Karnataka High Court
Suresh S/O Suryanarayan Karade vs State Of Karnataka on 4 February, 2026
Author: V.Srishananda
Bench: V.Srishananda
-1-
NC: 2026:KHC-D:1595
CRL.A No. 100082 of 2015
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,AT DHARWAD
DATED THIS THE 4TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2026
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V.SRISHANANDA
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 100082 OF 2015 (C)
BETWEEN:
SURESH S/O SURYANARAYAN KARADE,
AGE:56 YEARS, OCC: VILLAGE
ACCOUNTANT OF HIREMUNAVALLI,
R/O: SAUNDATTI, DIST: BELAGAVI
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI. A.M. GUNDAWADE, ADVOCATE)
AND:
STATE OF KARNATAKA,
BY SPECIAL PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
DHARWAD BENCH, AT: DHARWAD.
THROUGH LOKAYUKTA PI, ELAGAVI.
...RESPONDENT
CHANDRASHEKAR (BY SRI. SANTOSH B. MALAGOUDAR, ADVOCATE)
LAXMAN
KATTIMANI
THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL IS FILED U/S 374(2) OF CR.P.C.
SEEKING TO ALLOW THE APPEAL AND TO PASS JUDGMENT OF
Digitally signed by
CHANDRASHEKAR ACQUITTAL BY SETTING ASIDE THE JUDGMENT OF CONVICTION AND
LAXMAN
KATTIMANI
Date: 2026.02.13
ORDER OF SENTENCE PASSED BY THE IV-ADDL. DIST. & SESSIONS &
15:47:32 +0530
SPL. JUDGE (PCA), BELAGAVI, IN SPL. CASE NO.19/2013 FOR THE
ALLEGED OFFENCES PUNISHABLE U/S 7, 13(1)(D) R/W 13(2) OF
PREVENTION OF CORRUPTION ACT, 1988.
THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR FURTHER HEARING, THIS DAY,
JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:
-2-
NC: 2026:KHC-D:1595
CRL.A No. 100082 of 2015
HC-KAR
ORAL JUDGMENT
(PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V.SRISHANANDA)
1. Heard Sri.A.M.Gundawade, learned counsel appearing for the appellant and Sri.Santosh B. Malagoudar, learned counsel appearing for respondent-Lokayukta.
2. The accused, who suffered an order of conviction in Special Case No. 19/2013 for the offences punishable under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, is the appellant.
3. Facts in the nutshell which are utmost necessary for disposal of the present appeal are as under:
4. Upon the complaint lodged by Sri.Prasanna Kumar Manohar Kulkarni, the Lokayukta Police registered a case in Crime No.9/2011.
5. The gist of the complaint averments would reveal that in respect of land bearing Sy.No.148/5, situated at Chikkamanvali Village, Khanapura Taluka, Belagavi District, there was a sale by the complainant in favour of Sri.Manjunatha Agsar on 11.04.2011 through a registered sale deed. For transfer of revenue entries, an application was filed and at that juncture, -3- NC: 2026:KHC-D:1595 CRL.A No. 100082 of 2015 HC-KAR the appellant, being the Village Accountant, is said to have demanded ₹1,500/- as illegal gratification.
6. Based on the complaint averments, the Lokayuktha Inspector. Belagavi, secured two Government Servants to act as panchas for the intended raid. The contents of the complaint were read over to them and the chemical reaction of phenolphthalein powder with colourless sodium carbonate solution was demonstrated and procured the bait money of ₹1,500/- comprising of two currency notes of ₹500/- denomination and 5 currency notes of ₹ 100/- denomination and serial numbers of those notes were separately written on a paper and then incorporated into the experimental mahazar.
7. The complainant and the shadow witness, who was one of the panchas were instructed to go to the office of the accused and on demand, to hand over the tainted currency notes to the accused and the shadow witness was directed to closely observe the activities that would take place at the time of demand of the money by the accused and payment thereof and acceptance thereof.
-4-
NC: 2026:KHC-D:1595 CRL.A No. 100082 of 2015 HC-KAR
8. All of them left for Khanapur from Belgavi at about 12 noon and reached Khanapur at around 01.40 p.m. As per the directions issued to the complainant and the shadow witness, both of them went to the office of the accused and on demand, the complainant is said to have handed over the tainted currency, which the accused took and kept in his shirt pocket. Thereafter, the pre-designated signal was given to the head of the raid party.
