Rangaiah Vs State of Karnataka by

¶1

1 -

¶2

NC: 2026:KHC:28697 CRL.A No. 119 of 2014

¶3

HC-KAR

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 12^TH DAY OF JUNE, 2026 BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G BASAVARAJA CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 119 OF 2014 (C)

¶6

BETWEEN:

¶7

RANGAIAH S/O DASAPPA, AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS, NO.152/E, 17^TH MAIN ROAD, VIJAYANAGAR, BANGALORE-560 040.

¶8

(APPELLANT WAS EARLIER WORKING AS FDA, IN THE OFFICE OF DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, BANGALORE URBAN DISTRICT, BANGALORE AND HAS SINCE RETIRED FROM SERVICE.)

¶9

…APPELLANT

¶10

(BY SRI. CHANDULAL., ADVOCATE) AND:

¶11

Digitally signed by LAKSHMINARAYAN N Location: High Court of Karnataka

¶12

STATE OF KARNATAKA BY POLICE INSPECTOR, POLICE WING, CITY DIVISION, KARNATAKA LOKAYUKTA, BANGALORE.

¶13

…RESPONDENT

¶14

(BY SRI. KUMAR H.D., ADVOCATE)

¶15

THIS CRL.A. IS FILED U/S. 374(2) CR.P.C PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED:30.1.14 PASSED BY THE SPL. JUDGE, PREVENTION OF CORRUPTION ACT, BANGALORE URBAN DIST., BANGALORE CITY IN SPL.C.C.NO.29/2007 - CONVICTING THE APPELLANT/ACCUSED FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/S 7, AND 13(1)(d) P/U/S 13(2) OF PREVENTION OF CORRUPTION ACT, 1988 AND ETC.

¶16

2 -

¶17

NC: 2026:KHC:28697 CRL.A No. 119 of 2014

¶18

HC-KAR

¶19

THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR FURTHER ARGUMENTS, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G BASAVARAJA

¶20

ORAL JUDGMENT

¶21

The appellant, who is accused No.2, has preferred

¶22

this appeal against the judgment of conviction and order on sentence dated 30.01.2014 passed in Spl.C.C.No.29/2007 by the Special Judge, Bangalore Urban District, Bangalore (for short 'the trial Court').

¶23

For the sake of convenience, the parties herein are referred to the same rank before the trial Court.

¶24

Brief facts leading to this appeal are that, the Lokayukta Police submitted charge sheet against accused No.1-M.A.Rajashekar and accused No.2-Rangaiah for the offences under Sections 7, 13(1)(d) and Section 13(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. It is alleged by the prosecution that the complainant is the son of late Vivekananda. The father of the complainant owned a land in Sy.No.121/10 and 121/11 of Kothanur village,

¶25

3 - NC: 2026:KHC:28697 CRL.A No. 119 of 2014

¶26

HC-KAR

¶27

Uttarahalli Hobli to the extent of 2.27 acres and it was acquired in the year 1990 for the Wilson Garden House Building Co-operative Society. The complainant's side challenged the order of acquisition before the High Court and the order was in favour of the complainant regarding the said land and when he made an application for change

¶28

of Khata to the Tahsildar, he was asked to obtain an endorsement from the Land Acquisition Officer. The complainant claims that he had already given a representation to the LAO during July, 1999 and claims that he had given another application on 27.01.2005 to the LAO. The complainant claims that, with regards to this, on 04.06.2005, Tahsildar had written a letter to LAO

¶29

and requested to furnish information regarding acquisition. But the LAO did not provide the details and the matter had been held up without any reasons. Thereafter, the complainant in-person approached the said Land Acquisition Officer and met the Clerk-Rangaiah. According to complainant, clerk Rangaiah had already demanded and received the bribe amount assuring that he would get the

¶30

4 -

¶31

NC: 2026:KHC:28697 CRL.A No. 119 of 2014

¶32

HC-KAR

¶33

work done, but has not done the work. On 10.10.2005,

¶34

the complainant had met the Special Land Acquisition Officer for sending endorsement to the Tahsildar, the complainant was demanded to pay an amount of Rs.25,000/- by the Special Land Acquisition Officer and he was also told to pay an amount of Rs.5,000/- to clerkRangaiah. Thus, according to the complainant, the Special Land Acquisition Officer-Rajashekar demanded an amount of Rs.30,000/- i.e., Rs.25,000/- for himself and Rs.5,000/for clerk Rangaiah- accused No.2. Therefore, accused has committed the alleged offences. Charge sheet was filed on 20.01.2007. Thereafter, cognizance was taken by the trial Court and the case was registered in Spl.C.C.No.29/2007.

