Dismissed¶77

State of Karnataka v. Vasanth Chouhan

Karnataka HC26 Nov 2025CRL.A/1015/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Keywords: criminal appeal against acquittal; Section 378(1) and (3) Cr.P.C. leave; Prevention of Corruption Act Sections 7, 13(1)(d), 13(2), 20 (presumption); Lokayukta Police trap; Crime No.15/2010; pre-trap panchanama; phenolphthalein powder; demand of illegal gratification absent; shadow witness P.W.1; interested witness contention; mere recovery of amount insufficient without proved demand; ingredients of Section 7 not attracted; Spl.Case No.680/2011; acquittal dated 12.03.2013 upheld; appeal dismissed; single Judge S Rachaiah; High Court of Karnataka at Bengaluru; decided 26 November 2025; NC: 2025:KHC:56718.

What did the court decide?

None; the Criminal Appeal filed under Section 378(1) and (3) Cr.P.C. seeking leave against the judgment of acquittal stands dismissed. ¶77

State of Karnataka Vs Vasanth Chouhan — Corruption | Karnataka HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

None; the Criminal Appeal filed under Section 378(1) and (3) Cr.P.C. seeking leave against the judgment of acquittal stands dismissed.

¶77

Issue for consideration

Whether the evidence proves demand of illegal gratification by the accused — in the absence of such proved demand, the ingredients of Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act would not be attracted. +1 more

¶68

Court's answer

In the light of the observations made, the Criminal Appeal stands dismissed.

¶77

Ratio / Principle

It is a settled principle of law that, unless it is proved that the accused had demanded illegal gratification to do some official work, mere recovery of amount from the accused is not sufficient to hold that the said amount has been received to discharge his official duty as illegal gratification.

¶72

Key takeaways

On reading the evidence of P.W.-1 (shadow witness), there is no definite demand of illegal gratification by the accused in respect of discharge of his official duty.ratio¶67
On careful reading of the evidence of P.W.-1 and P.W.-2, there is no whisper regarding demand of illegal gratification; therefore, considering the evidence of the other witnesses was not required in the Court's opinion.ratio¶73

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

High Court of Karnataka (S Rachaiah, J.), CRL.A No. 1015 of 2013, decided 26.11.2025 (NC: 2025:KHC:56718): Criminal appeal by the State (Lokayukta Police) under Section 378(1) and (3) Cr.P.C. for leave against the judgment of acquittal dated 12.03.2013 in Spl.Case No.680/2011 (Prl.S.J., Bangalore Rural District), whereby the respondent, a Surveyor, was acquitted of offences under Section 7, 13(1)(d) r/w Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act — DISMISSED. Re-appreciating the evidence of P.W.1 (shadow witness) and P.W.2 (complainant), the Court found 'no whisper regarding demand of illegal gratification'; it held that unless demand of illegal gratification for official work is proved, mere recovery of amount from the accused is not sufficient to establish receipt of illegal gratification, and that in the absence of demand the ingredients of Section 7 would not be attracted. Trap particulars: Crime No.15/2010; pre-trap panchanama; phenolphthalein-treated notes; Rs.2,000/- paid at the accused's residence at Anekal on 14.07.2010; alleged demand of Rs.6,000/- against an application dated 19.03.2010 for phody work (fee Rs.200/-). Acquittal left undisturbed.

¶1

1 - NC: 2025:KHC:56718 CRL.A No. 1015 of 2013

¶2

HC-KAR

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 26^TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2025

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S RACHAIAH CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 1015 OF 2013 (A-)

BETWEEN:

STATE OF KARNATAKA

BY LOKAYUKTA POLICE

BANGALORE RURAL

DISTRICT, BANGALORE

… APPELLANT

(BY SRI. B.S.PRASAD, SPL.PP.)

¶13

Digitally signed by SREEDHARAN BANGALORE SUSHMA LAKSHMI Location: High Court of Karnataka

¶14

AND:

¶15

VASANTH CHOUHAN S/O HARISCHANDRA

AGED 39 YEARS

SURVEYOR, OFFICE OF

TAHSILDAR, ANEKAL

BANGALORE RURAL DIST. …RESPONDENT

¶20

¶21

NC: 2025:KHC:56718 CRL.A No. 1015 of 2013

¶22

HC-KAR

¶23

(BY SRI. I.S.PRAMOD CHANDRA, ADV.)

