Corruption appeal challenging acquittal of government employees. High Court upheld Trial Court's verdict, finding prosecution failed to prove demand and acceptance of bribe beyond reasonable doubt and regarding Appellant's failure to mention prior complaints.
The criminal appeal was dismissed; the acquittal of the respondents was upheld.
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.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 13TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2024
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE M G UMA
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 984 OF 2013 (A)
BETWEEN:
THE STATE OF KARNATAKA BY INSPECTOR OF POLICE, KARNATAKA LOKAYUKTA P.S. MADIKERI, KODAGU DISTRICT
…APPELLANT
Digitally signed by SWAPNA V Location: high court of karnataka
(BY SRI. B.S. PRASAD, SPL.P.P.)
AND:
PROJECT CO-ORDINATOR
OFFICE OF THE INTEGRATED
TRIBAL DEVELOPMENT PROJECT, MADIKERI, KODAGU DISTRICT
…RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. VISHNU HEGDE, ADVOCATE FOR R1 & R2)
THIS CRL.A. IS FILED U/S. 378(1) & (3) CR.P.C PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED:27.9.12 PASSED BY THE SESSIONS JUDGE, KODAGU, MADIKERI IN SPL.CASE (CORRPN) NO.3/2007 - ACQUITTING THE RESPONDENTS/ACCUSED FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/S 7, 13(1)(D) R/W SEC. 13(2) OF THE PREVENTION OF CORRUPTION ACT, 1988.
NC: 2024:KHC:37656 CRL.A No. 984 of 2013
THIS CRL.A., COMING ON FOR FURTHER ARGUMENTS, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE M G UMA
ORAL JUDGMENT
The Lokayukta Police in Special Case (Corruption) No.3/2007 on the file of the learned District and Sessions Judge, Kodagu, Madikeri, is impugning the judgment dated 27.09.2012 acquitting the respondents/accused Nos.1 and 2 for the offence punishable under Section 7 and 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, (hereinafter referred to as 'PC Act').
NC: 2024:KHC:37656 CRL.A No. 984 of 2013
accused No.2 was working as First Division Assistant (FDA) in the office of accused No.1.
NC: 2024:KHC:37656 CRL.A No. 984 of 2013
requested to sign the certificates, which were already received in the office of accused No.1.
have came out of the school and accused No.1 accepted the entrusted amount of Rs.20,000/- by stating that both of them will share it amongst themselves. Accused No.1 received the tainted amount with his left hand and kept it in his shirt pocket. He also said that he would sign the certificates on the following day. On receiving the signal from P.W.4, the Investigating Officer along with the second panch, went to the spot and trapped accused Nos.1 and 2. The tainted money was recovered from the shirt pocket of accused No.1. It is stated that the left hand wash of accused No.1 tested positive for the presence of both phenolphthalein and sodium carbonate. The sanction for prosecuting accused Nos.1 and 2 were obtained from P.W.7 the under Secretary of Social Welfare Department and P.W.15-the Commissioner of Social Welfare Department and the charge sheet came to be filed.
their statements recorded under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. and got marked Exs.D1 to D3. But have not led any evidence in support of their defence. The Trial Court after taking into consideration all these materials on record, came to the conclusion that prosecution is not successful in proving the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt and therefore, acquitted the accused by passing the impugned judgment. Being aggrieved by the same, the appellant is before this Court.
vocational training to the youths belonging to the SC/ST and Sadguru Educational Institute of which, P.W.3 was the President was identified as one such Institute for the purpose of imparting training. P.W.4 was working as Marketing Executive in the said training institute at Madikeri.
Rs.5,000/- for accused No.2. It is thereafter, the first information as per Ex.P7 was lodged. P.W.6 being the shadow witness, P.W.5 being the second panch, were summoned, when panchanama was drawn as per Ex.P10, Rs.20,000/- was entrusted to P.W.4.
NC: 2024:KHC:37656 CRL.A No. 984 of 2013
from accused No.1 is proved by the prosecution, the presumption under Section 20 of the PC Act would arise and the burden shifts on the accused to rebut the same. Even though the accused has taken a defence that there were complaints against the training institute and the notice was issued by the accused to the complainant institution, no materials are placed before the Court in support of such a defence. Even assuming that there were some allegations against the training institute and the notice was sent to P.W.3, the same cannot be a ground to demand and accept the illegal gratification. Admittedly, the accused have not returned the certificates which were sent to them by the complainant. There was no reason to keep the certificates pending with them without returning it or at least without explaining the reason for not subscribing the signatures of accused No.1 over the certificates. Under such circumstances, the prosecution is successful in proving the guilt of accused Nos.1 and 2 beyond reasonable doubt. The explanation in Exs.P19 and 20 do not have any explanation for being in possession of the tainted amount. Under such circumstances, both the accused are liable for conviction.
13. Learned counsel submits that the Trial Court
committed an error in acquitting the accused solely on the ground that P.W.3-the President of the training institute admitted that the notice was issued to him by accused No.1 alleging misappropriation. The Trial Court has ignored the evidence of P.Ws.4 and 6. It has not considered the timing stated by the prosecution witnesses but committed an error in arrive at the conclusion that the timings referred to by the witnesses do not match with one another. These findings and observations made by the Trial Court are perverse. It has never referred to the presumption under Section 20 of the PC Act and failure on the part of the accused to report the same. The Trial Court has also failed to take into consideration the fact that the accused have never stepped into the witness box to depose about their defence, nor it has considered the conduct of the accused in only denying the incriminating materials that are available on record in their statement recorded under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. Therefore, he prays for convicting both the accused in the interest of justice by setting aside the impugned judgment of acquittal, as the same is perverse and illegal.