9. Immediately, the remaining members of the raid party entered inside the office of the accused and enquired with him about the tainted currency. The accused said to have taken out the same from his shirt pocket and handed it over and also gave a written reply vide Ex.P14. An alternate shirt was procured to accused and the shirt worn by the accused was also seized. The hand wash of the accused was taken separately into sodium carbonate solution and the shirt pocket also washed in the sodium carbonate solution, which turned into pink colour. The same was seized and sealed separately.
-5-
NC: 2026:KHC-D:1595 CRL.A No. 100082 of 2015 HC-KAR
10. Thereafter, the accused was arrested for having handled the illegal gratification and was produced before the Special Judge. He was remanded to judicial custody.
11. After collecting the necessary application forms, including the register vide Ex. P27, wherein the application was received by the accused and acknowledged by him on 02.05.2011, and after completion of the investigation, the charge sheet was filed against the accused for the offences punishable under Sections 7, 13(1)(d),and 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act.
12. On receipt of the charge sheet, the learned trial Judge took cognizance of the aforesaid offences, secured the presence of the accused and framed the charges for the aforesaid offences.
13. The accused pleaded not guilty, therefore trial was held.
14. In order to bring home the guilt of the accused, nine witnesses were examined on behalf of the prosecution as PW-1 to PW-9 and as many as 44 documents were placed on record, which are exhibited and marked as Ex.P-1 to Ex.P-44, comprising -6- NC: 2026:KHC-D:1595 CRL.A No. 100082 of 2015 HC-KAR of complaint, sketch map, application, photographs, experimental measure, trap measure, outward register, relevant entries in the register, sanction order, FIR, FSL report etc.
15. Apart from placing the same, 14 material objects were also placed on record, which were marked as MO-1 to MO-14, which containing the bottle of the hand wash, cover containing the shirt of the accused, cover containing the digital video disc, cover containing the sample of phenolphthalein powder and the cover containing the cash representing the illegal gratification.
16. On conclusion of recording of evidence, the statement of the accused, as contemplated under Section 313 of Code of Criminal Procedure came to be recorded. Wherein the accused has denied the incriminatory circumstances and stated that the complainant himself was frequently demanding the money from him.
17. Thereafter, the learned trial Judge heard the arguments of the parties and convicted the accused, sentencing him as under:
-7-
NC: 2026:KHC-D:1595 CRL.A No. 100082 of 2015 HC-KAR "The accused is hereby sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for 1 year and shall pay a fine of Rs.2,000/- in default, he shall undergo simple imprisonment for a period of 2 months for the offence punishable under Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.
The accused is further sentenced to undergo simple of imprisonment for 1 year and shall pay a fine of Rs. 4,000/- in default, he shall undergo simple imprisonment for a period 3 months for the offence punishable under Section 13(1)(d) R/w Section. 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.
Both sentences shall run concurrently.
It is further ordered that the period of detention undergone by the accused be set off against the sentence of imprisonment as per Section 428 of Cr.P.C.
MO no. 6 an amount of Rs.1,500/- is confiscated to the Government MO no.7, 8 & 9 DVDs are hereby ordered to be kept in tact till the appeal period is over.
MO no.1 to 5, 10 to 14 are hereby ordered to be destroyed after the lapse of appeal period being worthless.
A free copy of this judgment be supplied to the accused."
18. Being aggrieved by the same, the accused has preferred the present appeal on following grounds. -8-
NC: 2026:KHC-D:1595 CRL.A No. 100082 of 2015 HC-KAR That, the Appellant is an innocent person and had not committed any of offences as alleged by the Prosecution and he is entitled to be acquitted.
The alleged evidence on record produced by the Prosecution is not believable one and the same is filled with unbelievable and doubtful facts.
The reasons assigned by the trial Court in concluding and passing a judgment of conviction are not legally acceptable one and the same are required to be reconsidered by the Hon'ble High Court.
