Shivakumar v Vs State of Karnataka

CHETAN K N S/O. LATE NARASAPPA AGED 28 YEARS PEON (CONTACT EMPLOYEE) R/O. KODIGEHALLI VILLAGE THYAMAGONDLU HOBLI NELAMANGALA TALUK BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT-562132.

¶13

…APPELLANT

¶14

(BY SRI. HONNAPPA S.,ADVOCATE)

¶15

Digitally signed by KHAJAAMEEN MALAGHAN Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶16

AND:

¶17

STATE OF KARNATAKA TRHOUGH ANTI CORRUPTION BUREAU BANGALORE CITY DIVISION REPRESENTED BY SPECIAL PUBLIC PROSECUTOR BANGALORE – 560001.

¶18

…RESPONDENT

¶19

(BY SRI. B.B.PATIL, SPL.P.P. FOR RESPONDENT)

¶20

2 -

¶21

NC: 2025:KHC:22715 CRL.A No. 508 of 2022 C/W CRL.A No. 477 of 2022

¶22

HC-KAR

¶23

THIS CRL.A FILED U/S.374(2) CR.P.C PRAYING TO CALL FOR THE RECORDS & SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND SENTENCE DATED 16.03.2022, PASSED BY THE XXIII ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE AND SPECIAL JUDGE (PC ACT) BENGALURU (C.CH.NO.24) IN SPL.C.C.NO.221/2021 AND CONSEQUENTLY ACQUIT THE APPELLANT OF THE CHARGES UNDER SECTION 12 OF THE PREVENTION OF CORRUPTION ACT 1988.

¶24

IN CRL.A NO. 477/2022

¶25

BETWEEN:

¶26

SHIVAKUMAR V S/O. VEERABHADRAIAH, NOW AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS, POLICE SUB INSPECTOR BMTF POLICE STATION, BENGALURU. R/AT NO.155, AGS COLONY, 1ST MAIN, ANANDA NAGAR, BENGALIRI-560004. PERMANENT R/O. ADAKAVALA BHAKATRAHALLI POST, DODDABALLAPURA TALUK, BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT-561203.

¶27

...APPELLANT

¶28

(BY SRI.P N HEGDE., ADVOCATE)

¶29

AND:

¶30

STATE OF KARNATAKA THROUGH ANTI-CORRUPTION BUREAU, BENGALURU CITY DIVISION, REPRESENTED BY SPECIAL PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, BENGALURU – 560001.

¶31

...RESPONDENT

¶32

(BY SRI.B B PATIL, SPL.PP., FOR RESPONDENT)

¶33

3 - NC: 2025:KHC:22715 CRL.A No. 508 of 2022 C/W CRL.A No. 477 of 2022

¶34

HC-KAR

¶35

THIS CRL.A FILED U/S.374(2) CR.P.C PRAYING TO CALL FOR THE RECORDS & SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND ORDER DATED 16.03.2022, PASSED BY THE XXIII ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE AND SPECIAL JUDGE (PC ACT) BENGALURU (C.CH.NO.24) IN SPL.C.C.NO.221/2021 AND CONSEQUENTLY ACQUIT THE APPELLANT OF THE CHARGES UNDER SECTIONS 7(a) OF THE PREVENTION OF CORRUPTION ACT 1988.

¶36

THESE APPEALS HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED FOR JUDGMENT ON 03.04.2025, COMING ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:

¶37

CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE MOHAMMAD NAWAZ

¶38

CAV JUDGMENT

¶39

These appeals are directed against the judgment and

¶40

order dated 16.03.2022 passed by the Court of the XXIII Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge and Special Judge (PC Act) Bengaluru in Spl.C.C.No.221/2021.

¶41

Vide impugned judgment, accused No.1 is convicted for the offence punishable under Section 7(a) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (‘PC Act’ for short) and accused No.2 for the offence punishable under Section 12 of the PC Act.

