Karnataka High Court
The State Of Karnataka vs Manusingh S/O Hobu Naik Rathod on 24 July, 2025
-1-
CRL.A No.100142 of 2016
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH
DATED THIS THE 24TH DAY OF JULY, 2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH RAI K
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.100142 OF 2016
BETWEEN:
THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
LOKAYUKTHA POLICE, POLICE INSPECTOR,
KARNATAKA LOKAYUKTA,
POLICE WING, HAVERI,
REPRESENTED BY SPECIAL PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
KARNATAKA LOKAYUKTA.
...APPELLANT
YASHAVANT
(BY SRI. SANTOSH B MALAGOUDAR, ADVOCATE)
NARAYANKAR
Digitally signed by
YASHAVANT
NARAYANKAR
AND:
Date: 2025.07.25
10:28:11 +0530
MANUSINGH S/O. HOBU NAIK RATHOD,
AGE: 61 YEARS, JUNIOR ENGINEER,
TOWN MUNICIPAL COUNCIL, SAVANUR,
HAVERI DISTRICT.
...RESPONDENT
(BY SRI. SHANKAR HEGDE, ADVOCATE)
THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 378(1) &
(3) OF CR.P.C., PRAYING TO GRANT LEAVE TO APPEAL AGAINST THE
JUDGMENT AND ORDER OF ACQUITTAL PASSED BY THE PRINCIPAL
DISTRICT AND SESSIONS & SPECIAL JUDGE, AT HAVERI, DATED
10/7/2015 IN SPL.(LOK)C.NO. 3/2012 AND SET ASIDE THE
JUDGMENT AND ORDER OF ACQUITTAL PASSED BY THE PRINCIPAL
DISTRICT AND SESSIONS & SPECIAL JUDGE, AT HAVERI DATED
10/7/2015 IN SPL.(LOK)C.NO. 3/2012 AND CONVICT AND SENTENCE
THE RESPONDENT/ACCUSED PERSON FOR THE OFFENCES
PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTIONS 7, 13(1), (d) READ WITH SECTION
13(2) OF PREVENTION OF CORRUPTION ACT, 1988.
-2-
CRL.A No.100142 of 2016
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION, HAVING BEEN HEARD AND
RESERVED ON 17.07.2025, COMING ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT OF
JUDGMENT THIS DAY, THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH RAI K
CAV JUDGMENT
(PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH RAI K) The State of Karnataka Lokayukta Police has filed this appeal against the judgment of acquittal passed in Spl(Lok) C. No.3/2012 dated 10.07.2015 by the Prl. District and Sessions Judge, Haveri (hereinafter referred to as the 'learned Sessions Judge' for short) whereby the learned Sessions Judge acquitted the respondent-accused for the offences punishable under Sections 7, 13(1)(d) r/w. Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.
2. Briefly stated, facts of the case are that; The complainant in the instant case one Arabbaig Hayatbaig Mirza is a Private Contractor. The Savanur Municipal Corporation entrusted the work of construction of a Dike for Mathangamma Temple to the complainant in July-2010 through tender. He started the construction work in the month of November-2010 and after completion, he gave an application to the Town Municipal Council for payment of tender amount of Rs.27,000/-. The respondent-accused being the Junior Engineer -3- CRL.A No.100142 of 2016 in the said Municipal Council, demanded an illegal gratification of Rs.3,000/- for disbursement of the tender amount to the complainant. On request of the complainant, the accused agreed for Rs.2,000/-. Since, the complainant was not intended to pay the bribe; he lodged a complaint to the Lokayukta Police, Haveri on 14.03.2011 as per Ex.P1. On the strength of Ex.P1, the Lokayukta Police registered FIR in Crime No.4/2011 and conducted the investigation by drawing a pre-trap mahazar in their office on 14.03.2011 and conducted a raid to the office of the accused along with the shadow witness and other panchas on 16.03.2011. Since, the accused demanded and accepted the bribe in the office by the complainant, the Lokayukta Police caught the accused and recovered the bribe amount of Rs.2,000/- from his trouser pocket and thereafter, both the hands of accused were dipped in the Sodium Carbonate solution which proved positive and thereafter, conducted a recovery mahazar as per Ex.P5 in the presence of mahazar witness and apprehended the accused, produced before the learned Sessions Judge. Later, PW.8-the Police Inspector of Lokayukta conducted further investigation and laid chargesheet against the accused for the aforementioned offences.