¶35

It is alleged by the prosecution that accused No.2 was working as a First Grade Revenue Inspector in the Office of the Special Land Acquisition Officer, Podium Block, V.V.Tower, Bangalore. Being a public servant, on 10.10.2005, he has demanded bribe of Rs.5,000/- from the complainant-V.Nandakumar for giving endorsement

¶36

5 - NC: 2026:KHC:28697 CRL.A No. 119 of 2014

¶37

HC-KAR

¶38

with regard to issuing pahani and khata in respect of land

¶39

bearing Sy.Nos.121/10 and 121/11, totally measuring 2.27 acres of Kothanur village, Uttarahalli Hobli. On 11.10.2005, in his office around 03.45 pm, he demanded and accepted illegal gratification of Rs.5,000/- to render official favour. Thus, the accused has committed offence under Sections 7, 13(1)(d) and 13(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.

¶40

Accused No.1 preferred W.P.No.3760/2007 before this Court. Same came to be allowed vide order dated 05.08.2011, quashing the impugned order passed by the learned Special Judge in CC.No.29/2007 taking cognizance and issuance of process and the case was proceeded against accused No.2.

¶41

Upon hearing on charges, o n 30.04.2012, the trial Court framed charges a gainst accused No.2, appellant herein , for the offences punishable under Sections 7, 13(1)(d) and 13(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. Same were read over and explained to the accused.

¶42

6 - NC: 2026:KHC:28697 CRL.A No. 119 of 2014

¶43

HC-KAR

¶44

Having understood the same, accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

¶45

To prove the case of prosecution, in all, five witnesses were examined as PWs.1 to 5 and 24 documents were marked as Exhibits P1 to P24 and sixteen material objects were marked as MOs.1 to 16.

¶46

On closure of prosecution side evidence, statement under Section 313 of Code of Criminal Procedure was recorded. The accused have totally denied the evidence of prosecution witnesses. However, did not choose to lead any defence evidence on his behalf.

¶47

Having heard the arguments on both sides, the trial Court convicted the accused for the offence punishable under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) and 13(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and sentenced the accused-Rangaiah to undergo Rigorous imprisonment for a period of 7 (seven) months and to pay fine of Rs.1,000/- (Rupees One thousand only) for the offence punishable under Section 7 of Prevention of Corruption Act.

¶48

7 - NC: 2026:KHC:28697 CRL.A No. 119 of 2014

¶49

HC-KAR

¶50

The accused is further sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of 14 (Fourteen) months and to pay fine of Rs.2,000/- (Rupees Two thousand only) for the offence defined under Section 13(1)(d) punishable with Section 13(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act. Being aggrieved by the judgment of conviction and order on sentence passed by the trial Court against accused No.2appellant, the appellant has preferred this appeal.

¶51

Learned counsel for the appellant would submit that, the impugned judgment of conviction and order on sentence is against the well-established principles of law, facts and circumstances of the case, and the same is liable to be set aside.

¶52

The learned Special Judge has gravely erred by not appreciating the evidence adduced by the prosecution in its proper perspective and the judgment suffers from serious infirmities and irreconcilable contradictions, and is opposed to well-established canons of law.

¶53

8 -

¶54

NC: 2026:KHC:28697 CRL.A No. 119 of 2014

¶55

HC-KAR

¶56

The learned Special Judge ought to have noticed that as on the date of the complaint, no official work of the complainant was pending with the appellant. PW4 who is the Appointing Authority for the appellant, has admitted in his cross-examination that the appellant had put-up the note Exhibit P19 to the Special Land Acquisition Officer on 14.07.2005, i.e. four months prior to the date of the complaint. After 14.07.2005, the file in question never came back to the appellant.

¶57

The Learned Special Judge ought to have noticed that there was no demand from the appellant for the alleged bribe. PW1 in his cross-examination has admitted that accused No.1 asked him to pay Rs.5,000/- to accused

¶58

No.2, who is the appellant herein. However, learned Special Judge has brushed aside this important admission in favour of the appellant by the complainant. The learned Special Judge has gravely erred in coming to the conclusion that accused demanded bribe, in the absence of any cogent evidence by the prosecution.

¶59

9 - NC: 2026:KHC:28697 CRL.A No. 119 of 2014

¶60

HC-KAR

¶61

Learned Special Judge ought to have noticed that there was no acceptance of bribe amount by the appellant, and the bribe amount has not been recovered from the appellant. None of the prosecution witnesses have stated as to from whom the alleged bribe amount of Rs.5,000/was recovered.