¶42

4 -

¶43

NC: 2025:KHC:22715 CRL.A No. 508 of 2022 C/W CRL.A No. 477 of 2022

¶44

HC-KAR

¶45

Accused No.2 has been acquitted of the offence punishable under Section 7(a) of the PC Act.

¶46

The trial Court has sentenced accused No.1 to undergo S.I. for a period of 3 years and to pay a fine of Rs.25,000/-, in default of payment of fine, to undergo S.I. for a further period of 3 months, for the offence under Section 7(a) of the PC Act.

¶47

Accused No.2 is sentenced to undergo S.I. for a period of 3 years and to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/-, in default of payment of fine, to undergo S.I. for a further period of 1 month for the offence under Section 12 of the PC Act.

¶48

Aggrieved by the judgment and order of conviction and sentence, accused No.1 has preferred Crl.A No.477/2022 and accused No.2 has preferred Crl.A No.508/2022.

¶49

Brief facts of the prosecution case:- The first informant/PW.3 is the owner of a site bearing No.549/3/60/2, located at 1^st Cross, near Basavanna

¶50

5 - NC: 2025:KHC:22715 CRL.A No. 508 of 2022 C/W CRL.A No. 477 of 2022

¶51

HC-KAR

¶52

Temple, Arehalli, Uttarahalli Hobli, Subramanyapura Post, Bengaluru, measuring 26.5 x 30 ft. On 29.09.2018, he commenced construction of a compound wall around the said property. However, certain residents of the adjacent plots objected, alleging that he has encroached upon a public road and demanded that space be left for the road. Following a complaint lodged by some residents of Arehalli Village, BMTF Police issued a notice to him and he was summoned to appear before accused No.1 working as a PSI in BMTF Police Station. Accused No.1 demanded an illegal gratification of Rs.80,000/- for closing the case. Upon negotiation, he reduced the demand to Rs.70,000/-. On 02.11.2018, first informant visited the office of BMTF. Accused No.2 working as a Clerk/Office Assistant collected Rs.20,000/- on behalf of accused No.1. When the balance bribe amount was demanded, on 07.11.2018, complainant approached the Anti corruption Bureau (ACB) Police and lodged a complaint. The ACB Police conducted pre-trap formalities and set a trap operation, wherein the tainted

¶53

6 - NC: 2025:KHC:22715 CRL.A No. 508 of 2022 C/W CRL.A No. 477 of 2022

¶54

HC-KAR

¶55

bribe amount of Rs.50,000/- was recovered from accused No.2.

¶56

Upon completion of investigation and securing

¶57

the requisite sanction, charge sheet was filed under Section 7(a) and 12 of the PC Act.

¶58

Before the trial Court, prosecution got examined

¶59

PWs.1 to 10, got marked Exs.P1 to P45 and MOs.1 to 10. The defence got examined Exs.D1 to D5.

¶60

The trial Court convicted and sentenced accused No.1 for the offence punishable under Section 7(a) of the PC Act and accused No.2 for the offence punishable under Section 12 of the PC Act as noted supra and acquitted accused No.2 of the offence punishable under Section 7(a) of the PC Act.

¶61

Heard the arguments of learned counsel for appellants and learned Spl.PP for respondent/State and perused the evidence and material on record.

¶62

7 - NC: 2025:KHC:22715 CRL.A No. 508 of 2022 C/W CRL.A No. 477 of 2022

¶63

HC-KAR

¶64

The learned counsel for appellants have

¶65

contended as under:

¶66

(i) The learned trial Court has erred in appreciating the evidence in a manner known to law and has arrived at an erroneous conclusion by convicting the appellants despite the absence of substantive and cogent evidence.

¶67

(ii) Demand and conscious acceptance of illegal gratification are sine qua non to establish an offence under Section 7 of the PC Act, whereas, in the present case the prosecution has failed to prove either of these core ingredients.