On perusal of the allegations made in the first information by PW-2 Prasankumar, it nowhere clearly discloses that, the Appellant/Accused demanded and received any illegal bribe or gratification from him inrespect of the change of name in the revenue records by virtue of sale deed. As per the alleged contents of Ex-P3 first information, Pw-2 has mentioned that, they have sold the land bearing R.S.No.148/5 on 11-04-2011, but according to the investigation papers the sale transaction were taken place on 06-04-2011 and the registered sale deed was executed on same day. This discloses that, the PW-2 is making wage allegations on the basis of unbelievable facts. As per the oral evidence given before the Court by PW-2 that, they have sold the land in April-2011 for Rs.58,000/- this shows that, the PW-2 himself is not aware of any true facts pertaining to land transaction and he had made unbelievable allegations against the Appellant. -9-
NC: 2026:KHC-D:1595 CRL.A No. 100082 of 2015 HC-KAR On perusal of evidence on record the sale transaction was registered sale deed and a registered sale deed is executed naturally in due course of law, the Revenue authority will make entry accordingly after following the statutory procedure in accordance with Land Revenue Act. On perusal of the evidence of PW-2 it discloses that, before filing first information with the Lokayukta Police on 26-05- 2011 PW-2 Prasankumar informant had not personally met the Appellant/Accused concerned village accountant in respect of change of names as per sale deed and has alleged that, he contacted the Appellant only on phone. That the same appears to be totally unbelievable and imaginary one and it also appears that, the said demand is not as a bribe and he has mentioned it as fees. The contents of Ex-P3 first information are very silent about date and time of demand of bribe by the Appellant. The investigation officer had mentioned the date and time of offence as 26-05-2011 at about 8.24pm without any basis and the place of offence showing as Khanapur is also without having any base.
After registration of the case it is alleged that, PW-8 investigating officer secured the mahajar witnesses from education department and taluka panchayat office, for that he has issued requisition letter as per Ex-P33 and Ex-P34 and PW-2 and PW-4 mahajar witnesses were deputed. The requisition letter does not show any crime number of the case and the space meant for the same is kept blank and deputation order also does not disclose any crime number and in that also the space meant for it is kept blank. This
- 10 -
NC: 2026:KHC-D:1595 CRL.A No. 100082 of 2015 HC-KAR fact creates doubt that, the investigation was taken much earlier to registration of the case and mahajar witnesses were also secured earlier to the registration of the case at Lokayukta Police station and the said fact discloses that there is no clarity in the registration of the case. That, as per the oral evidence given before the Hon'ble trial Court PW-3 Suresh, shadow witness, after getting the signal Police officers came to the spot and the amount was recovered and thereafter the hands of the Accused got washed in the Sodium Carbonate solution. But as per the case of the Prosecution and contents of the trap mahajar Ex-P28 that, before recovery of the bribe amount both hands of the Appellant were got washed in Sodium Carbonate solution. These facts are contrary to each other and give the doubtful and unbelievable facts in respect of acceptance and recovery of bribe amount from the Appellant.
There is contradiction in evidence in respect of the recovery of the alleged bribe amount. So recovery of bribe amount from the possession of Appellant is totally unbelievable one and the Prosecution is not entitled to get benefit of presumption as contemplated under the provision of Prevention of Corruption Act.
On perusal of the evidence on record it discloses that, all the trap proceedings were not completed where the alleged bribe amount was handed over and accepted i.e. the private office of the Accused and the proceedings were completed in PWD guest house. Reasons for going to the PWD guest house is not beliavable as there is contrary in
- 11 -
NC: 2026:KHC-D:1595 CRL.A No. 100082 of 2015 HC-KAR the evidence of the witnesses. PW-3 mahajar witness has deposed that, room of the Accused is very small for that purpose they shifted to PWD guest house whereas other witness says that, due to difficulty of light they shifted to the PWD guest house. This fact also creates the doubt about the trap proceedings specifically demand and acceptance of bribe amount by the Accused. As per the evidence of witness PW-7 Manjunath Agasar, purchaser of the land was present with the Accused person in his room before the arrival of the PW-2 Prasankumar, informant and PW-3 Suresh, shadow witness. If the evidence of PW-2 Prasankumar and PW-3 Suresh were taken in to consideration, PW-2 Prasankumar handed over the money to the Accused only on his demand. But according to PW-7 who was already present there he has nowhere stated that the Accused has demanded the bribe money from PW-2.