¶24

¶25

THIS CRL.A. IS FILED UNDER SECTION 378(1) AND (3) CR.P.C., PRAYING THAT THIS HON’BLE COURT MAY BE PLEASED TO GRANT LEAVE TO APPEAL AGAINST THE JUDGMENT OF ACQUITTAL DATED 12.03.2013 PASSED BY THE PRL.S.J., BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT BANGALORE IN SPL.CASE NO.680/2011 – ACQUITTING THE RESPONDENT/ACCUSED FOR THE OFFENCE UNDER SECTION 7,13(1)(d) R/W SECTION 13(2) OF PREVENTION OF CORRUPTION ACT.

¶26

THIS APPEAL HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED ON 05.06.2025 AND COMING ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT OF JUDGMENT, THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶27

CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S RACHAIAH

¶28

¶29

NC: 2025:KHC:56718 CRL.A No. 1015 of 2013

¶30

HC-KAR

¶31

CAV JUDGMENT

¶32

(PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.RACHAIAH)

¶33

This Criminal Appeal has been filed by the appellant, being aggrieved by the judgment of acquittal dated 12.03.2013 passed in Spl.Case.No.680/2011 on the file of Principal District

¶34

and Sessions Judge, Bangalore Rural District, Bangalore.

¶35

The ranks of the parties in the Trial Court, henceforth, will be considered as per their rankings in the Trial Court.

¶36

Factual matrix of the case:

¶37

The case of the prosecution is that, a complaint

¶38

came to be registered by the complainant on 13.07.2010 stating that he is an agriculturist and having immovable property measuring 01 acre 35 guntas in Sy.No.38/6.

¶39

It is further stated that on 19.03.2010 he had filed an application to the Office of the Surveyor to get the phody work done by paying the necessary fee of Rs.200/-. After filing the application, he went to the Office of the Survey and met the Survey Officer. It is alleged that the Surveyor had demanded the illegal gratification of Rs.6,000/- to get his work done. It is

¶40

4 - NC: 2025:KHC:56718 CRL.A No. 1015 of 2013

¶41

HC-KAR

¶42

further stated that as the complainant was unable to pay the said amount he requested the Surveyor to reduce the amount. Therefore, the complainant lodges a complaint before the respondent-Lokayukta Police.

¶43

The Lokayukta-Police after registering the case in Crime No.15/2010 completed the formalities of pre-trap panchanama which was held in the Office of Lokayukta. Thereafter, on 14.07.2010 at about 6.30 a.m., the currency notes were produced by C.W.-1. Again, the Lokayukta-Police applied the phenolphthalein powder and handed over the same to C.W.-3, he verified the notes and placed the same in the left pocket of the complainant.

¶44

It is further stated that all the officials including the witnesses reached the residence of the accused situated at Anekal, the vehicle was parked at a distance of 200 feet away from the residence and it is stated that complainant had handed over the amount of Rs.2,000/- to the appellant and appellant has received the same and counted the notes and kept in the shirt pocket. Thereafter, it was informed to the respondent – Lokayukta Police, the respondent – Lokayukta

¶45

5 - NC: 2025:KHC:56718 CRL.A No. 1015 of 2013

¶46

HC-KAR

¶47

Police rushed to the spot and conducted search and seizure and arrested the accused. Thereafter, charge-sheet has been submitted after conducting the investigation. The Trial Court acquitted the accused/appellant, being aggrieved by the same they preferred this appeal.

¶48

In order to prove the case of the prosecution, the prosecution examined 04 witnesses as P.W.1 to P.W.4 and got marked 16 documents as Ex-P.1 to Ex-P.16 and also identified 11 material objects as M.O.1 to M.O.11. On the other hand, Ex-D.1 was marked through cross-examination by the defence.

¶49

Heard Sri.B.S.Prasad, learned Special Public

¶50

Prosecutor for appellant and Sri. I.S. Pramod Chandra, learned counsel for respondent.

