This Court dismissed the criminal appeal filed against an acquittal in a corruption case under the Prevention of Corruption Act. The trial Court acquitted the accused as evidence regarding demand and acceptance of illegal gratification was insufficient to prove the case beyond reasonable doubt.
Criminal Appeal No. 100110 of 2014 is dismissed.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
CRL.A No. 100110 of 2014
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH
DATED THIS THE 12TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2022
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S.RACHAIAH
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 100110 OF 2014
BETWEEN:
BY THE POLICE SUB INSPECTOR
KARNATAKA LOKAYUKTA POLICE STATION, GADAG
…APPELLANT
(BY SRI. SANTOSH B MALAGOUDAR, ADVOCATE)
AND:
AGE: 40 YEARS OCC: LECTURER IN RURAL POLYTECHNIC TARIHAL, HUBLI DIST: DHARWAD
…RESPONDENT
(BY SRI. K L PATIL, ADVOCATE)
Digitally signed by SUJATA SUBHASH PAMMAR Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH, DHARWAD.
THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL IS FILED U/S 378(1) & (3) OF CR.P.C. SEEKING TO GRANT LEAVE TO THE APPELLANT TO APPEAL AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND ORDER DATED 26.12.2013 PASSED IN SPL. SVC CASE NO.6/2006 ON THE FILE OF LEARNED PRL. DIST. & SESSIONS JUDGE, GADAG AND ALLOW THE APPEAL AND SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND ORDER OF ACQUITTAL IN SPL. SVC CASE NO.6/2006 PASSED BY LEARNED PRL. DIST. & SESSIONS JUDGE, GADAG DT.26.12.2013 AND CONVICT THE ACCUSED FOR THE CHARGED OFFENCES IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW.
THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL COMING ON FOR HEARING THIS DAY, THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
CRL.A No. 100110 of 2014
JUDGMENT
This Criminal Appeal is filed by the appellant, being aggrieved by the judgment and order dated 26.12.2013 in Spl.SVC.No.6/2006 on the file of learned Principal District and Sessions Judge, Gadag, wherein the trial Court acquitted the accused for the offences under sections 7, 13(1)(d) read with section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.
parties would be henceforth referred to as per their rankings before the trial Court.
The complainant was studying in V Semester of Computer
Science Diploma at Sri Tontadarya Siddalingeshwara Kalyana Kendra Polytechnic, Gadag. It is stated that, he was attending practical examination which was held on 05.12.2005. The accused was an external examiner and PW.8 was the internal examiner. PW.9 was the Chief Examiner and Principal of the College. It is alleged further that the accused said to have contacted the complainant and asked him to collect Rs.900/each from all the 14 students to put extra marks in the
CRL.A No. 100110 of 2014
practical examination. It is further alleged that, PW.1 and PW.2 have agreed to pay Rs.300/- each and stated to have paid Rs.600/- as advance and sought time to pay the balance
amount.
CRL.A No. 100110 of 2014
CRL.A No. 100110 of 2014
CRL.A No. 100110 of 2014
(a) Whether the judgment and order of acquittal passed by the trial Court is justified?
(b) Whether the appellant has made out grounds to interfere with the judgment of acquittal passed by the trial Court?
Computer Science, PW-2 was studying in III Semester of same branch. It is alleged that, the accused had demanded a sum of Rs.900/- each from all the students, to give extra marks in the practical examination. According to them, there were 14 students. It is stated in their evidence, they had to give Rs.12,600/- to the accused. PW-1 further states that, the accused had demanded Rs.500/- each for the practical examination, after bargain, the accused agreed to take Rs.300/- per subject. Each student was having three subjects and there were 14 students. As advance, PW-1 had paid
CRL.A No. 100110 of 2014
Rs.600/- to the accused and he had promised that he would pay the remaining amount of Rs.12,000/- on the same day in the evening. It is further stated that, the accused had given his address and phone number to PW-1 and asked him to contact in the evening. Accordingly, PW.1 being not satisfied with the demand made by the accused, approached Lokayukta and the Lokayukta have arranged one shadow witness and made the shadow witness to accompany PW.1 to go to the place where the accused had proposed to meet PW.1.
CRL.A No. 100110 of 2014
PW.1, he could not hear the conversation between the accused and PW.1 regarding the demand and acceptance of illegal gratification. Though, PW.1 stated in his evidence that, PW.2 was recording the conversation through his mobile phone, PW.2 says he has deleted the conversation. Such being the fact, the evidence of PW.2 looses its significance. Further PW.1 says that, in pursuance of the intervention of Lokayukta Police, the practical examination was conducted by the College again and marks were awarded.
CRL.A No. 100110 of 2014
stated that, he has not heard the demand and acceptance by the accused as he was standing little far from the place where the accused met PW.1. In the absence of demand and acceptance of illegal gratification, it cannot be said that, the prosecution has proved the case beyond all reasonable doubt. Thus, the findings of fact and order of acquittal passed by the trial Court appears to be sound and relevant and it is not required to be interfered with by this Court.
Point No.(a) in the “Affirmative”
Point No.(b) in the “Negative”
Hence, I proceed to pass the following:
ORDER
Criminal Appeal is dismissed.
Sd/JUDGE
VMB, Bss, Bvk List No.: 1 Sl No.: 27
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the judgment and order of acquittal passed by the trial Court is justified?
Whether the appellant has made out grounds to interfere with the judgment of acquittal passed by the trial Court?
The State
Basavaraj Tippanna Nittali
S. Rachaiyah
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
