The State of Karnataka Vs Chandramohan Basavanneppa Chadachal

¶1

NC: 2025:KHC-D:7836 CRL.A No. 100022 of 2016

¶2

1 -

¶3

HC-KAR

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 19^TH DAY OF JUNE, 2025 BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH RAI K CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.100022 OF 2016 (A)

¶6

BETWEEN:

¶7

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY SPECIAL PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, KARNATAKA LOKAYUKTA POLICE, HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, BENCH AT DHARWAD, DHARWAD. (LOKAYUTA POLICE BELAGAVI)

¶8

…PETITIONER

¶9

(BY SRI. G.I. GACHCHINAMATH, ADVOCATE)

¶10

AND:

¶11

CHANDRAMOHAN BASAVANNEPPA CHADACHAL AGE: 77 YEARS, OCC. SUPERVISOR (ON CONTRACT BASIS) OFFICE OF ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER AND COMPETENT AUTHORITY FOR LAND ACQUSITION, NH-4A, BELAGAVI, R/O. PLOT NO.68, CCB NO.369, SADASHIV NAGAR, BELAGAVI.

¶12

…RESPONDENT

¶13

YASHAVANT NARAYANKAR Digitally signed byYASHAVANT NARAYANKAR Date: 2025.06.21 11:49:50 +0530

¶14

(BY SRI. A.M. GUNDAWADE, ADVOCATE)

¶15

THE CRIMINAL APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 378(1) & (3) OF CR.P.C. SEEKING TO GRANT LEAVE TO APPEAL AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND ORDER OF ACQUITTAL PASSED BY THE IV ADDL. DISTRICT AND SESSIONS & SPECIAL JUDGE (PCA), AT BELAGAVI DATED 25/08/2015 IN SPECIAL CASE NO.36/2012 AND TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND ORDER OF ACQUITTAL PASSED BY THE IV ADDL. DISTRICT AND SESSIONS & SPECIAL JUDGE (PCA), BELAGAVI DATED 25/08/2015 IN SPECIAL CRIMINAL CASE NO. 36/2012 AND TO CONVICT AND SENTENCE THE RESPONDENT / ACCUSED PERSON FOR THE OFFENCE PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTIONS 7, 13(1)(D) R/W. SECTION 13(2) OF PREVENTION OF CORRUPTION ACT, 1988.

¶16

THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:

¶17

2 -

¶18

NC: 2025:KHC-D:7836 CRL.A No. 100022 of 2016

¶19

HC-KAR

¶20

CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH RAI K

¶21

ORAL JUDGMENT

¶22

(PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH RAI K)

¶23

The appellant/Lokayukta has filed this appeal against the judgment of acquittal passed in Special Case No.36/2012, dated 25.8.2015 by the IV Addl. District and Sessions Judge & Special Judge (PCA), Belagavi¹ , whereby the learned Sessions Judge acquitted the respondent/accused for the offences punishable under Sections 7 & 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988² .

¶24

2. The facts in brief of the prosecution’s case are that, the accused was working as a Supervisor in the office of National Highway Authority of India³ , located at Belagavi, on contract basis and he demanded a bribe money of Rs.18,000/from the complainant(CW1). Hence, the complaiannt lodged a complaint against the accused before the Lokayukta Police Belagavi as per Ex.P3. On the strength of the complaint-Ex.P3 lodged by CW1/complainant, a case has been registered in Crime No.24/2011 by Belagavi Lokayukta Police. Subsequently,

¶25

1 Hereinafter referred to as ‘Sessions Judge’

¶26

2 Hereinafter referred to as ‘PC Act’

¶27

3 Hereinafter referred to as ‘NHAI’

¶28

3 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:7836 CRL.A No. 100022 of 2016

¶29

HC-KAR

¶30

on 25.11.2011, in between 17:00 hours and 17:20 hours in the office of the NHAI located at Belagavi, the accused was trapped for having demanded and accepted a bribe of Rs.5,000/- from the complainant in discharge of his duty as public servant for preparing the cheque in respect of compensation amount of Rs.3,77,386/- awarded to the wife of complainant. After conducting trap panchanama, the accused was arrested and Investigating Officer (PW9) laid charge sheet against the accused for the aforementioned offences before the Sessions Court. After securing the presence of the accused, the learned Sessions Judge framed charges against the accused for the said offences and read over to him; however, he denied charges and claimed to be tried.

¶31

3. To prove the prosecution’s case, the Lokayukta examined in total 9 witnesses as PW1 to PW9; marked 24 documents as Ex.P1 to P24 and identified 12 material objects as MO1 to MO12 before the learned Sessions Judge.