¶68

(iii) Complainant/PW.3, a pivotal witness in a trap case has completely turned hostile and even the shadow witness/PW.4 has categorically admitted that he did not enter the chamber and remained outside the main door and therefore, unaware of what transpired between the complainant and the accused.

¶69

8 - NC: 2025:KHC:22715 CRL.A No. 508 of 2022 C/W CRL.A No. 477 of 2022

¶70

HC-KAR

¶71

(iv) During the trap proceedings, the I.O. conducted personal search of both the accused and found nothing incriminating. This significant fact, which supports the defence version was suppressed in the trap mahazar and ignored by the trial Court.

¶72

(v) There is absolutely no recovery of any tainted currency notes from accused No.1. The recovery of the notes from accused No.2 is shrouded with doubtful circumstances.

¶73

(vi) Accused No.1 was not the deciding authority in the matter concerning the complainant’s property. Hence, there was no occasion for him to demand any illegal gratification.

¶74

(vii) The learned trial Court has mechanically applied the ‘presumption’ under Section 20 of the PC Act, even though the prosecution failed to establish demand and acceptance, which are necessary to invoke the said provision.

¶75

9 - NC: 2025:KHC:22715 CRL.A No. 508 of 2022 C/W CRL.A No. 477 of 2022

¶76

HC-KAR

¶77

(viii) The electronic evidence, including audio recordings and forensic reports, was rejected by the trial Court. Once the oral testimony of the complainant was disbelieved and electronic evidence was discarded, the conviction of the appellants is wholly unsustainable.

¶78

(ix) The prosecution failed to establish conscious acceptance and lawful recovery of illegal gratification from accused No.2. No witness saw the said accused receiving money from the complainant. Specific case of the prosecution is that the tainted currency was kept in a tray. The unexplained sequence seriously undermines the credibility of recovery.

¶79

(x) The inconsistencies, procedural lapses and absence of direct evidence negate the essential requirement of conscious acceptance under the PC Act. The conviction is therefore vitiated.

¶80

(xi) The prosecution withheld the key witnesses who were present during the trap. Their statements were not

¶81

10 - NC: 2025:KHC:22715 CRL.A No. 508 of 2022 C/W CRL.A No. 477 of 2022

¶82

HC-KAR

¶83

recorded or produced, raising serious doubts. The Courts failure to draw an adverse inference in this regard is a serious lapse.

¶84

(xii) The sanction order is vitiated due to lack of

¶85

proper application of mind by the sanctioning authority.

¶86

(xiii) In a parallel departmental enquiry initiated on

¶87

the basis of the same investigation papers and witnesses as in the present criminal case, the enquiry officer has held none of the charges were proved against accused No.1.

¶88

The learned Special Prosecutor has contended as under:

¶89

(i) Exs.P1 and P2 are the sanction orders issued by

¶90

PWs.1 and 2, competent authority to accord sanction to prosecution accused Nos.1 and 2. The trial Court has rightly concluded that there was proper application of mind in issuing Exs.P1 and P2.

¶91

(ii) PW.4/shadow witness has supported the prosecution case. His evidence is corroborated by the

¶92

11 -

¶93

NC: 2025:KHC:22715 CRL.A No. 508 of 2022 C/W CRL.A No. 477 of 2022

¶94

HC-KAR

¶95

evidence of PWs.6 and 9. The tainted currency was

¶96

recovered from the pant pocket of accused No.2. The allegation that accused No.2 was coerced into signing Ex.P28 is not proved.

¶97

(iii) The evidence establishes that accused No.1 was present in his office and asked accused No.2 to receive the bribe amount on his behalf. No credible explanation was provided by accused No.2 regarding possession of the tainted cash.

¶98

(iv) The demand and acceptance of the bribe was proved and the accused has failed to rebut the presumption under Section 20 of the PC Act.

¶99

(v) The exoneration of accused No.1 in disciplinary proceedings is not fatal to the prosecution.

