Sri Madhusudhan B R @ Madhu Vs State by

SRI.MADHUSUDHAN B.R. @ MADHU S/O LATE RAMAKRISHNAPPA AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS R/AT NO.13 1^ST FLOOR 6^TH A CROSS TRINITY ENCLAVE BANJARA LAYOUT HORAMAVU BANGALORE – 560 043

¶11

… APPELLANT

¶12

(BY SRI.MAHESH S., ADVOCATE)

¶13

AND:

¶14

STATE BY KARNATAKA LOKAYUKTA BENGALURU URBAN POLICE STATION (THEN ANTI CORRUPTION BUREAU)

¶15

2 -

¶16

NC: 2025:KHC:39304 CRL.A No. 1884 of 2024

¶17

HC-KAR

¶18

BENGALURU – 560 001

¶19

REP. BY SPECIAL PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶20

BENGALURU – 560 001

¶21

…RESPONDENT

¶22

(BY SRI.VENKATESH S. ARBATTI, SPL.P.P.)

¶23

¶24

THIS APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 374(2) CR.P.C.

¶25

PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER OF CONVICTION AND SENTENCE DATED 11.09.2024 PASSED BY THE HON’BLE XXIII ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE AND SPECIAL JUDGE (P.C. ACT) BENGALURU URBAN DISTRICT, BENGALURU CITY (CCH-24) IN SPECIAL C.C.NO.738/2018, CONVICTING THIS APPELLANT FOR OFFENCE PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTION 12 OF PC ACT.

¶26

THIS APPEAL HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED ON 01.09.2025 AND COMING ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT OF JUDGMENT, THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶27

3 -

¶28

NC: 2025:KHC:39304 CRL.A No. 1884 of 2024

¶29

HC-KAR

¶30

CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S RACHAIAH

¶31

CAV JUDGMENT

¶32

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

¶33

This appeal is filed by the appellant / accused No.2, being aggrieved by the judgment of conviction and order on sentence dated 11.09.2024 in Special C.C. No.738/2018 on the file of the XXIII Additional City Civil & Sessions Judge & Special Judge (P.C. Act), Bengaluru (C.C.H. No.24), wherein the Trial Court recorded the conviction for the offences punishable under Section 12 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (for short ‘P.C. Act’).

¶34

The ranks of the parties henceforth will be referred to as per their rankings in the Trial Court, for convenience.

¶35

Factual matrix of the case :

¶36

It is the case of the prosecution that, the complainant had approached the accused No.1 for the purpose of getting the RRT changed in respect of his land bearing Sy.No.56 of Gottigere Village, to the extent of 1 acre 37 guntas. The accused No.1 being a Special Tahsildar and Executive Magistrate of Bengaluru South Taluk,

¶37

4 -

¶38

NC: 2025:KHC:39304 CRL.A No. 1884 of 2024

¶39

HC-KAR

¶40

Bengaluru, is stated to have demanded a sum of Rs.20,00,000/- to do the official favour. On negotiations, the said amount has been scaled down to an extent of Rs.15,00,000/-. The complainant was asked to pay a sum of Rs.5,00,000/- immediately and the balance amount to be paid at the time of passing the said order.

¶41

The complainant being annoyed and unhappy about the said development, he approached the Lokayukta Police and lodged a complaint in that regard. The complainant was given the voice recorder and also the pre-trap panchanama was prepared. Subsequently, the complainant was sent along with the shadow witness. Both the complainant and the shadow witness went to the office of the Tahsildar. However, they did not find the Tahsildar in his seat. Thereafter, on 18.12.2017, the complainant and the shadow witness approached accused No.1. The complainant was asked as to whether if he had brought the amount. When the complainant was about to give the amount, he was asked to wait and also instructed him that he should give the said amount to

¶42

5 -

¶43

NC: 2025:KHC:39304 CRL.A No. 1884 of 2024

¶44

HC-KAR

¶45

accused No.2. When the amount was handed over to

¶46

accused No.2, a trap was laid and he was arrested.

¶47

On the statement of accused No.2, even the accused No.1 was also arrested. Both were produced before the learned Magistrate and they were remanded to judicial custody.

¶48

The respondent - Police after conducting the investigation, submitted the charge sheet. The Trial Court recorded the conviction. Being aggrieved by the same, the accused No.2 has approached this Court by filing this appeal.

¶49

Heard Sri Mahesh S., learned counsel for the appellant and Sri Venkatesh S. Arbatti, learned Spl. P.P. for respondent – Lokayukta.

¶50

It is the submission of the learned counsel for the appellant that the judgment of conviction passed by the Trial Court is erroneous and not sustainable either in law or on facts, hence, the same is liable to be set aside.