¶32

4. On assessment of oral and documentary evidence,

¶33

the learned Sessions Judge acquitted the accused for the

¶34

4 -

¶35

NC: 2025:KHC-D:7836 CRL.A No. 100022 of 2016

¶36

HC-KAR

¶37

charges leveled against him. Aggrieved by the same, the Lokayukta has preferred this appeal.

¶38

5. I have heard the learned standing counsel Sri. G.I. Gachchinamath for the appellant/Lokayukta, so also learned counsel Sri.A.M. Gundawade for the respondent/accused.

¶39

6. The primary contention of the learned counsel for the appellant is that the learned Sessions Judge grossly erred while acquitting the accused without appreciating the evidence on record in right perspective. He contended that the prosecution has placed sufficient evidence and material before the learned Sessions Judge to prove the guilt of accused. Despite, the learned Sessions Judge acquitted the accused. According to the learned counsel, PW4 & PW5 have supported the case of the prosecution, among them, PW4 deposed that the accused demanded a sum of Rs.18,000/- from the complainant in the office of the accused. He further contended that PW5, who is a shadow witness, has clearly stated that at the time of trap, he was very much present in the office of the accused. Though, he stood outside the office, but he stated that he had seen the accused receiving bribe money by peeping

¶40

5 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:7836 CRL.A No. 100022 of 2016

¶41

HC-KAR

¶42

through window; thereafter, the police seized the tainted money at the instance of the accused and conducted chemical test, wherein it is proved that the accused has accepted the bribe money. In such circumstance, the prosecution has proved the charges leveled against the accused beyond all reasonable doubt. Additionally, he contended that the evidence of investigating officer (PW9) clearly corroborates the testimony of PW4 & PW5. Further, though statement of the accused was recorded by PW9 soon after the trap, the accused pleaded his ignorance. In such circumstance, there is no reason to disbelieve the case of the prosecution. Accordingly, he prays to allow the appeal and convict the accused for the charges leveled against him.

¶43

7. Refuting the above submission, the learned counsel for the respondent/accused submitted that the judgment under appeal does not suffer from any perversity or illegality, since the learned Sessions Judge after meticulously examining the entire evidence on record passed a well-reasoned judgment, which does not call for interference at the hands of this Court. He contended that the contents of Ex.P3/complaint are not

¶44

6 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:7836 CRL.A No. 100022 of 2016

¶45

HC-KAR

¶46

proved before the Court. He also contended that the evidence of PW4 and PW5 is not trustworthy for the reason that though PW4 claimed to be eye-witness for the alleged demand of bribe made by the accused, however, the said aspect was not forthcoming in the complaint. Further, the evidence of PW5 also not believable for the reason, according to him, he was standing outside the office of the accused and peeped through window and witnessed the incident. In such circumstance, the prosecution failed to prove the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubt. Mere recovery of tainted money at the instance of the accused, itself does not constitute the offence under the PC Act. Additionally, he contended that the investigating officer failed to obtain necessary sanction to prosecute the accused. Accordingly, he prays to dismiss the appeal.

¶47

8. Having heard the learned counsel for the respective parties and also having perused the entire evidence and documents on record, the only point that arises for my consideration is:

¶48

“Whether the learned Sessions Judge is justified in acquitting the accused for the offences punishable

¶49

7 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:7836 CRL.A No. 100022 of 2016

¶50

HC-KAR

¶51

under Sections 7 & 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of the PC Act?”

¶52

9. I have given my anxious consideration to the

¶53

submissions made by both learned counsel, so also evidence on record.

¶54

10. It could be gathered from the records, one Ibrahim Hudalikar had lodged a complaint before the Lokayukta Police, Belagavi alleging that the accused being a Supervisor at NHAI, located at Belagavi had demanded a bribe of Rs.18,000/- to disburse the compensation amount of Rs.3,77,386/-. As such, he lodged a complaint/Ex.P3 on 25.11.2011. The same was registered in Crime No.24/2011 by Belagavi Lokayukta Police. Thereafter, trap panchanama was held on the same day and the accused was arrested and tainted money was recovered at his instance. The prosecution has failed to examine the complainant in the instant case. There is no explanation whatsoever is forthcoming on record not to examine the complainant. On perusal of the evidence of PW4, it is forthcoming that the complainant was very much present in the Court when PW4 was deposing the evidence. On analysis of the evidence of PW4 and PW5, who are the material witnesses,

¶55

8 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:7836 CRL.A No. 100022 of 2016

¶56

HC-KAR

¶57

among them PW4 accompanied the complainant to the office of accused before lodging the complaint and according to him, on that day, the accused demanded a sum of Rs.18,000/- to disburse the compensation amount of Rs.3,77,386/-. Though this witness has supported the case of the prosecution, on careful scrutiny of his evidence, his presence in the office of accused along with the complainant before lodging the complaint is not forthcoming in the complaint/Ex.P3 as well as pre-trap mahazar (Ex.P6). Though the prosecution has produced audio recording of the conversation held between the accused and complainant, there is no expert opinion obtained by the investigating officer under the provisions of Section 65B of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872. In such circumstance, much credence cannot be attached to the evidence of PW4.

