding an ongoing matter, and the accused had assured him of converting the criminal case into a petty case upon payment of gratification.
10. After carefully considering the arguments advanced by both parties and thoroughly reviewing the trial court records, the only point that arises for determination in this appeal is:
"Whether the prosecution has established the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubt, and whether the impugned judgment of conviction passed by the trial court is legally sustainable?"
11. Perusal of Ex.P.58 (Station House Diary) indicates that a criminal case had been registered against the complainant's son.
12. Ex.P.52 (Communication issued by the Police Inspector) states that no criminal case was registered against the complainant himself.
-6-NC: 2025:KHC-D:2698 CRL.A No. 100165 of 2014
13. Ex.P.57 (Another entry in the Station House Diary) confirms the registration of a criminal case against the complainant's son.
These documents collectively establish that there was no criminal case pending against the complainant, but a case was registered against his son. The demand for illegal gratification was allegedly made in relation to the conversion of the said criminal case into a petty case.
14. The prosecution alleges that the complainant recorded a conversation between him and the accused before filing the complaint. However, the transcription of the recorded conversation is not supported by a certificate under Section 65B of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872. In the absence of such a certificate, the transcription of the recorded conversation holds no evidentiary value and is inadmissible in law.
15. The complainant was examined as P.W.3. In his examination-in-chief, he stated that:
• The accused informed him to come to the police station, but when he arrived, the accused was not present.
• Upon further communication, the accused directed him to meet near the bus station.
• From the bus station, the complainant, along with four others, went to Shivprasad Hotel to drink tea.-7-
NC: 2025:KHC-D:2698 CRL.A No. 100165 of 2014 • While having tea, out of anger, the complainant handed over Rs.2,000/- (tainted money) to the accused.
16. In his cross-examination, P.W.3 made the following crucial admissions:
• The accused did not ask whether the complainant had brought the gratification amount.
• The complainant felt insulted by the accused's abusive language when he had inquired about his son's case.
• The complainant wanted to implicate the accused due to the insult.
• He was deposing against the accused at the instance of one Ningappa, who had allegedly negotiated the sum of Rs.2,000/-.
17. The testimony of P.W.3 establishes that the accused received Rs.2,000/- from the complainant. However, the prosecution failed to establish that the receipt of Rs.2,000/- was preceded by a demand for illegal gratification. Since the demand for bribe is a sine qua non for proving an offence under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, the absence of evidence regarding demand substantially undermines the case of the prosecution .
18. The shadow witness P.W.4, in his examination-in- chief, stated that:
-8-NC: 2025:KHC-D:2698 CRL.A No. 100165 of 2014 • He followed the complainant to Shivprasad Hotel and sat at a nearby table.
• The complainant asked the accused whether he would receive the money inside the hotel or outside.
• The accused allegedly replied that he would accept the money inside the hotel.
• The accused then accepted Rs.2,000/- from the complainant with his right hand and kept it in the left pocket of his pants.
19. The testimony of P.W.4 suggests that the complainant himself initiated the conversation regarding the payment of money and the accused merely accepted it. However, the testimony does not establish that the accused had demanded the gratification amount.
20. The role of a shadow witness is corroborative and cannot replace primary evidence of demand.
i). A co-ordinate bench of this Court in Hanumanthappa v.
State of Karnataka held that if the shadow witness's testimony is not supported by the complainant's evidence, conviction cannot be based solely on the shadow witness's statement.
ii) Similarly, in State of Karnataka v. Nageshkumar B. Mandivala, the Court held that though a shadow witness may support the case, his testimony alone is insufficient unless corroborated by the complainant.
-9-NC: 2025:KHC-D:2698 CRL.A No. 100165 of 2014
21. PW.6, who had accompanied the complainant and accused to Shivprasad Hotel, did not support the prosecution's case.
22. The owner and the waiter of the hotel, who were present at the time of the alleged incident, turned hostile. Nothing incriminating was elicited from them during cross-examination that could support the prosecution's case.
23. P.W.19, the Investigating Officer, deposed that:
• After receiving a pre-determined signal from the complainant, he proceeded to the hotel.
• He apprehended the accused and recovered Rs.2,000/- from his possession.
• The accused's hands were washed in a chemical solution, which turned pink, indicating the presence of phenolphthalein powder.
24. While the recovery of money and the positive phenolphthalein test establish that the accused received the amount, the absence of proof of demand renders these pieces of evidence insufficient to convict the accused under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.
25. P.W.15, a Court Police Constable, was examined to recognize the accused's voice recorded in the voice recorder.
- 10 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:2698 CRL.A No. 100165 of 2014
26. In his examination-in-chief, he identified the recorded voice as that of the accused. However, the testimony of P.W.15 holds no evidentiary value for the following reasons:
• P.W.15 is not a forensic expert in voice identification.
• No forensic examination was conducted to authenticate the recorded voice.
• No certificate under Section 65B of the Indian Evidence Act was produced to prove the authenticity of the recorded conversation.
27. Since the work in question was already completed when the complainant approached the Lokayukta Police, the demand for a bribe appears highly doubtful.
28. In light of the above discussion, this Court is of the considered view that the prosecution has failed to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the accused demanded illegal gratification of Rs.2,000/- as a reward for having completed the complainant's work.
29. The trial court, while convicting the accused, failed to properly appreciate the testimonies of P.W.3 (complainant) and P.W.4 (shadow witness). The court erroneously concluded that mere acceptance of money establishes an offence under the Prevention of Corruption Act without considering the essential requirement of a prior demand for gratification.
- 11 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:2698 CRL.A No. 100165 of 2014
30. Since demand and acceptance are sine qua non for convicting an accused under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, and the prosecution has failed to establish the demand, the conviction of the accused is legally unsustainable. Accordingly, I pass the following:
ORDER
i) The appeal is allowed.
ii) The impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 31.07.2017 passed by the IV Additional District and Sessions Judge and Special Judge (PCA) Belgaum in Spl. Criminal Case No.15/2012 is hereby set aside.
iii) Appellant/accused is acquitted of the aforesaid offences.
iv) Bail bonds, if any, stands cancelled.
Sd/-
(HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR) JUDGE AC Ct:vh List No.: 1 Sl No.: 59