-4-CRL.A No.100142 of 2016
3. The learned Sessions Judge after taking cognizance of the offence, framed the charges against the accused for the offences punishable under Sections 7, 13(1)(d) r/w. Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and read over the same to the accused. However, the accused denied the charges and claimed to be tried.
4. To prove the charges leveled against the accused, the prosecution examined 8 witnesses as PW.1 to 8 and marked 70 documents as Ex.P1 to P70 so also identified 9 material objects as M.O.1 to M.O.9.
5. On assessment of oral and documentary evidence, the learned Sessions Judge acquitted the accused for the charges leveled against him. The said judgment is challenged in this appeal by the Lokayukta.
6. I have heard the learned standing counsel Sri. Santosh B. Malagoudar for appellant-Lokayukta and learned counsel Sri. Shankar P. Hegde for the respondent-accused.
7. The primary contention of the learned counsel for the appellant is, the judgment under this appeal suffers from perversity and illegality since the learned Sessions Judge failed -5- CRL.A No.100142 of 2016 to appreciate the evidence on record in the right perspective. He contended, PW.1-complainant though turned hostile to the prosecution case, in his cross-examination by the learned prosecutor admitted that the accused initially demanded Rs.3,000/- as illegal gratification and later, on his request, agreed for Rs.2,000/-. Further, in the complaint lodged by PW.1 at Ex.P1, he clearly stated that to disburse the tender money to him the accused demanded illegal gratification and he paid the same in the office of accused and the Lokayukta-Police conducted the raid and recovered the tainted money at the instance of accused under mahazar-Ex.P5. Further, the evidence of PW.2-the shadow witness clearly corroborates the contents of Ex.P1-complaint. He further contended, PW.2 categorically stated that he accompanied PW.1 to the office of the accused and witnessed the demand made by the accused with PW.1 for illegal gratification and the payment of the same by PW.1 to the accused. He also stated, the prosecution proved the recovery of tainted money from the trouser pocket of accused. Further, PW.2 identified his signature on Ex.P5-the recovery mahazar. As such, the prosecution clearly proved the demand and acceptance of illegal gratification by the accused and the recovery of tainted money by the accused. The learned -6- CRL.A No.100142 of 2016 counsel further contended that PW.3-the panch witness for Exs.P3 to P6 also supported the case of prosecution. Further, the evidence of these material witnesses clearly corroborates the testimony of PW.8-the Investigation Officer. By emphasizing Ex.P63 and the evidence of PW.8-Investigation Officer, he argued that the prosecution has proved the pendency of work of complainant with the accused. He also contended that the trial Court has grossly erred in its reasoning by stating that the Investigation Officer has stated in his cross- examination that there were no documents pertaining to the work of the complainant was with the custody of accused at the time of trap. In such circumstances, the prosecution proved the guilt of accused beyond all reasonable doubt. However, the learned Sessions Judge failed to appreciate the evidence and passed the impugned judgment, as such, the same is liable to be set aside. Accordingly, he prays to allow the appeal and to convict the accused for the charges leveled against him.
8. Refuting the above submissions, the learned counsel for the respondent submitted that the learned Sessions Judge examined the entire evidence on record at length and passed the well reasoned judgment which does not call for any interference at the hands of this Court. He contended that -7- CRL.A No.100142 of 2016 PW.1-complainant totally turned hostile to the prosecution case by denying the assertion made in the complaint-Ex.P1 lodged by him. Further, PW.2-the shadow witness though supported the case of prosecution, admitted in his cross-examination that at the time of raid, he was standing outside the office of the accused and was watching PW.1 from his behind. According to the learned counsel, at the outset, the evidence of PW.2 is denied by PW.1-complainant. Further, it is impossible to construe that the signal/gesture allegedly made by the accused was for illegal gratification. As such, the same does not constitute either demand or acceptance. Hence, the evidence of PW.2 cannot be solely relied to prove the charges leveled against the accused, since the prosecution failed to produce any corroborative evidence. He further contended that though the prosecution examined PWs.6 and 7 to prove the voice of the accused recorded by the Police in respect of the demand made by him as per Ex.P5, both these witnesses were turned hostile to the prosecution case. PW.8-Investigation Officer categorically admitted in his evidence that there are no documents placed by him to substantiate the allegation made in the complaint by PW.1 that he was due of tender amount from the office of accused. In such circumstance, the -8- CRL.A No.100142 of 2016 prosecution totally failed to prove the charges leveled against the accused and the learned Sessions Judge has rightly appreciated the evidence on record and passed the impugned judgment which does not call for any interference. Accordingly, he prays to dismiss the appeal.