According to the PW-3 shadow witness during the trap proceedings another third person also came to the spot, according to PW-7 there are number of persons in the office of the Accused and other persons were coming and going to the office. The investigation officers have not made any attempt to collect the evidence and the Prosecution has also not produced the evidence before the Court of those persons inorder to prove the allegations. The allegation of change of the colour of Sodium Carbonate solution after washing the hands of the Accused in the same is a doubtful one. On perusal of the evidence of PW-2 after receipt of the alleged bribe amount Accused had dealt
- 12 -
NC: 2026:KHC-D:1595 CRL.A No. 100082 of 2015 HC-KAR with so many articles including the phone and etc. for more than five minutes and also came out of the office and in those circumstances there was a quite possibility of vanishing the phenolphthalein powder. On perusal of the evidence on record it is alleged that, the voice was recorded in the mobile set of the PW-2 Prasankumar, so also in the voice recorder given by the Police officials and the same was played and reduced into writing as per Ex-P37, but the contents of the Ex-P37 will not get the evidentiary value since same is not in accordance with section 65(A) and 65 (B) of Indian Evidence Act, since fulfillment of all the conditions including the certificate are not forthcoming.
The evidence on record clearly shows that, entering the names of the purchaser in record of rights is in progress after receipt of information regarding the sale transaction from the Sub-Registrar office and question of demand of bribe was out of consideration.
On perusal of the entire evidence on record, demand and acceptance and the recovery of bribe money from Appellant as alleged are totally unbelievable.
On perusal of the evidence of PW-2 Prasankumar as well as PW-7 Manjunath, they have not given any application for the change of name in the record of rights. Under these circumstances demand and acceptance of the bribe by the Appellant/Accused person is totally unbelievable fact. It is pertaining to note that, as per Karnataka Land Revenue Act, a notice was issued to the concerned persons
- 13 -
NC: 2026:KHC-D:1595 CRL.A No. 100082 of 2015 HC-KAR after the sale transaction and the proceeding inrespect of change of name was not completed due to non availability of signatures of all the concerned persons as required and PW-2 himself has put his signature on 26-05-2011 on Ex- P15 notice and still 30 days statutory period was not completed.
The conduct of the PW-2 and his profession creates doubt about his evidence. According to him he is having two wives, namely Sridevi residing at Jamakhandi and Roopa living with him and is having a child from Roopa. This goes to show that, he has no regards to law and he may go to any extent to suit his personal interest. It is well within the knowledge of all the Public servants of Kahanapur taluka that, the PW-2 informant is press reporter and uses to visit all the Government offices, under these circumstances demanding bribe money from his is also unbelievable one.
The purchaser of the land PW-7 Manjunath is required to take steps to enter his name in the record but, conduct of the PW-2 in that regard is doubtful one.
That, the sketch of the drawn by the PW-1 Sundar is not helpful for the Prosecution.
The sanction given as per Ex-P32 by PW-5 V. Anbukumar is required to be reconsidered about its legality. On perusal of evidence on record the allegations made out against the Appellant are totally unbelievable one and the Accused/Appellant is entitled to be acquitted by setting aside judgment of conviction passed by the Trial Court.
- 14 -
NC: 2026:KHC-D:1595 CRL.A No. 100082 of 2015 HC-KAR The order of sentence even though the Appellant is entitled to be acquitted and even if the Hon'ble High Court accept the judgment of conviction but, order of sentence is appears to be harsh one and the same is not legally acceptable one.
The charges leveled against the Appellant are not legally sustainable one and liable to be set aside. Viewed from any angle the judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed against the Appellant is not legally sustainable one and the same are liable to be set aside and entitled to be acquitted.
19. Sri.Abhinandan Gundwade, learned counsel appearing for the appellant, reiterating the grounds urged in the appeal memorandum, would contend that the work of the complainant was completed on 30.04.2011 itself and therefore, the alleged demand of illegal gratification on 26.05.2011 is highly improbable.
20. He would also contend that the complainant is a journalist who indulges in blackmailing the government officials and as the illegal demand made by the complainant was not met, he has a habit of filing complaints against the government officials. Therefore, the appellant is entitled to an order of acquittal.