NC: 2024:KHC:37656 CRL.A No. 984 of 2013
for the appellant and on going through the material on record, the point that would arise for my consideration is:
"Whether the impugned judgment of acquittal passed by the Trial Court suffers from perversity or illegality and calls for interference by this Court?"
My answer to the above point is in the 'Negative' for the following:
REASONS
clerk working under accused No.1 had informed that he was instructed not to receive the certificates for signature. However, it stated that there was demand for payment of Rs.2,00,000/for the purpose of accused No.1 signing the certificates. When this fact was informed to PW.3, he asked PW.4 to send the certificates to accused No.1 through post and accordingly, he sent it through speed-post. When it is confirmed that the certificates sent through speed-post is already reached the office of the accused, PW.4 went to their office and on enquiry, accused No.1 demanded advance of Rs.15,000/- for himself and Rs.5000 for accused No.2 as bribe. It is stated that accused No.1 insisted PW.4 to bring Rs.20,000/on 17.10.2006. Therefore, PW.4 lodged the first information against accused Nos.1 and 2. Accordingly, the FIR came to be registered on 17.10.2006 against both the accused.
that the accused have gone to Ekalavya School in Balugodu village of Virajpet taluk and accordingly, PW.4 along with the panchas and the police went to Virajpet. PW.4 along with PW.6the shadow witness met accused No.1, who was in Ekalavyaschool, accompanied by accused No.2 and was attending the meeting. Accused Nos.1 and 2 have came out of the school. Accused No.1 accepted the illegal gratification of Rs.20,000/- i.e., Rs.15,000 for himself and Rs.5000/- for accused No.2 to show the official favour i.e., signing 371 certificates to be distributed to the trainees and thereby the accused has committed the offence punishable under Sections 7, 13 (1)(d) R/w Section 13 (2) of PC Act.
PW.3 being the President of the Training Institute and accused No.1 being the Project Coordinator of Integrated Tribal Development Project. The witness specifically stated that on 12.09.2006, he carried 371 certificates to the office of accused No.1 to get his signatures, but accused No.1 refused to sign the certificates by demanding Rs.2,00,000/- to be paid as bribe amount. It is thereafter PW.4 went and informed PW.3-the President of the Trust, who instructed PW.4 to send the certificate to the office of accused No.1 through speed-post and accordingly, witness stated that they have sent all 371 certificates to the office of accused No.1 through post. When he confirmed that the certificates have reached the office of accused No.1, the witness stated that he again went to the office of accused No.1 on 13.10.2006 and enquired with accused No.2 about the certificates. When PW.4 met accused No.1 along with accused No.2, it is stated that he again demanded Rs.15,000/- for himself and Rs.5000/- for accused No.2 as advance and also demanded Rs.2,00,000/- as bribe amount. As PW.4 was not interested in paying the bribe amount, as per the instructions by PW.3, he has lodged the first information.
NC: 2024:KHC:37656 CRL.A No. 984 of 2013
PW.1 is the CEO, who sent service records of accused Nos.1 and 2 and PWs.7 and 15 are the sanctioning authorities for prosecuting accused Nos.1 and 2. PW.2 is the Principal, who sent the shadow and pancha witness to Lokayukta office. PW.8 is the Principal of the school where the trap was held. But this witness has not supported the case of the prosecution. Other witnesses are the formal official witnesses.
which was carrying on the activities since several decades. But strangely, there is no reference that accused No.1 is demanding bribe amount for the purpose of signing the certificates. From Ex.P.6 it could be made out that a complaint had been lodged from the office of accused No.1 much prior to 12.10.2006 against Sadhguru Educational Trust by the Department, where the accused was working as a Project Coordinator.
the Government. Admittedly, all these developments have
taken place much prior to filing of the complaint on 17.10.2006. In the backdrop of these admitted facts of recommending for initiation of the action and investigation by COD against the Trust, and calling upon it to refund the amount of Rs.14.5 lakhs which they had received and exceeded their limit in imparting training for 371 candidates when they were permitted to impart training only for 82 candidates, the contention of the complaint regarding demand and acceptance of the illegal gratification by accused No.1 is to be considered.
the prosecution is successful in proving recovery of the tainted amount by trapping the accused, the same is not sufficient to seek conviction of the accused. The demand for showing the official favour is sine qua non with acceptance of the same for seeking conviction of the accused. In the backdrop of the allegations made against the Trust, just about a month earlier to the date of incident, calling upon them to refund the amount of Rs.14.5 lakhs, highlighting that they were not permitted to train 371 candidates as they were permitted only for 82 candidates and when it was recommended to the State Government for investigation by the Special Investigating Team-COD about the irregularities in the Trust, the contentions taken by the prosecution will have to be considered with a pinch of salt.
NC: 2024:KHC:37656 CRL.A No. 984 of 2013
of the Court about the case made out by the prosecution regarding demand and acceptance of illegal gratification by accused Nos.1 and 2. When the prosecution has failed to dispel the reasonable doubts that arise in the mind of the Court, the accused are entitled for acquittal. On perusal of the materials, both oral and documentary, placed before the Court, I am of the opinion that the prosecution has failed to establish the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt.
NC: 2024:KHC:37656 CRL.A No. 984 of 2013
ORDER
The appeal is dismissed .
Sd/(M G UMA) JUDGE
GJM/BH List No.: 2 Sl No.: 1
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the impugned judgment of acquittal passed by the Trial Court suffers from perversity or illegality and calls for interference by this Court?
Whether the prosecution successfully established the demand and acceptance of illegal gratification beyond reasonable doubt?
Whether the acquittal of Accused No. 2 was justified when he never demanded or accepted the illegal gratification?
2 provisions across 2 enactments
THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
G. SEETHARAMAPPA
N.B. CHANDRASHEKAR
M G UMA
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