9. Having heard the learned counsel for the respective parties and also having perused the entire evidence and documents on record, the sole point that arises for my consideration is:
"Whether the learned Sessions Judge is justified in acquitting the accused for the offences punishable under Sections 7 & 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of the PC Act?"
10. I have given my anxious consideration to the submissions made by both learned counsel and evidence on record so also the impugned judgment.
11. It could be gathered from records, PW.1- complainant lodged a complaint as per Ex.P1 before the Police that in order to disburse the tender money of Rs.27,000/- to him, the accused being the Junior Engineer in the Municipality, demanded bribe of Rs.2,000/-. Hence, he lodged a complaint -9- CRL.A No.100142 of 2016 before the Lokayukta-Police. According to the prosecution, subsequently the trap was conducted on 16.03.2011, while complainant handing over the bribe amount to accused at his office. However, complainant-PW.1 totally turned hostile to the prosecution case by denying the assertion made in the complaint-Ex.P1. Per contra, he stated that he and his friend one Yallappagouda went to the office of Lokayukta and the Lokayukta-Police kept Rs.2,000/- in his pocket and thereafter, as per their instructions, they both met the accused in his office and offered a bribe of Rs.2,000/-. However, the accused was not ready to talk with them; hence Yallappagouda taken the said amount from the complainant's pocket and forcefully thirsted into the trouser pocket of the accused. Thereafter, gave signal to the Lokayukta-Police, Police arrested the accused and seized the said bribe amount. The accused similarly explained the circumstance by giving his statement as per Ex.P69 immediately after the raid.
12. Coming to the evidence of PW.2-the shadow witness who accompanied the PW.1 to the office of accused has stated, on the date of incident, he and PW.1 visited the office of accused, PW.1 entered inside the office and he followed him and stood near the door of the office. After perusing the file of
- 10 -
CRL.A No.100142 of 2016PW.1, the accused demanded illegal gratification by the PW.1 by making gesture. At that time, he was behind PW.1 and was able to see his back. Later, PW.1 handed over the cash and after counting the same, the accused kept the said bribe amount into his trouser pocket. However, in the cross- examination he admitted that, though he went to the office of accused along with PW.1, he was standing near the door of the office of accused and he was only able to see the hand movement of accused and complainant. Further, he admitted that he was unable to see the hand and finger movement of the complainant and accused. No doubt, this witness has deposed the recovery of tainted money from the trouser pocket of the accused, however the same is not disputed by the accused since he offered an explanation that the friend of PW.1 thirsted the said money to his trouser pocket. Admittedly, there is no other evidence adduced by the prosecution to prove the demand and acceptance of illegal gratification by the accused except the evidence of PWs.1 and 2. Though the Investigation Officer produced the CD containing voice recording of accused to prove the demand of illegal gratification by him, the witness for the same i.e., PWs.6 and 7 turned hostile to the prosecution case. Further, the Investigation Officer also failed to submit the
- 11 -
CRL.A No.100142 of 2016print out of the hash value of the file containing the relevant recording collected to authenticate the said evidence. In such circumstance, to prove the demand and acceptance of bribe by the accused, the only evidence available on record is PW.2. On careful analysis of evidence of PW.2, as discussed supra, his admission in the cross-examination that he was unable to view the hand and finger movements of the accused and complainant since he was standing behind the complainant near the office door of the accused. As rightly contended by the learned counsel for the accused, even if it is assumed that some sort of gesture/signal has been made, however it is impossible to construe that the signal was for monitory demand. Further, it is highly difficult to conclude the quantum of amount demanded by the accused or the payment of cash to the accused by the complainant as illegal gratification. As discussed supra, PW.1 totally denied the oral demand made by accused, the sole testimony of PW.2 in respect of the demand and payment by way of gesture/signal is not sufficient to constitute a demand and payment of illegal gratification.