¶62

Learned Special Judge ought to have noticed that as on the date of the complaint, no work of the complainant was pending with the appellant, that he has not demanded

¶63

any bribe amount, there was no acceptance by the appellant and there was no recovery from the appellant and the explanation offered by the appellant has clearly suggested the alternative view which is in favour of the appellant/accused No.2. The learned Special Judge has gravely erred in not considering the view which is favorable to the accused.

¶64

To substantiate his arguments, the learned counsel for the appellant relied on the following judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court:

¶65

10 -

¶66

NC: 2026:KHC:28697 CRL.A No. 119 of 2014

¶67

HC-KAR

¶68

(i) N.VIJAYAKUMAR vs. STATE OF TAMIL NADU reported in (2021) 3 SCC 687

¶69

(ii) P.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY vs. DISTRICT INSPECTOR OF POLICE, STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH AND ANOTHER reported in (2015) 10 SCC 152

¶70

(iii) C.M.GIRISH BABU vs. CBI, COCHIN, HIGH COURT OF KERALA reported in (2009) 3 SCC 779

¶71

(iv) K.SHANTHAMMA vs. STATE OF TELANGANA reported in (2022) 4 SCC 574.

¶72

On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondent would submit that the trial Court has properly appreciated t he evidence on record. Absolutely there are

¶73

no grounds to interfere with the impugned judgment of conviction and order on sentence against accused No.2/appellant and accordingly, sought for dismissal of the appeal.

¶74

Having heard the arguments on both sides and on perusal of the materials placed before me, the following points would arise for my consideration:

¶75

11 -

¶76

NC: 2026:KHC:28697 CRL.A No. 119 of 2014

¶77

HC-KAR

¶78

(i) Whether the appellant/accused no.2 has made out grounds to interfere with the judgment of conviction and order and sentence passed by the trial Court?

¶79

(ii) What order?

¶80

I have examined the materials placed before this Court. The Investigating Officer has submitted charge sheet against accused No.1-M.A.Rajashekar, the Special Land Acquisition Officer and accused No.2-Rangaiah, working as First Division Revenue Inspector, Office of the Special Land Acquisition Officer, Bangalore, for the commission of offence under Sections 7, 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. After filing the charge sheet, accused No.1 has preferred writ petition before this Court in W.P.No.3760/2007. Same came to be allowed by this Court on 05.08.2011. In view of this order, the impugned order passed by the learned Special Judge in C.C.No.29/2007 on the file of Special Judge, Bengaluru City, (CCH 24), taking cognizance and issuance of process, is quashed.

¶81

12 -

¶82

NC: 2026:KHC:28697 CRL.A No. 119 of 2014

¶83

HC-KAR

¶84

It is alleged by the prosecution that accused No.1-

¶85

Rajashekar, former Land Acquisition Officer, and accused No.2-Rangaiah are public servants at Department of Land Revenue, V.V.Towers, Bangalore City. It is also stated that the complainant, being son of Vivekananda and the Khata of the land which was standing in his father's name, and as the same was supposed to be changed in the office of the Tahsildar, which requires endorsement from the Special Land Acquisition Officer. It is claimed, that on 10.10.2005, when the complainant went to the office of the Special Land Acquisition Officer and met Rajashekar, he demanded Rs.25,000/- as bribe for sending the endorsement and Mr.Rangaiah-accused No.2 also demanded Rs.5,000/-. It is further stated that both the accused were caught red-handed while demanding and accepting the bribe of Rs.30,000/- i.e., Rs.25,000/- by the accused No.1 and Rs.5,000/- by accused No.2.

¶86

Before appreciation of evidence on record, it is necessary to mention that the offence under Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 relating to public

¶87

13 -

¶88

NC: 2026:KHC:28697 CRL.A No. 119 of 2014

¶89

HC-KAR

¶90

servants taking bribe, requires a demand of illegal gratification and the acceptance thereof. The proof of demand of bribe by a public servant and its acceptance by him is sine-qua-non for establishing the offence under Section 7 of Prevention of Corruption Act. Similar is the observation made by Supreme Court, in the case of K.SHANTHAMMA (supra) i n which their Lordships have relied on the decision of P.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY vs. STATE OF A.P., in which it is observed as under:

¶91

“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 therefore, 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."