¶100

(vi) Even if the complainant has turned hostile, in the absence of primary evidence, it is permissible to accept the circumstantial evidence and in the present case the evidence of shadow witness corroborated by the testimony

¶101

12 -

¶102

NC: 2025:KHC:22715 CRL.A No. 508 of 2022 C/W CRL.A No. 477 of 2022

¶103

HC-KAR

¶104

PWs.6 and 9, prosecution has established the guilt of the

¶105

accused.

¶106

Among the witnesses examined by the

¶107

prosecution, PW.1 is the ADGP, Bengaluru, who issued Ex.P1 – Sanction order to prosecute accused No.1, PW.2 is the MD, KEONICS, who issued Ex.P2 – sanction order to prosecute accused No.2, PW.3 is the complainant, PW.4 is the shadow witness, PW.5 assisted in the investigation, PW.6 is the Dy.SP., ACB, who received the complaint – Ex.P3 and registered the case, PW.7 is the Assistant Director, FSL, from whom Exs.P31 to 36 are got marked, PW.8 is the Investigation Officer who filed charge sheet after receiving sanction order in respect of accused No.2, PW.9 is the Investigation Officer who conducted investigation, and PW.10 is the Police Inspector who secured the sanction order – Ex.P1.

¶108

It is the specific case of the prosecution that the

¶109

complainant had undertaken construction of a compound wall around his property and certain residents of the

¶110

13 - NC: 2025:KHC:22715 CRL.A No. 508 of 2022 C/W CRL.A No. 477 of 2022

¶111

HC-KAR

¶112

adjacent plots had objected alleging encroachment of the road by him and therefore, filed a petition before the BMTF Police. When the complainant approached accused No.1 working as a PSI, he demanded a bribe of Rs.80,000/- to close the case and then reduced the demand to Rs.70,000/-. He then paid a sum of Rs.20,000/- to accused No.2, working as a Clerk on contract basis in the said Police station, on 02.11.2018, who received the said bribe on behalf of accused No.1. Thereafter, on a complaint lodged by PW.3, a trap was laid. PW.3 accompanied with PW.4 went to BMTF Police Station, wherein, the complainant kept the tainted currency of Rs.50,000/- in a tray, as per the instruction of accused No.1 and the said tainted currency was recovered from accused No.2.

¶113

It is contended that the sanction orders were issued mechanically without application of mind and verification of documents.

¶114

14 - NC: 2025:KHC:22715 CRL.A No. 508 of 2022 C/W CRL.A No. 477 of 2022

¶115

HC-KAR

¶116

It is not in dispute that at the time of incident,

¶117

accused No.1 was working as a Police sub-Inspector. He has not disputed the fact that PW.1, ADGP is the competent authority to accord sanction to the officer working in the cadre of Sub-Inspector of Police. PW.1 has deposed about according sanction order as per Ex.P1, to prosecute accused No.1. It cannot be said that, accused No.1 working as a Police Sub-Inspector in the BMTF was not authorized to conduct enquiry and submit report with regard to the complaint received by the BMTF Police.

¶118

Similarly, PW.2 namely the Managing Director, KENOICS has deposed that accused No.2, a Clerk was deputed to BMTF Police Station to work on contract basis and he was the authority to remove him from service. He has deposed that after verifying all the documents such as complaint, FIR, pre-trap and trap mahazars etc. He accorded sanction as per Ex.P2.

¶119

The testimony of PWs.1 and 2 would confirm that after applying the mind and scrutinizing the

¶120

15 - NC: 2025:KHC:22715 CRL.A No. 508 of 2022 C/W CRL.A No. 477 of 2022

¶121

HC-KAR

¶122

documents, Exs.P1 and P2 were issued. The trial Court has observed, the presumption under law remains that, unless proven otherwise, the sanctioning authority acted fairly and objectively. The said finding of the trial Court cannot be found fault with.

