This criminal appeal challenged a conviction for corruption based on penal money trap evidence. The High Court rejected the appellant's argument that a subsequent exoneration in a departmental inquiry should quash the criminal conviction after a completed trial, dismissing the appeal and upholding the sentence.
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.
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 15TH DAY OF JULY, 2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE M G UMA
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 578 OF 2012 (C)
BETWEEN:
SRIDHARA RAIKAR, S/O RAMAPPA AGED ABOUT 68 YEARS RETIRED GOVERNMENT SERVANT, R/O. BASAVANAGUDI 3RD CROSS, SHIMOGA.
… APPELLANT
(BY SRI. C.H. JADHAV, SR. ADVOCATE SRI. CHETAN JADHAV, ADVOCATE)
AND:
Digitally signed by SWAPNA V Location: High Court of Karnataka
THE STATE BY LOKAYUKTA POLICE REP. BY ITS SPECIAL PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT BUILDINGS, BANGALORE - 560 001 (BY SRI. B. LETHIF, ADVOCATE)
... RESPONDENT
THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL IS FILED U/S.374(2) CR.P.C PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND ORDER OF CONVICTION AND SENTENCE DATED:21.5.12 PASSED BY THE SPECIAL JUDGE, SHIMOGA IN SPL.(P.C.)CASE NO.1/2000-CONVICTING THE APPELLANT/ACCUSED FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/SS.7 AND 13(1)(D)R/W SEC.13(2) OF THE PREVENTION OF CORRUPTION ACT, 1988. THE APPELLANT/ACCUSED IS SENTENCED TO UNDERGO SI FOR A PERIOD OF SIX MONTHS AND TO PAY A FINE OF RS.2,000/- FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/S.7 OF THE PREVENTION OF CORRUPTION ACT 1988 AND IN DEFAULT TO; PAY THE AMOUNT TO UNDERGO FURTHER SI FOR THREE MONTHS. THE APPELLANT/ACCUSED IS SENTENCED TO UNDERGO SI FOR A PERIOD OF ONE YEAR AND TO PAY A FINE OF
HC-KAR
RS.2,000/-FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/S.13(1)(D) R/W 13(2) OF PREVENTION OF CORRUPTION ACT 1988 AND IN DEFAULT TO PAY THE FINE AMOUNT, TO UNDERGO SI FOR A PERIOD OF THREE MONTHS. BOTH THE SENTENCES SHALL RUN CONCURRENTLY.
THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED FOR JUDGMENT ON 09.07.2025 COMING ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT OF ORDERS THIS DAY, THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:-
CORAM: HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE M G UMA
CAV JUDGMENT
The appellant being the accused in Special (P.C.) Case No. 1 of 2000 on the file of the learned Special Judge at Shivamogga, is impugning the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 21.05.2012, convicting him for the offences punishable under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) r/w 13(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act of 1988 (for short, 'the P.C Act'), sentencing to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of six months and to pay fine of Rs.2,000/- for the offence punishable under Section 7 of PC Act, and to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of one year and to pay fine of Rs.2,000/- for the offence punishable under Section 13(1)(d) r/w 13(2) of the P.C. Act, with default sentences.
HC-KAR
Revenue Inspector at Holalur, I Hobli of Shivamogga. The informant-PW.6 approached the accused in connection with the application submitted by Smt.Subhadramma-the sister-in-law of PW.6, seeking change of katha in her name in respect of properties that were owned by her late husband. The accused demanded illegal gratification of Rs.1,000/- to do the official favour and after bargaining, it was scaled down to Rs.600/-, out of which, the complainant paid Rs.100/- on 19.11.1999. The accused insisted for payment of balance amount of Rs.500/-. Since the informant was not interested in paying the illegal gratification, he lodged the first information as per Ex.P9 with Lokayukta Police. On the basis of same, the Police registered the FIR for the above said offences. The Lokayukta Police summoned the other two public servants, prepared pretrap panchanama as per Ex.P1, entrusted the currency notes smeared with phenolphthalein powder-(MO.9) to the informant, and asked him to meet the accused. The Investigation Officer also directed the shadow witness-PW.1 to accompany PW.6 and to observe the conduct of the accused. The pancha witnessPW.2 was asked to accompany the Investigating Officer and to wait outside the office for the signal to be given by the
HC-KAR
complainant in case the accused demands and accepts the illegal gratification.
HC-KAR
Section 313 of Cr.PC, but has not led any evidence in support of his defence. He got marked Exhibits D1 to D5 during cross examination of PW6. The Special Court initially acquitted the accused by passing the judgment dated 31.12.2008. The same was challenged by preferring the appeal by the Lokayukta Police in Criminal Appeal No. 364 of 2009. The said appeal came to be allowed by the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court vide judgment dated 07.03.2012 and the matter was remanded to the Trial Court for proper appreciation of the materials on record. Upon remanding the matter, the Trial Court once again re-appreciated the oral and documentary evidence and proceeded to pass the impugned judgment, convicting and sentencing the accused as stated above. Being aggrieved by the same, the accused is before this Court.
