Criminal appeal against acquittal for corruption. High Court examined inconsistencies in prosecution witnesses regarding alleged trap, spot of seizure, and nature of transaction. Found the trial court justified and dismissed the appeal.
Criminal appeal dismissed. Judgment and order of acquittal confirmed.
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.100243/2014
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
DHARWAD BENCH
DATED THIS THE 05TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2022
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S.RACHAIAH
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.100243/2014
BETWEEN:
THE STATE, BY THE POLICE SUB INSPECTOR, KARNATAKA LOKAYUKTA POLICE STATION, KOPPAL.
..…APPELLANT
(BY SRI SANTOSH B. MALAGOUDAR, ADVOCATE)
AND:
ISMAIL KHAN S/O MAHABOOB KHAN AGE: 52 YEARS, OCC: CHIEF OFFICER, PATTAN PANCHAYAT, YALABURGA, AT POST: YALABURG, TAL: YALABURGA, DIST: KOPPAL.
..…RESPONDENT
(BY SRI NEELENDRA D. GUNDE, ADVOCATE)
Digitally signed by ANNAPURNA ANNAPURNA CHINNAPPA CHINNAPPA DANDAGAL DANDAGAL Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA 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 OF ACQUITTAL DATED 05.09.2014 IN SPL.C.C.(P.C.)NO.28/2011 ON THE FILE OF LEARNED PRL. SESSIONS & SPL. JUDGE, KOPPAL AND ALLOW THE APPEAL AND SET ASIDE THE AFORESAID JUDGMENT AND ORDER OF ACQUITTAL AND CONVICT THE ACCUSED FOR THE CHARGED OFFENCES PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTIONS 7, 13(1)(d) R/W SECTION 13(2) OF P.C. ACT.
THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR FURTHER HEARING, THIS DAY, THE ,COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
CRL.A.No.100243/2014
JUDGMENT
This appeal is filed by the appellant/complainant, being aggrieved by the judgment and order of acquittal dated 05.09.2014 in Spl.C.C.(PC) No.28/2011 passed by the learned Principal Sessions & Special Judge, Koppal.
It is the case of the prosecution that PW1 was appointed as Accounting Assistant, Town Panchayat, Yalburga for a period of one year on contract basis. It is alleged that, after receiving the order of his appointment, he approached the accused and sought permission to join the office. It is further stated that, though the complainant/PW.1 joined the office on 26.02.2009, he started working at the office from 07.03.2009. As he joined the office belatedly, he was demanded to pay Rs.4,000/- to continue in the service by the accused. It is further stated that, the complainant requested the accused that he would pay the illegal gratification after receiving the salary.
CRL.A.No.100243/2014
on 18.06.2009 and narrated the facts orally. On instructions by the Lokayukta Police, he received a tape-recorder and recorded the conversation, thereafter, he lodged a complaint regarding demand of illegal gratification by the accused. The complainant police after receiving the written complaint, registered the case on 23.06.2009 in Crime No.5/2009 for offences punishable under Sections 7, 13(1)(d) and 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (for short ‘P.C. Act’). The police after conducting investigation submitted the charge sheet for the offences stated supra.
CRL.A.No.100243/2014
complainant, PW.2-shadow witness, PW.3-co-panch and the evidence of PW.6, PW.7 and PW.8 are relevant and they have all supported the case of the prosecution. Even though all these witnesses supported the case of the prosecution, the same has been ignored by the Trial Court. As a result, the impugned judgment has been passed which requires to be set aside. It is further submitted by the learned counsel that the prosecution has proved the case beyond all reasonable doubt regarding demand and acceptance by the accused. PW.1, PW.2 and PW.3 are consistent in their evidence regarding demand and acceptance and seizure of the amount from the accused. The essential requirement of demand and acceptance made by the accused has also been proved. Such being the fact, the Trial Court passed the impugned judgment holding that the prosecution has failed to prove the case appears to be inappropriate and untenable. Therefore, the judgment of
CRL.A.No.100243/2014
acquittal requires to be set aside by allowing this criminal appeal.
9. Per contra , Sri.Neelendra D.Gunde, the learned counsel for the respondent while justifying the judgment and order of acquittal of the Trial Court submits that, the evidence of PW.5, who was present on the alleged date and time when PW.1 paid the amount to the accused, has turned hostile. It is further submitted that, in fact the accused has stated before the Lokayukta Police that, the accused had given loan of Rs.4,000/- to the complainant / PW.1 for his basic necessity at the time of joining the duty. The contention has been accepted by the Trial Court.
CRL.A.No.100243/2014
the evidence of PW.1, PW.2, PW.3, PW.6, PW.7 and PW.8, who are the relevant witnesses as stated by the prosecution.
CRL.A.No.100243/2014
CRL.A.No.100243/2014
to the accused at Sharana Basaveshwara Khanavali situated after three to four shops from the office. It is further stated that after receiving the amount, the accused counted the amount and kept it in his shirt pocket. In the crossexamination, PW.2 has admitted that the accused has made the statement before the Lokayukta Police regarding the loan transaction between himself and the complainant. It is further admitted that, the said trap mahazar was conducted between 3.40 p.m. to 5.00 p.m. in the above said khanavali.
CRL.A.No.100243/2014
seizure of tainted notes. PW.2 says the trap mahazar had been conducted in the khanavali itself, whereas the evidence of PW.3 discloses that, the said trap mahazar was conducted in the office of the accused, which seriously creates a doubt regarding the physical presence of these two witnesses at the time of alleged trap mahazar. Further, it is also relevant to refer the evidence of PW.1 regarding the alleged trap mahazar which is stated to have taken place. According to him, the said trap mahazar had been conducted in the office of the accused.
CRL.A.No.100243/2014
respect of acquittal of accused for the offences punishable under the provisions stated supra appears to be appropriate and it requires no interference.
Point No.(i) : In the “affirmative”
Point No.(ii) : In the “negative”
Hence, I proceed to pass the following:-
i) The appeal filed by the appellant stands dismissed.
ii) The judgment and order of acquittal dated 05.09.2014 in Spl.C.C.(PC) No.28/2011 passed by the learned Principal Sessions & Special Judge, Koppal is confirmed.
Sd/JUDGE
Bss. Un
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the High Court can interfere with the acquittal of a public servant in a prevention of corruption case due to inconsistencies in prosecution evidence?
Whether the prosecution proved beyond reasonable doubt the demand and acceptance of illegal gratification despite contradictory witness accounts?
2 provisions across 2 enactments
The State
Ismail Khan
S. Rachaiyah
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