¶51

It is the submission of learned Special Public Prosecutor that, the judgment of acquittal passed by the Trial Court is contrary to the evidence on record. Therefore, it is liable to be set aside.

¶52

It is further submitted that, the evidence of P.W.1 and P.W.2 is consistent that an amount of Rs.2,000/- was paid

¶53

6 - NC: 2025:KHC:56718 CRL.A No. 1015 of 2013

¶54

HC-KAR

¶55

in the residence of accused. However, the Trial Court has failed to consider the said aspect and passed the impugned judgment. It is further submitted that the Trial Court has opined that the explanation offered by the accused before the Investigating Officer ought to have been considered as one of the corroborative materials. However, the Trial Court did not consider the said aspect.

¶56

The learned Special Prosecutor vehemently contended that, the Trial Court ought to have raised presumption provided under Section 20 of the P.C. Act, however, the same has not been considered properly. Consequently, the impugned judgment is passed which requires to be set aside.

¶57

Per Contra, the learned counsel for respondent, vehemently justified the judgment of acquittal passed by the Trial Court and contended that, the evidence of P.W.-1 has rightly been dealt with by the Trial Court. In fact, P.W.-1 had also applied for the said phody work and he is an interested witness. As P.W.-1 is an interested witness, his evidence in respect of demand of illegal gratification ought not to be

¶58

¶59

NC: 2025:KHC:56718 CRL.A No. 1015 of 2013

¶60

HC-KAR

¶61

considered. The Trial Court has rightly rejected the evidence of P.W.-1 and also dis-believed his evidence and rightly recorded the acquittal which is proper and appropriate. Interference with the said findings may not be proper. Making such submissions learned counsel for the respondent prays to dismiss the appeal.

¶62

Heard the learned counsel for the respective parties and also perused the findings of the Trial Court in recording the acquittal, it is relevant to refer the evidence of prosecution for the purpose of re-appreciation.

¶63

P.W.1 is stated to be the shadow witness to the case. According to him, he and P.W.2 went to the house of accused. The accused was living at Anekal. P.W.-1 along with complainant stated to have gone to house of the accused and paid the amount of Rs.2,000/- on demand as illegal gratification. However, in the cross-examination it is suggested to him that the complainant has thrusted the amount deliberately with an intention to implicate the accused in a false case, the said suggestion has been denied by P.W.-1. Further, it is suggested to him that he had also applied for phody work to be carried out to his land, he admitted the same in the

¶64

¶65

NC: 2025:KHC:56718 CRL.A No. 1015 of 2013

¶66

HC-KAR

¶67

cross-examination. On reading the evidence of P.W.-1, it appears that there is no definite demand of illegal gratification by the accused in respect of discharge of his official duty.

¶68

P.W.-2 is stated to be the complainant. As per his evidence he had applied for survey on 19.03.2010. The work was entrusted to the accused. Accordingly, it is stated that he had approached the accused on 13.07.2010 at his office attached to his residence, requested to carry survey work. However, he had demanded illegal gratification of Rs.6,000/-. Though, he had expressed his inability to pay the amount, the accused had demanded Rs.2,000/- as advance and asked him to pay the balance of Rs.4,000/- after completion of the survey work. Further, it is stated that the complainant had paid the amount of Rs.2,000/- as illegal gratification as demanded by the accused. On reading the evidence of this witness, it appears that the demand of illegal gratification remained absent. In the absence of demand of illegal gratification, the ingredients of Section 7 would not be attracted.

¶69

It is settled principle of law that, unless, it is proved that the accused had demanded illegal gratification to do some

¶70

¶71

NC: 2025:KHC:56718 CRL.A No. 1015 of 2013

¶72

HC-KAR

¶73

official work, mere recovery of amount from the accused is not sufficient to hold that the said amount has been received to discharge his official duty as illegal gratification.

¶74

In the present case, on careful reading of the evidence of P.W.-1 and P.W.-2, there is no whisper regarding demand of illegal gratification. Therefore, considering the evidence of other witnesses, in my considered opinion may not be required.

¶75