HC-KAR
"Whether the appellant has made out any grounds to interfere with the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed by the Trial Court?"
My answer to the above point is in 'Negative' for the
following:
REASONS
HC-KAR
the earliest. It is the further contention of the prosecution that, even though the application for change of katha was submitted by the applicant, on 25.08.1999 with the Tahsildar PW4, the change of katha was not effected even till 12.12.1999. Therefore, PW6 had again approached the accused to enquire about change of Katha as PW4 had forwarded the file to the accused for his report. On 12.11.1999 when the informant met the accused, the accused demanded ₹.1,000/- and after bargaining, it was reduced to ₹.600/-. On the very same day the accused received ₹.100/- as illegal gratification and insisted for payment of balance amount of ₹.500/-. It is thereafter that the informant filed the first information on 19.11.1999 with the Lokayukta police.
HC-KAR
where the offence was already committed, in the present case there was only a demand by the accused and this delay of 1 week is not fatal to the case of the prosecution as there is nothing to embezzle by gaining time in filing the first information.
HC-KAR
sister-in-law of the informant, was pending with the accused as he was required to receive the report from the Village Accountant and forward the same to the Tahsildar with his recommendation. Therefore, the contention of the learned Senior Advocate for the appellant that no official work was pending with the accused since he had already forwarded the letter to the Village Accountant calling upon his report, cannot be accepted. Receiving of the report from the Village Accountant and recommending change of Katha to the Tahsildar was the official work which was pending with the accused as on the date of demand as well as on the date of trap.
HC-KAR
noted the number of currency notes. Thereafter, phenolphthalein powder was smeared on the notes. PW2 was asked to count the currency notes and thereafter his hands were washed in sodium carbonate solution, which changed its colour. The samples were collected. The phenolphthalein powder smeared with currency notes were entrusted to the informant with a direction to go and meet the accused and if he demands the illegal gratification, to pay the entrusted amount. PW1 further stated that he accompanied the informant and gone to the office of the accused. He states that he was standing at a distance from the informant who met the accused. But he could hear the conversation between the complainant and the accused. Accused demanded the illegal gratification. The complainant took out the entrusted amount and gave the same to the accused. The accused received the same with his right hand, counted with his left hand and kept it in the left pant pocket. Immediately, the informant came out of the office and gave signal to the Inspector, who came to the spot along with PW2.
HC-KAR
of the witness by the learned counsel for the accused, the witness has stated that he had given the statement before the Lokayukta police that he was standing about 15 feet away from the informant. There was rush in the office, due to which he was not able to hear the conversation between the accused and the informant, and he had not seen the complainant paying the tainted amount to the accused. The hand wash of accused had not changed its colour and even the accused had not demanded any amount. He further states that, the complainant himself had forcibly thrust the amount in the pant pocket of the
NC: 2025:KHC:26172 CRL.A No. 578 of 2012
HC-KAR
accused. Even though such evidence was elicited during crossexamination, no statement of the witness was tendered to him to mark the contradictions.
HC-KAR
the accused, the informant giving signal to the Investigating Officer, and he along with the Investigating Officer visiting the office of the accused. This witness specifically states about washing of the hands of the accused, collecting the samples, and thereafter the accused producing the tainted amount from his pant pocket, giving explanation by him and drawing of trap panchanama. Even though this witness was cross examined at length, nothing has been elicited from him to disbelieve his version.
HC-KAR
examination, it is elicited from the witness that accused being the Revenue Inspector, after receiving the file from the Tahsildar had forwarded the same to the Village Accountant, seeking his report.
HC-KAR
Ex.P4. He states that the said application was forwarded to the accused on 15.09.1999 and the same was again received in the office of Tahsildar on 22.11.1999. The evidence of this witness was never disputed during cross examination. Hence, it cannot be held that no official work was pending with the accused as on the date of incident.
HC-KAR
HC-KAR
of the left pocket was washed in the solution which has turned into pink colour. The sample and the pant were seized. When the Investigating Officer enquired the accused as to how he came in possession of the tainted amount, he gave explanation that the complainant thrust the amount in his pant pocket forcibly. Thus, the witness has fully supported the case of the prosecution.
HC-KAR
accused to produce the tainted amount and when he produced the same from the pant pocket, later his hands were washed in the solution. The witness categorically denied this suggestion.
HC-KAR
inconsistency or contradiction in the evidence deposed before this Court.