- 15 -
NC: 2026:KHC-D:1595 CRL.A No. 100082 of 2015 HC-KAR
21. He would further contend that the character of the PW2 has been elicited during the cross-examination who is always quarrelsome, not only with the other members of society but also with his close relatives, including his first wife, which has been lost sight of, while appreciating the material evidence on record and sought for allowing the appeal.
22. He would also contend that the mere colour test being positive alone cannot be the reason for order of conviction and therefore, sought for acquitting the accused in this regard. He placed reliance on the judgment rendered by this Court in Umesh S/o Vittal Patil vs. State of Karnataka in Criminal Appeal No.2760 of 2012 dated 21.07.2022.
23. Per contra, Sri.Santhosh B. Malgoudar would contend that in the case on hand, as could be seen from entry in the Ex.P-27, the application was handed over to the appellant herein on 02.05.2011 and he has acknowledged the same by subscribing his signature in Ex.P-27A. This would belie the contention of the appellant that work was completed on 30.04.2011 itself.
- 16 -
NC: 2026:KHC-D:1595 CRL.A No. 100082 of 2015 HC-KAR
24. Sri.Santosh B. Malagoudar would further contend that the ingredients to attract the offences under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d), read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, have been established by the prosecution through overwhelming material evidence on record.
25. He would point out that there is a demand and acceptance of the illegal gratification, inasmuch as complainant and shadow witnesses have supported the case of the prosecution. In fact, the oral testimony of the PW-3, who was the shadow witness, would make it clear that he has deposed with graphic details as to what happened at the time of handing over the tainted currency in the office of the accused inasmuch as when complainant and shadow witness had been to the office of the accused, he was sitting on a mat on the floor and thereafter, he attended two calls over his mobile telephone and then came back to his working table and later on demanded the money and the tainted currency has been handed over to him by the complainant, which he took it and kept in his shirt pocket. Colour test turned positive and thereafter pre-designated signal has been given by the complainant and raid party arrived on the scene and recovered the tainted currency.
- 17 -
NC: 2026:KHC-D:1595 CRL.A No. 100082 of 2015 HC-KAR
26. These aspects demonstrate that the prosecution case was established by placing cogent and convincing evidence on record and sought for dismissal of the appeal.
27. Having heard the arguments of both sides, this Court perused the material on record meticulously.
28. On such perusal of the material and evidence on record and in the light of the arguments put forth on behalf of the parties, the following points would arise for consideration:
(i) Whether the prosecution has successfully established all the ingredients required to attract the offences punishable under Sections 7, 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act?
(ii) Whether the impugned judgment suffers from any legal infirmity or perversity and thus calls for interference?
(iii)Whether the sentence imposed is excessive?
(iv) What order?
- 18 -
NC: 2026:KHC-D:1595 CRL.A No. 100082 of 2015 HC-KAR Regarding Points No.(i) to (iii):
29. In the case on hand, it is not in dispute that the accused, being a public servant, was discharging the duties of a Village Accountant. Further, it is also not in dispute that the complainant filed an application for mutation of the revenue entries in respect of land bearing Sy.No.148/5, situated in Chikkamanvali Village, Khanapura Taluka, Belagavi District, in favour of Sri Manjunatha Agsar on 11.04.2011.
30. According to the complainant, the accused demanded ₹1,500/- for putting up a proper note to effect the revenue entries in favour of the purchaser. The complainant was not willing to pay the illegal gratification. The conversation between the accused and the complainant is said to have taken place on 26.05.2011 at 08:24 a.m., as reflected in the FIR marked as Ex.P4.
31. The complainant, being a resident of Khanapur, was not willing to part away with the illegal gratification and therefore proceeded to the Lokayukta Office situated in Belagavi and lodged a written complaint at 11.00 a.m. on 26.05.2011. Thereafter, the panch witnesses were secured by the head of the
- 19 -
NC: 2026:KHC-D:1595 CRL.A No. 100082 of 2015 HC-KAR raid party. The Officers of the panch witnesses were situated in the vicinity of the Lokayukta Office, approximately 500 to 800 metres away. They arrived to the Lokayukta Office and the experimental mahazar was then conducted. As per the experimental mahazar, the writing of the experimental mahazar concluded at 12.00 noon.