¶123

The complainant is examined as PW.3.

¶124

However, he has turned hostile and completely denied the prosecution case. A perusal of his evidence would suggest that except preparation of the pre-trap mahazar, he has

¶125

not supported the demand of bribe amount by accused No.1, recording of the conversation and seizure of the tainted currency notes from accused No.2. He has deposed that he placed the tainted cash of Rs.50,000/- in a tray which was on a table in the cabin of accused No.1. He has

¶126

nowhere stated that he kept the money on a demand made by accused No.1 or at his instruction. He was treated hostile by the prosecution, but nothing worthwhile was elicited to establish either the demand or acceptance of bribe by the accused.

¶127

16 - NC: 2025:KHC:22715 CRL.A No. 508 of 2022 C/W CRL.A No. 477 of 2022

¶128

HC-KAR

¶129

The trial Court has observed that PW.3 has not

¶130

supported the prosecution case in its entirety and denied lodging of Ex.P3, but admitted receiving of notice from the BMTF Police, appearing before accused No.1, production of Rs.50,000/- cash before the I.O., and keeping the said cash in the tray kept on the table of BMTF Police Station. The trial Court has come to the wrong conclusion that the tainted currency was placed in the tray in the presence of accused No.1, though nowhere PW.3 has stated in his deposition that he kept the cash in the tray, in the presence of accused No.1.

¶131

Admittedly, the tainted cash was not seized from accused No.1. According to prosecution, he instructed accused No.2 to collect the money and later the raiding team seized the cash from accused No.2 under a mahazar-Ex.P5.

¶132

PW.4 is the shadow witness who was sent along

¶133

with PW.3 to the office of the BMTF. He was instructed by the I.O., to accompany PW.3 and to observe the

¶134

17 -

¶135

NC: 2025:KHC:22715 CRL.A No. 508 of 2022 C/W CRL.A No. 477 of 2022

¶136

HC-KAR

¶137

conversation and as to what transpires between the accused and PW.3. In so far as the entrustment mahazar – Ex.P4 is concerned, PW.4 has deposed about applying the phenolphthalein powder on the cash produced by PW.3 and the test conducted. His testimony goes to show that, he was instructed by the I.O., not to go inside the office of BMTF, if someone raises any doubt. He has deposed that PW.3 entered the office, but he remained at the door. The I.O., and CW.3 (PW.5) were standing near the parking place. Thereafter, PW.3 came out of the office and gave signal to the police.

¶138

The trial Court while appreciating the evidence

¶139

of PW.4 has stated that he was present along with PW.3 when he entered the BMTF Police Station and he could witness the transaction between PW.3 and accused No.1 and also he could hear their conversation. This reasoning is only unsustainable, as PW.4 has nowhere stated that he

¶140

has either heard the conversation between PW.3 and accused No.1 or seen the transaction, where accused No.1

¶141

18 -

¶142

NC: 2025:KHC:22715 CRL.A No. 508 of 2022 C/W CRL.A No. 477 of 2022

¶143

HC-KAR

¶144

demanding bribe or telling PW.3 to keep the cash in a tray.

¶145

The trial Court accepted the evidence of PWs.4 and 9 to come to a conclusion that accused No.1 has directed PW.3 to keep the amount in the tray, whereas, PW.3 himself has denied the said crucial aspect.

¶146

It is relevant to reiterate the settled position of law that, in order to attract the provisions of Section 7(a) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, the prosecution must establish the three essential ingredients: (i) that the accused was a public servant; (ii) that there was a demand for illegal gratification in the discharge of official duties with a view to show official favour or disfavour; and (iii) that there was conscious acceptance and recovery of the tainted amount from the accused. While it is true that in the absence of direct or primary evidence, the prosecution

¶147

may rely on circumstantial evidence, the burden lies on the prosecution to establish each circumstance with clarity and precision.