HC-KAR
village, hold an enquiry and forward a report. The accused further stated that the case file was thus with the Village Accountant as on the date of trap. However, he had made the entries regarding forwarding the case file to the Village Accountant, in his office book. He also states that he never demanded any amount from the complainant but on the date of trap, the complainant forcibly thrust ₹.500/- and he has received the same. If at all the accused had not demanded any amount, there was no reason as to why he accepted the same. Moreover, all along it is the evidence of the prosecution witnesses that the tainted money was found in the pant pocket of the accused. It is hard to believe that the complainant could forcibly thrust the currency notes in the pant pocket of the accused while he was sitting in the office. There is also no explanation as to how both his hand wash turned into pink colour and reported positive for the presence of phenolphthalein in it, if he had never received it with his hands. 25. It is also pertinent to note that when the accused was examined under Section 313 of Cr.PC, he denied all the incriminating materials available on record and has given his
HC-KAR
written version as found in the Trial Court records. As per this version, he received the file from the Tahsildar on 15.09.1999, and forwarded the same to the Village Accountant only on 16.10.1999. As he was on election duty, the file was sent back by the Village Accountant only on 21.11.1999 and he returned it to the Tahsildar on 22.11.1999 i.e. after the trap.
HC-KAR
pertinent to note that in this statement, the witness never admits that the accused had tendered or given ₹.500/- and he received it as he admitted initially in his explanation given to the Investigating Officer while drawing the trap panchanama. When there is serious contradiction in the explanation offered by the accused, none of these explanation could be accepted as probable. It is also pertinent to note that there is no cross examination of the informant in the line of the defence raised in the statement submitted by the accused. In the absence of any supporting materials, I am of the opinion that such explanations are liable to be rejected.
HC-KAR
the charges of demanding and accepting the illegal gratification, and committing misconduct and the said report was accepted by the Under Secretary to the Government. Relying on these documents, learned Senior Advocate contended that when the accused is exonerated in the departmental inquiry, where the degree of proof is much lesser, the accused is to be acquitted in the present criminal case where the degree of proof is much higher, as the prosecution is required to prove the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt.
1 1996 9 SCC 1
2 1992 SCC (SUPP) 1 335
HC-KAR
3 2020 9 SCC 636
NC: 2025:KHC:26172 CRL.A No. 578 of 2012
HC-KAR
Radheshyam Kejriwal v. State of West Bengal4 , held in
paragraph 39 as under:
"39. In our opinion, therefore, the yardstick would be to judge as to whether the allegation in the adjudication proceedings as well as the proceeding for prosecution is identical and the exoneration of the person concerned in the adjudication proceedings is on merits. In case it is found on merit that there is no contravention of the provisions of the Act in the adjudication proceedings, the trial of the person concerned shall be an abuse of the process of the Court.”
4 2011 3 SCC 581
5
Crl.A.No. 200286 of 2023
HC-KAR
in Sridhar Raikar v. State of Karnataka6 , where the Coordinate bench of this Court refused to quash the criminal proceedings registered against the accused based on the order exonerating the accused in the departmental proceedings, on the ground that all the material witnesses cited in the charge sheet were not examined before the Enquiring Authority.
6 Crl.A.No.1114 of 2004
HC-KAR
HC-KAR
now the accused is convicted by the Trial Court on the basis of materials on record, I am of the opinion that the accused is not entitled for the benefit of his exoneration in the departmental enquiry.
HC-KAR
considered the materials on record in proper perspective and arrived at a right conclusion. I do not find any reason to interfere with the same.
HC-KAR
ORDER
Appeal is dismissed.
Registry to send back the Trial Court records along with copy of this judgment, and to secure the presence of the accused to issue conviction warrant, if not already issued.
Sd/(M G UMA) JUDGE
MKM
CT:VS
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the accused was engaged in official work pending during the date of the alleged bribe demand and trap.
Whether the exoneration of the accused in subsequent departmental inquiry entitles him to quash the criminal conviction after trial was completed.
Whether the appeal against conviction and sentencing should be interfered with on grounds of age and delay.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
P.S. Rajya v. State of BiharReferred¶30
P.S. Rajya v. State of Bihar (1996 9 SCC 1) · Who else cites this
State of Haryana and Ors VS CH. Bjahan Lal and OrsReferred¶30
State of Haryana and Ors VS CH. Bjahan Lal and Ors (1992 SCC (SUPP) 1 335) · Who else cites this
Ashoo Surendarnath Tewari v. Deputy Superintendent of Police, EOW, CBIReferred¶32
Ashoo Surendarnath Tewari v. Deputy Superintendent of Police, EOW, CBI (2020 9 SCC 636) · Who else cites this
Radheshyam Kejriwal v. State of West BengalReferred¶32
Radheshyam Kejriwal v. State of West Bengal (2011 3 SCC 581) · Who else cites this
Shekhar v. State of KarnatakaReferred¶33
Shekhar v. State of Karnataka (Crl.A.No. 200286 of 2023)
Sridhar Raikar v. State of KarnatakaReferred¶34
Sridhar Raikar v. State of Karnataka (Crl.A.No.1114 of 2004)
2 provisions across 2 enactments
SRIDHARA RAIKAR
THE STATE
M G UMA
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