13. The Co-ordinate Bench of the High Court of judicature at Bombay, Nagpur in the case of State of Maharasthra, Through Police Station Officer, Mehkar vs.
- 12 -
CRL.A No.100142 of 2016Deepak Gopalrao Dande in Crl.A.No.663/2008 dated 14.09.2020 while discussing the evidentiary value of the demand of illegal gratification by gesture/signal has held in Paragraph No.9 as under:
"9. Learned Counsel for the respondent- accused submitted that mere gestures are not sufficient to constitute a demand. In this regard, he relied on the decision of this Court in case of Dattatraya s/o Udaji Warkad v. State of Maharashtra reported in 2018 ALL MR (Cri.) 1305 wherein this Court has disbelieved the demand made by gestures. Likewise, learned Counsel for the respondent relied on the decision of this Court in case of Mahesh Ramesh Jadhav v. State of Maharashtra reported in 2019 SCC OnLine Bom 1274 wherein equally theory of demand by gesture was not relied by this Court. Precisely, the complaints evidence fails short to establish that there was exact monitory demand of Rs.1500/- towards bribe. In other words, there was no direct demand of bribe nor the accused made any reference of quantum of bribe. It is to be borne in mind that the demand of illegal gratification is a sine qua non to constitute the offence punishable under Section 7 and 13(1)(d) of the PC Act. The mere factum of recovery of currency notes cannot itself constitute the offence unless it is supported by the demand of bribe. As per complainants' case, the bribe was accepted in the cabin of superior officer. However, it has come in the evidence of Investigating Officer that bribe was taken by the accused on his table. It has come in the evidence of Investigating Officer that there were several other employees in the office. None of them has been examined. Deputy Engineer Bagdani who directed accused to get reduction of bill
- 13 -CRL.A No.100142 of 2016
has not been examined to corroborate the testimony of complainant."
14. In the instant case, as discussed supra, the only evidence available on record is PW.2 and he categorically admitted in his cross-examination that he was unable to view the hand and finger movements of the complainant and accused, since he was standing behind the complainant near the door of his office. In such circumstance, the demand and acceptance of illegal gratification by the accused cannot be concluded mere relying the uncorroborated testimony of PW2.
15. It is the settled position of law by the Hon'ble Apex Court as well as this Court that, mere recovery of tainted money at the instance of accused itself does not constitute an offences punishable under Sections 7 & 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of the PC Act. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of V. Sejappa v. State By Police Inspector Lokayukta, Chitradurga reported in (2016) 12 SCC 150, held in paragraph No.21 as under:
"21. While dealing with the contention that it is not enough that some currency notes were handed over to the public servant to make it illegal gratification and that the prosecution has a further duty to prove that what was paid was an illegal gratification, reference can be made to
- 14 -CRL.A No.100142 of 2016
the following observation in Mukut Bihari v. State of Rajasthan [Mukut Bihari v. State of Rajasthan, (2012) 11 SCC 642 : (2013) 1 SCC (Cri) 1089 : (2013) 1 SCC (L&S) 136] , wherein it was held as under: (SCC pp. 645-46, para 11) "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 perdisplace 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
- 15 -
CRL.A No.100142 of 2016in 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 son."
16. The learned counsel for the appellant by relying the judgment in the case of Hazari Lal vs. State (Delhi Administration) reported in (1980) 2 SCC 390 argued that, though PW.1 turned hostile to the prosecution case, the trustworthy evidence of PW.2 cannot be discarded. He further contended, once the recovery of money on the basis of demand and acceptance by the accused is established, then it raises a presumption under Section 20 of the P.C. Act. He also relied on the judgment of Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Prakash Madivalaiah Matpatti v. State of Karnataka reported in AIR OnLine 2020 Kar 198.