¶148

19 - NC: 2025:KHC:22715 CRL.A No. 508 of 2022 C/W CRL.A No. 477 of 2022

¶149

HC-KAR

¶150

The learned Special Public Prosecutor placing reliance on the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of C.M.Sharma v. State of Andhra Pradesh reported in (2010) 15 SCC 1, has contended that ‘bribe is

¶151

not taken in public view and therefore, there may not be any person who could see the giving and taking of bribe and corroboration of evidence of a witness is required when his evidence is not wholly reliable’. It is his contention that the evidence of the shadow witness throws sufficient light to hold the accused guilty of the charges levelled against them.

¶152

Relying on a decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in Pavan Kumar @ Monu Mittal v. State of Uttar Pradesh and another reported in (2015) 7 SCC 148, it is contented that in cases where the direct evidence is scarce, the burden of proving the case of the prosecution is bestowed upon motive and circumstantial evidence and it is a chain of events that acquires prime importance in such cases.

¶153

20 - NC: 2025:KHC:22715 CRL.A No. 508 of 2022 C/W CRL.A No. 477 of 2022

¶154

HC-KAR

¶155

The Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of

¶156

P.Satyanarayana Murthy v. District Inspector of Police, State of Andhra Pradesh reported in (2015) 10 SCC 152 while dealing with the requirement to prove the ingredients of Section 7 and 13(1)(d) of the PC Act, 1988, held as under:

¶157

"20. This Court in A. Subair v. State of Kerala [(2009) 6 SCC 587: (2009) 3 SCC (Cri) 85], while dwelling on the purport of the statutory prescription of Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) of the Act ruled that (at SCC p. 593, para 28) the prosecution has to prove the charge thereunder beyond reasonable doubt like any other criminal offence and that the accused should be considered to be innocent till it is established otherwise by proper proof of demand and acceptance of illegal gratification, which are vital ingredients necessary to be proved to record a conviction.

¶158

In a recent enunciation by this Court to discern the imperative prerequisites of Sections 7 and 13 of the Act, it has been

¶159

21 -

¶160

NC: 2025:KHC:22715 CRL.A No. 508 of 2022 C/W CRL.A No. 477 of 2022

¶161

HC-KAR

¶162

underlined in B. Jayaraj B. Jayaraj v. State of A.P., (2014) 13 SCC 55: (2014) 5 SCC (Cri) 543] in unequivocal terms, that mere possession and recovery of currency notes from an accused without proof of demand would not establish an offence under Section 7 as well as Sections 13(1)(d)(i) and (ii) of the Act. It has been propounded that in the absence of any proof of demand for illegal gratification, the use of corrupt or illegal means or abuse of position as a public servant to obtain any valuable thing or pecuniary advantage cannot be held to be proved. The proof of demand, thus, has been held to be an indispensable essentiality and of permeating mandate for an offence under Sections 7 and 13 of the Act. Qua Section 20 of the Act, which permits a presumption as envisaged therein, it has been held that while it is extendable only to an offence under Section 7 and not to those under Sections 13(1)(d)(1) and (ii) of the Act, it is contingent as well on the proof of acceptance of illegal gratification for doing or forbearing to do any official act. Such proof of acceptance of illegal gratification, it was emphasised, could follow only if there was proof

¶163

22 -

¶164

NC: 2025:KHC:22715 CRL.A No. 508 of 2022 C/W CRL.A No. 477 of 2022

¶165

HC-KAR

¶166

of demand. Axiomatically, it was held that in absence of proof of demand, such legal presumption under Section 20 of the Act would also not arise.