32. Thereafter, the complainant, shadow witness and other members of the raid party including the co-pancha, proceeded to Khanapur and reached around at 01.30 p.m. to 01.40 p.m. At 1.40 p.m., in accordance with the directions of the head of the raid party, the complainant and the shadow witness examined as PW-2 and PW-3, entered inside the office of the accused. There they saw the accused sitting on the mat on the floor doing some work. Complainant, shadow witness waited there and after attending two calls over mobile phone, accused came back to his table and then demanded the money.
33. At that juncture, complainant handed over the tainted currency to the hands of the accused which he took and kept in his shirt pocket. Immediately, pre-designated signal was given by the complainant to remaining members of the raid
- 20 -
NC: 2026:KHC-D:1595 CRL.A No. 100082 of 2015 HC-KAR party. Thereafter, head of the raid party and others came inside the office of the accused and introduced themselves by showing their identity card and further, proceedings took place.
34. Since the proper lighting was not available in the cabin where the accused was sitting, they proceeded to a better place wherein the recovery of the tainted currency has taken place. Accused handed over the tainted currency by taking out from his shirt pocket and thereafter, the hand wash of the accused has taken place in two separate bowls containing Sodium Carbonate solution. The Sodium Carbonate solution which was colourless turned into pink colour. Thereafter, alternate shirt was also secured for the accused and shirt pocked wash has also taken place which also turned into pink colour and all of them were seized and sealed separately. Explanation was also obtained from the accused immediately after the incident which is at Ex.P.14 which reads as under:
"ªÀiÁ£ÀågÉ, aPÀ̪ÀÄÄ£ÀªÀ½î UÁæªÀÄzÀ j.¸À.£ÀA. 148/5 PÀÄ®PÀtÂð ¥Àæ¸À£ÀßPÀĪÀiÁgÀ ºÁUÀÆ ¥Àæ±ÁAvÀ ªÀÄ£ÉÆúÀgÀ PÀÄ®PÀtÂð EªÀjAzÀ aPÀ̪ÀÄÄ£ÀªÀ½î UÁæªÀÄzÀ j.¸À.£ÀA. 148/5 0.34 PÉëÃvÀæ Rjâ eÉ.¥sÁgÀA £ÀA. MR No.42/45 zÀ°è ¨É½UÉÎ
- 21 -
NC: 2026:KHC-D:1595 CRL.A No. 100082 of 2015 HC-KAR PÀÄ®PÀtÂð gÀªÀgÀÄ ¥ÉÆãÀ ªÀiÁr Rjâ ¸À» ªÀiÁqÀ®Ä §gÀÄvÉÛÃªÉ CAvÁ w½¹zÀgÀÄ. D ¥ÀæPÁgÀ ¸ÀzÀjAiÀĪÀgÀÄ SÁ¸ÀV SÁ£Á¥ÀÄgÀ SÁ¸ ÀV D¦üøÀ£À°è §AzÀÄ RjâzÁgÀgÀ 1500/- gÀÆ¥Á¬Ä PÉÆlÖ ¥ÀæPÁgÀ £Á£ÀÄ £À£Àß CAV Q¸ÉAiÀÄ°è ºÁQPÉÆArgÀÄvÉÛãÉ. £Á£ÀÄ CAvÁ §gÀPÉÆAqÀ «£ÀAw ¸À»."
35. These aspects of the matter were reduced in writing in trap mahazar which is marked vide Ex.P.28. Complainant and shadow witness have deposed before the Court in verbatim with the contents of the trap mahazar. In fact, P.W.2 has deposed before the Court with graphic details as to what transpired in the cabin of the accused and what transpired thereafter.
36. Admittedly, P.W.3 is a stranger and he did not nurture any enmity as against the accused nor special affinity towards the complainant or the prosecuting agency.
37. Moreover, the accused is not able to place on record that he is a staff pancha for the lokayukta police. In the cross- examination of P.W.3, nothing is elicited except suggesting to him that he is deposing falsely.