17. I have carefully perused the findings in the above judgment and I have no quarrel with the findings in the same, however the findings in the above judgments are not applicable to the facts and circumstance of this case, since the instant
- 16 -
CRL.A No.100142 of 2016case solely rests on the evidence of PW.2 that too the demand and acceptance allegedly made by the accused by way of gesture/signal. As far as the work pendency is concerned, the learned counsel for the accused submits, Ex.P63 the documents allegedly seized in the office of accused pertaining to the work of complainant do not reveal the bills prepared by the contractor, per contra, the bills was submitted by the Engineer. Moreover, the photographs of the work in Ex.P63 do not reveal the completion of contract work of the complainant. In such circumstance, the disbursement of tender amount by the accused to the complainant does not arise. I found substantial force in the contention raised by the learned counsel for the accused.
18. Nevertheless, this being an appeal against acquittal, the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of H.R. Sundara And Others Vs. State Of Karnataka reported in (2023) 9 SCC 581, summarized the principles to exercise the power by the Appellate Court to interfere in the order of the Sessions Court in paragraph No.9 as under:
"9. Normally, when an Appellate Court exercises appellate jurisdiction, the duty of the Appellate Court is to find out whether the verdict which is under challenge is correct or incorrect in law and on
- 17 -CRL.A No.100142 of 2016
facts. The Appellate Court normally ascertains whether the decision under challenge is legal or illegal. But while dealing with an appeal against acquittal, the Appellate Court cannot examine the impugned judgment only to find out whether the view taken was correct or incorrect. After reappreciating the oral and documentary evidence, the Appellate Court must first decide whether the Trial Court's view was a possible view. The Appellate Court cannot overturn acquittal only on the ground that after re-appreciating evidence, it is of the view that the guilt of the accused was established beyond a reasonable doubt. Only by recording such a conclusion an order of acquittal cannot be reversed unless the Appellate Court also concludes that it was the only possible conclusion. Thus, the Appellate Court must see whether the view taken by the Trial Court while acquitting an accused can be reasonably taken on the basis of the evidence on record. If the view taken by the Trial Court is a possible view, the Appellate Court cannot interfere with the order of acquittal on the ground that another view could have been taken."
19. Further, the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Mallappa and Others v. State of Karnataka reported in (2024) 3 SCC 544 while summarizing the principles in dealing with the appeal against acquittal in paragraph No.42 held as under:
"42. Our criminal jurisprudence is essentially based on the promise that no innocent shall be condemned as guilty. All the safeguards and the jurisprudential values of criminal law, are intended to prevent any failure of justice. The principles which come into play 9 AIR 1961 SC 715 while deciding an appeal from acquittal could be summarized as:
- 18 -CRL.A No.100142 of 2016
(i) Appreciation of evidence is the core element of a criminal trial and such appreciation must be comprehensive - inclusive of all evidence, oral or documentary;
(ii) Partial or selective appreciation of evidence may result in a miscarriage of justice and is in itself a ground of challenge;
(iii) If the Court, after appreciation of evidence, finds that two views are possible, the one in favour of the accused shall ordinarily be followed;
(iv) If the view of the Trial Court is a legally plausible view, mere possibility of a contrary view shall not justify the reversal of acquittal;
(v) If the appellate Court is inclined to reverse the acquittal in appeal on a re-appreciation of evidence, it must specifically address all the reasons given by the Trial Court for acquittal and must cover all the facts;
(vi) In a case of reversal from acquittal to conviction, the appellate Court must demonstrate an illegality, perversity or error of law or fact in the decision of the Trial Court."
20. Applying the principles enumerated in the above judgments to the facts and circumstances of this case, I am of the considered view that the prosecution has failed to prove the guilt of accused beyond all reasonable doubt and the trial Court has taken a plausible view and acquitted the accused for the charges leveled against him. In that view of the matter, I
- 19 -
CRL.A No.100142 of 2016decline to interfere in the impugned judgment passed by the Sessions Court. Accordingly, I answer the point raised above in the 'affirmative' and proceed to pass the following:
ORDER The Criminal Appeal is dismissed being devoid of merits.
SD/-
(RAJESH RAI K) JUDGE HKV CT:PA