¶167

The proof of demand of illegal gratification, thus, is the gravamen of the offence under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d)(i) and (ii) of the Act and in absence thereof, unmistakably the charge therefor, would fail. Mere acceptance of any amount allegedly by way of illegal gratification or recovery thereof, dehors the proof of demand, ipso facto, would thus not be sufficient to bring home the charge under these two sections of the Act. As a corollary, failure of the prosecution to prove the demand for illegal gratification would be fatal and mere recovery of the amount from the person accused of the offence under Section 7 or 13 of the Act would not entail his conviction thereunder."26. In reiteration of the golden principle which runs through the web of administration of Justice in criminal cases, this Court in Sujit Biswas v. State of Assam [(2013) 12 SCC 406 : (2014) 1 SCC (Cri) 677] had held that suspicion, however grave, cannot take the place of proof and the

¶168

23 -

¶169

NC: 2025:KHC:22715 CRL.A No. 508 of 2022 C/W CRL.A No. 477 of 2022

¶170

HC-KAR

¶171

prosecution cannot afford to rest its case in the realm of "may be" true but has to upgrade it in the domain of "must be true in order to steer clear of any possible surmise or conjecture. It was held, that the court must ensure that miscarriage of justice is avoided and if in the facts and circumstances, two views are plausible, then the benefit of doubt must be given to the accused.”

¶172

In light of the settled position of law, it become imperative to assess whether, in the present case, the prosecution has succeeded in proving the alleged demand and conscious acceptance of bribe by the accused.

¶173

As already discussed, the evidence of PW.3, who lodged the complaint – Ex.P3 will not come to the aid of prosecution to establish that accused No.1 has either demanded or accepted bribe from him. It is relevant to mention that, according to prosecution, accused No.1 initially demanded a bribe of Rs.70,000/- and a sum of Rs.20,000/- was handed over by PW.3 to accused No.2 on 02.11.2018. Except the bald allegation, there is not an

¶174

24 -

¶175

NC: 2025:KHC:22715 CRL.A No. 508 of 2022 C/W CRL.A No. 477 of 2022

¶176

HC-KAR

¶177

iota of evidence to show that the said amount was

¶178

received by accused No.2 at the instruction of accused No.1.

¶179

It is vehemently contended by the learned counsel appearing for accused that after the trap team entered the chamber of accused No.1, they could not find the tainted cash and therefore, all the officials who were present there were subjected to personal search, but they did not find anything. Thereafter, PW.6 (Dy. SP) took accused No.2 and PW.3 outside the chamber of accused No.1 and only after his return, he indicated that the currency are in the pant pocket of accused No.2. It is contended that no witness has seen accused No.2 either receiving the tainted currency from PW.3 or accused No.1 or seen him taking the currency notes from the tray kept on the table. It is contended that the tainted currency notes were planted in the pant pocket of accused No.2 after he was taken out of the chamber of accused No.1.

¶180

25 - NC: 2025:KHC:22715 CRL.A No. 508 of 2022 C/W CRL.A No. 477 of 2022

¶181

HC-KAR

¶182

PW.4 in his cross-examination has stated that in

¶183

the office of accused No.1 there were other officials namely PSI – Amaresh Gowda, H.C. – Sumithra, PSI – Yogananda Sonal and one Raghavendra V.K., a contract worker. He has admitted that when the tainted currency was not found in the chamber of accused No.1, the Dy. SP (PW.6) and PW.3 took accused No.2 out of the chamber of accused No.1. Thereafter, accused No.2 was brought back and as instructed by the Dy. SP – Balaraju (PW.6), accused No.2 gave his statement. He has further admitted that he came to know the money was in the pant pocket of accused No.2, only after he was informed by Balaraju (Dy. SP - PW.6).