¶51

It is the submission of the learned counsel for the appellant that accused No.2 is a private person. The offence under which he has been convicted is Section 12

¶52

6 -

¶53

NC: 2025:KHC:39304 CRL.A No. 1884 of 2024

¶54

HC-KAR

¶55

of the PC Act, however, the prosecution has failed to prove or establish the nexus between accused No.2 with accused No.1.

¶56

In the absence of proof regarding the instruction of accused No.1 to receive the amount from the complainant, it would not be appropriate to hold that the appellant is guilty of the offence of which he has been convicted. Making such submissions, learned counsel for the appellant prays to allow the appeal.

¶57

Per contra , learned Spl. P.P. for the respondent - Lokayukta justified the judgment of conviction passed against accused No.2 and he stated that the Trial Court has rightly recorded the conviction. The appellant, in fact, abetted the crime. Therefore, there is no ground made out by the appellant to interfere with the judgment of the Trial Court, hence, the same is liable to be dismissed. Making such submissions, learned Spl. P.P. prays to dismiss the appeal.

¶58

Having considered the rival submissions of the learned counsel for their respective parties, it is appropriate to refer Section 12 of the PC Act, which reads as under:

¶59

7 - NC: 2025:KHC:39304 CRL.A No. 1884 of 2024

¶60

HC-KAR

¶61

“12. Whoever abets any offence punishable under this Act, whether or not that offence is committed in consequence of that abetment, shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which shall be not less than three years, but which may extend to seven years and shall also be liable to fine.”

¶62

A bare reading of the above said provision makes it clear that, whoever abets any offence, either under Section 7 or 11 of the Act, whether or not that offence is committed in consequence of the said abetment, shall be convicted not less than three years.

¶63

In the present case, it is alleged that, accused No.2 was working for accused No.1 and he used to receive the illegal gratification, on instruction of accused No.1, from the parties. However, the Investigating Officer has not collected any CDR to demonstrate that accused No.1, on that particular day, had called accused No.2 and introduced the complainant and also instructed accused No.2 to receive the amount. Though, the learned Special P.P. relied on the confessional statement of accused No.2

¶64

to demonstrate that there is a nexus between accused

¶65

8 -

¶66

NC: 2025:KHC:39304 CRL.A No. 1884 of 2024

¶67

HC-KAR

¶68

Nos.1 and 2, in fact, the statement made by the co-accused, when he was in custody of the police, cannot be considered as against another co-accused. In fact, it is hit by Sections 24 and 25 of the Indian Evidence Act. Hence, such statements are of no consequence.

¶69

It is in fact the evidence of P.W.6 would indicate that, immediately after conducting the trap and apprehending accused No.2, his pant has not been washed to demonstrate that, the bait amount was kept inside the pocket, which creates a doubt and also contrary to the evidence of P.W.2. Further, it is admitted in the crossexamination that, no documents were collected to show the nexus between accused Nos.1 and 2. Therefore, I am of the considered opinion that the ingredients of Section 12 of the PC Act cannot be attracted against the appellant, as the prosecution has failed to establish the nexus between accused No.1 with accused No.2. Hence, the judgment of conviction is liable to be set aside. Therefore, I am of the considered opinion that the appellant has made out a case to interfere with the judgment of conviction passed by the Trial Court.

¶70

9 - NC: 2025:KHC:39304 CRL.A No. 1884 of 2024

¶71

HC-KAR

¶72

In the light of the observations made above, I proceed to pass the following:

¶73

ORDER

¶74

i) The Criminal Appeal is allowed .

¶75

ii) The judgment of conviction and order on sentence dated 11.09.2024 passed in Special C.C. No.738/2018 on the file of the XXIII Additional City Civil & Sessions Judge & Special Judge (P.C. Act), Bengaluru (C.C.H. No.24), insofar as appellant / accused No.2 is concerned, is set aside.

¶76

iii) The appellant / accused No.2 is acquitted for the offence punishable under Sec.12 of the P.C. Act.

¶77

iv) Bail bonds executed, if any, stand cancelled.

¶78

Sd/(S RACHAIAH) JUDGE

¶79

Bss

Sri Madhusudhan B R @ Madhu v. State by

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri Madhusudhan B R @ Madhu v. State by

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Harish @ Handi Harish Vs the State of Karnataka by

Irene Omoibe Alias Iryan Vs Union of India

Sri.Yashwanth @ Micky Vs State of Karnataka by

Prabhu @ Yesu Vs State of Karnataka

Shri. B S Venkatachalapathy Vs State of Karnataka

Sri G K Harish Rajan Vs Smt Hema Reddy