¶58

11. On careful scrutiny of evidence of PW5-eyewitness

¶59

to this evidence, he stated that he visited the office of the accused on 25.11.2011 and stood outside the office of the accused, however, the complainant entered inside the office. According to him, the accused received bribe amount without any conversation with the complainant and received the bribe money by giving hand signal. Admittedly, this witness was

¶60

9 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:7836 CRL.A No. 100022 of 2016

¶61

HC-KAR

¶62

standing outside the office of the accused and according to him, he peeped through the window of the office of the accused. PW5 has not stated in his evidence as to what the exact place where he was standing and whether the office of the accused was accessible to the place where he was standing. Further it is also not forthcoming in the evidence, though he accompanied the complainant till his office, why he did not enter inside the office of the accused. In such circumstance, clear doubt arises in the testimony of this witness (PW5). Except the evidence of PW4, PW6 and Investigating Officer (PW9), no other material evidence placed by the prosecution to prove the guilt of accused.

¶63

12. The Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of N. Vijayakumar Vs. State of Tamil Nadu⁴ , held that “absence of proof of demand for illegal gratification and mere possession or recovery of currency notes is not sufficient to constitute such offence and the presumption under Section 20 of the Act can be drawn only after the demand for and acceptance of illegal gratification is proved.”

¶64

4 (2021) 3 SCC 687

¶65

10 -

¶66

NC: 2025:KHC-D:7836 CRL.A No. 100022 of 2016

¶67

HC-KAR

¶68

13. Further, the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Neeraj Dutta Vs. State (Government of NCT of Delhi)⁵ at

¶69

paragraph-18 has held as under:

¶70

“18. The allegation of demand of gratification and acceptance made by a public servant has to be established beyond a reasonable doubt. The decision of the Constitution Bench does not dilute this elementary requirement of proof beyond a reasonable doubt. The Constitution Bench was dealing with the issue of the modes by which the demand can be proved. The Constitution Bench has laid down that the proof need not be only by direct oral or documentary evidence, but it can be by way of other evidence including circumstantial evidence. When reliance is placed on circumstantial evidence to prove the demand for gratification, the prosecution must establish each and every circumstance from which the prosecution wants the Court to draw a conclusion of guilt. The facts so established must be consistent with only one hypothesis that there was a demand made for gratification by the accused. Therefore, in this case, we will have to examine whether there is any direct evidence of demand. If we come to a conclusion that there is no direct evidence of demand, this Court will have to consider whether there is any circumstantial evidence to prove the demand. ”

¶71

14. It is well settled position of law laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the aforesaid judgment as well as in N. Vijayakumar’s case supra, that proof of demand and acceptance has to be proved by establishing each and every circumstances.

¶72

5 (2023) 4 SCC 731

¶73

11 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:7836 CRL.A No. 100022 of 2016

¶74

HC-KAR

¶75

15. Nonetheless, this being the appeal against acquittal, this Court and the Hon’ble Apex Court in catena of judgments held that, if the trial Court has taken plausible view, the Appellate Court shall not interfere in the acquittal judgment. By applying the principle laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of H.R.Sundara And Others Vs. State of Karnataka⁶ , I am of the considered view that the trial Court has taken a plausible view and acquitted the accused from the charges leveled against him, which does not call for interference at the hands of this Court. In that view of the matter, I answer the point framed in the “affirmative”.

¶76

16. In the result, I proceed to pass the following:

¶77

ORDER

¶78

The Appeal, being devoid of merits, stands dismissed .

¶79

SD/(RAJESH RAI K) JUDGE

¶80

JTR CT:PA LIST NO.: 1 SL NO.: 2

¶81

6 (2023) 9 SCC 581

The State of Karnataka v. Chandramohan Basavanneppa Chadachal

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

The State of Karnataka v. Chandramohan Basavanneppa Chadachal

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

State of Karnataka, Vs Mahammadali

Gangadharayya S/O Fakiraya Kulkarni Vs Siddalingappa S/O Hulgappa Bommmanal

Sri Kuruvatteppa S/O. Basappa Hadapada Vs Sri. Tirukappa S/O. Sannappa Oragondar

Sunanda W/O Shivanand Rotti Vs Mallappa S/O Basappa Ingalagi

Yallappa Basappa Yalavagi @ Davanagere Vs Vijendra S/O Srinivasrao Parvatikar

The State of Karnataka Vs Basavraj S/O Sabu Hosmani