¶184

The above evidence of PW.4 clearly indicate that, initially, when searched, no amount was recovered. PW.6 – Dy. SP took accused No.2 outside the chamber of accused No.1 and after returning, informed that the cash is

¶185

in his pocket. Further, accused No.2 gave written statement as instructed by PW.6. PW.4 has clearly

¶186

26 -

¶187

NC: 2025:KHC:22715 CRL.A No. 508 of 2022 C/W CRL.A No. 477 of 2022

¶188

HC-KAR

¶189

admitted in the cross-examination that no conversation

¶190

took place between accused No.1 and PW.3 and he did not notice anything. Hence, a reasonable doubt arises in the mind of the Court about the receipt of tainted currency notes by accused No.2 from PW.3, at the instruction of accused No.1 or he collecting the amount from the tray kept on the table. Infact, PW.4 has admitted in the crossexamination that in Exs.P15 to P22 – photographs the blue colour tray is not seen on the table and the said tray was not seized by the I.O. Prosecution has not explained as to why the statements of other officials present in the office of BMTF were not recorded and not cited them as witnesses.

¶191

A cumulative reading of evidence of PWs.3, 4, 6 and 9 creates a serious doubt about the prosecution case, as projected by it and not sufficient to prove the charges levelled against the accused persons, beyond reasonable doubt. The Hon’ble Apex Court in Sujit Biswas v. State of Assam reported in (2013) 12 SCC 406 relied by the

¶192

27 -

¶193

NC: 2025:KHC:22715 CRL.A No. 508 of 2022 C/W CRL.A No. 477 of 2022

¶194

HC-KAR

¶195

learned counsel for appellants has held that Suspicion, however grave, cannot take the place of proof and the prosecution cannot afford to rest its case in the realm of “may be” true but has to upgrade it in the domain of “must be true” in order to steer clear of any possible surmise or conjecture. It is held, the court must ensure that miscarriage of justice is avoided and if in the facts and circumstances, two views are plausible, then the benefit of doubt must be given to the accused.”

¶196

As far as the evidence with regard to the conversation between the complainant and the accused recorded in the CD–Ex.P33 is concerned, the trial Court has disbelieved the same, holding the electronic evidence produced by the prosecution, testimony of PW.8 and the voice analysis report at Ex.P31 are inadmissible for noncompliance of Section 65(b) of the Evidence Act. Hence, the said finding is in favour of the accused.

¶197

Another aspect is that, a Departmental enquiry was conducted against accused No.1, in respect of the

¶198

28 -

¶199

NC: 2025:KHC:22715 CRL.A No. 508 of 2022 C/W CRL.A No. 477 of 2022

¶200

HC-KAR

¶201

very same charges and he was exonerated from all the charges levelled against him in the charge memo. This alone, though may not be a ground to hold him not guilty, this Court finds that the charges levelled against him in the instant criminal case are not proved for the reasons noted supra.

¶202

Having re-appreciated the evidence and

¶203

material on record, this Court is of the considered view that the charges levelled against the appellants/accused Nos.1 and 2 are not proved by the prosecution, hence, the impugned judgment convicting and sentencing them is liable to be set aside. Accordingly, the following:

¶204

ORDER

¶205

(i) Appeals are allowed.

¶206

(ii) The judgment and order dated 16.03.2022

¶207

passed by the Court of the XXIII Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge and Special Judge (PC Act) Bengaluru in Spl.C.C.No.221/2021 is set aside.

¶208

29 -

¶209

NC: 2025:KHC:22715 CRL.A No. 508 of 2022 C/W CRL.A No. 477 of 2022

¶210

HC-KAR

¶211

(iii) Accused No.1 is acquitted of the offence under Section 7(a) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and Accused No.2 is acquitted of the offence under Section 12 of the PC Act.

¶212

(iv) Their bail bonds stand cancelled.

¶213

(v) Fine amount if any deposited, shall be refunded to the accused.

¶214

Sd/(MOHAMMAD NAWAZ)

¶215

JUDGE

¶216

Hb/List No.: 19 Sl No.: 1 CT:JLR

Shivakumar v. Vs State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shivakumar v. Vs State of Karnataka

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

Poujana Vs the State of Karnataka

Karanappa Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri. Naveen K. Vs State of Karnataka

Mrs Tabassum Vs State by

Chetan K N Vs State of Karnataka

Joseph Vs the State of Karnataka