- 22 -
NC: 2026:KHC-D:1595 CRL.A No. 100082 of 2015 HC-KAR
38. Insofar as cross-examination of P.W.2-complainant is concerned, cross-examination more focuses on the character of the complainant rather than the factual aspects of the matter.
39. It has no doubt elicited in the cross-examination of P.W.2 that he has filed a divorce petition against his first wife and during the pendency of the divorce petition, he had married for the second time and in the said wedlock, a child is born. How does that evidence would improve the case of the accused in proving his innocence is not explained on behalf of the appellant.
40. The serial numbers of the recovered tainted currency tallied with the serial numbers that were entered in the experimental mahazar, photographs taken at the time of experimental mahazar and trap mahazar would amply establish the colour test as well.
41. FSL report placed on record would conclusively establish that accused did handle the tainted currency inasmuch as samples and the coloured water collected separately and seized contained traces of phenolphthalein powder so also the shirt pocket.
- 23 -
NC: 2026:KHC-D:1595 CRL.A No. 100082 of 2015 HC-KAR
42. Taking note all these aspects of the matter in a cumulative manner, the demand and acceptance and handling of the tainted currency stood established by placing cogent and convincing evidence by the prosecution.
43. This would take us to the next limb of the case whether the demand was made by the accused for the purpose of official favour by misusing his official position.
44. In this regard, learned counsel for the appellant vehemently contended that work was completed on 30.04.2011 itself and therefore, there was no necessity for the accused to demand the money on 26.05.2011.
45. But the material evidence placed on record especially Ex.P.27 wherein the accused had put his signature at Ex.P.27(a) would conclusively establish that he received the application in his office in the register by acknowledging the same on 02.05.2011. Therefore, the contentions urged on behalf of the accused that work was already completed on 30.04.2011 cannot be countenanced in law.
- 24 -
NC: 2026:KHC-D:1595 CRL.A No. 100082 of 2015 HC-KAR
46. Learned counsel for the appellant however wanted to impress upon this Court that Ex.P.27 is the outward register wherein he has sent the papers to the higher officials vide Ex.P.27(a) which is not even spoken to by the accused at the time of recording the accused statement. Therefore, the argument put forth on behalf of the appellant, for the first time, before this Court, cannot be countenanced in law.
47. On the contrary, at the time of recording the accused statement, the explanation offered by the accused is that the complainant is in the habit of blackmailing the Government officials and when such demand is not met with, false cases have been filed against such Government servants. Any such case that has been filed by the complainant against any other Government servant is not placed on record by the accused.
48. Further, the contents of Ex.P.14 referred to supra would belie the grounds of the appeal. Therefore, it should be inferred that for the pending work of the complainant, accused demanded the illegal gratification in a sum of Rs.1,500/- which was received by the accused and handled by him and kept in his shirt pocket and recovery under the trap mahazar would
- 25 -
NC: 2026:KHC-D:1595 CRL.A No. 100082 of 2015 HC-KAR conclusively establish that the said amount is received by the accused to show his official favour in respect of the pending work of the complainant.
49. Accordingly, all the ingredients to attract the offence under Section 7, 13(1)(d) punishable under Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act is established by the prosecution even after reappreciation of the material evidence on record.
50. The principles of law enunciated by this Court in the case of Umesh v. State of Karnataka referred to supra, though not can be disputed having regard to the facts, same is not applicable to the present case.
51. Taking note of relevant aspects of the matter, minimum punishment of one year is awarded by the learned Special Judge which requires no further interference as the minimum punishment has been awarded.
52. In view of the foregoing discussion, point No.1 is answered in affirmative and point Nos.2 and 3 in negative respectively.
- 26 -
NC: 2026:KHC-D:1595 CRL.A No. 100082 of 2015 HC-KAR REG. POINT No.4:
53. In view of the foregoing discussion on point Nos.1 to 3 as above, following:
ORDER i. Appeal is meritless and hereby dismissed.
ii. Time is granted for the appellant to surrender before the Trial Court till 28.02.2026 failing which the Trial Court shall secure the presence of the appellant and sent him to the prison.
Sd/-
(V.SRISHANANDA) JUDGE RHR from paragraph No.1 to 31 KAV from paragraph Nos.32 to end CT-CMU LIST NO.: 1 SL NO.: 36