¶92

14 -

¶93

NC: 2026:KHC:28697 CRL.A No. 119 of 2014

¶94

HC-KAR

¶95

In the case on hand, in Exhibit P1-complaint, dated

¶96

11.10.2005 filed by PW1-V.Nandakumar, it is stated as under:

¶97

"�ಾನು ¢|| ¦. ��ೇ�ಾನಂದರವರ ಮಗ�ಾ�ದು�, �ಾ��ಾರ �ಾ��ೊಂ�ರು�ೆ�ೕ�ೆ . ನನ� ತಂ�ೆ �ೆಸ ನ!" ಉತ�ರಹ%& �ೋಬ%, �ೊತ�ನೂರು (ಾ)ಮದ 121/10, 121/11ರ!" ಒಟು, 2.27 ಎಕ/ೆ ಜ1ೕನು ಇರುತ � ೆ . ಇ�ಾ� 1990�ೇ ಇಸ�ಯ!" 4.�ಲ67 (ಾಡ97 ಗೃಹ ;�ಾ9ಣ ಸಹ�ಾರ ಸಂಘದವ (ೆ �>ೇಷ ಭೂAಾBCೕನ ಅC�ಾ ಯವರ ಮೂಲಕ £ÀªÀÄä ಜ1ೕನನನು� ಭೂAಾBCೕನ ಪ)F)G ಆರಂಭ�ಾ�ಾಗ �ಾವI ಉಚK �ಾ�Lಾಲಯದ!" �ಾ�ೆ ಹೂ�, ಅದರ!" MೕಪI9 ನಮN ಪರ ಆ�ಾಗ, ಆ MೕO9ನಂ�ೆ ಪಹP �ಾಗೂ �ೌM Rಾ�ೆಯನು� ನಮN �ೆಸ (ೆ ಬದSಾವTೆ �ಾಡಲು ತಹUೕSಾ�V (ೆ ಅW9 ;ೕ��ಾಗ ಅವರು �>ೇಷ ಭೂAಾBCೕನ ಅC�ಾ ಯವ (ೆ Xಂಬರಹ ;ೕಡಲು �ೋ ರು�ಾ�/ೆ . ಅ�ಾ� �ಾನು ಜುSೈ 1999 �>ೇಷ ಭೂAಾBCೕನ ಅC�ಾ ಗ%(ೆ XಂಬರºÀ ;ೕಡZೇ�ೆಂದು ಎರಡೂ ಅW9ಗಳ\ ಮತು� 4�ಾಂಕ 27.1.2005ರಂದು ಮ�ೊ�ಂದು �ೋ �ೆ ಪತ) ;ೕ�ರು�ೆ�ೕ�ೆ .

¶98

ಈ ಬ(ೆ^ �>ೇಷ ತಹUೕSಾ�ರರು, Zೆಂಗಳ_ರು ದ`ಣ �ಾಲೂ"ಕುರವರು ಸಹ ¢£ÁAPÀ 4.6.2005 gÀAzÀÄ, «±ÉÃµÀ ¨sÀÆ¸Áé¢üÃ£À C¢üPÁjUÀ½UÉ ¥ÀvÀæ §gÉzÀÄ, aೕಲbಂಡ ಜ1ೕ;(ೆ ಸಂಬಂಧಪಟ,ಂ�ೆ ಭೂAಾBCೕನ ಪ)ಕರಣ �ೈ de,ರುವ ಬ(ೆ^ �ಾಖSಾMgಂ4(ೆ �ಾXMಯನು� ಸ!"ಸಲು �ೋ ರು�ೆ�ೕ�ೆ .

¶99

15 -

¶100

NC: 2026:KHC:28697 CRL.A No. 119 of 2014

¶101

HC-KAR

¶102

ಆದ/ೆ ಭೂAಾBCೕನ ಅC�ಾ ಗಳ\ ಇದುವ/ೆ(ೆ �>ೇಷ ತಹUೕSಾ�V (ೆ Xಂಬರಹ �ಾಗೂ �ಾXMಯನು� ಒದ�ಸ�ೆ ��ಾ �ಾರಣ ಉ�ೆ�ೕಶಪiರಕ�ಾ� ತಡ �ಾ�ರು�ಾ�/ೆ . ಈ ಬ(ೆ^ �ಾನು �>ೇಷ ಭೂAಾBCೕನ ಅC�ಾ ಗಳ ಕjೇ (ೆ ಖು�ಾ � kೇe ;ೕ�, ಸದ ಕjೇ ಯ ಗು�ಾಸ� U)ೕ ರಂಗಪlರವ (ೆ �ೆಲಸ �ಾ�m�ೊಡುವI�ಾ� �ೇ% ನ;�ಂದ ಈ(ಾಗSೇ ರೂ. 3,000/- ಲಂಚ ಹಣವನು� ಒ�ಾ�ಯ �ಾ� �ೆ(ೆದು�ೊಂ�ರು�ಾ�/ೆ , ಆದರೂ ಸಹ ಇವ (ೆ �ೆಲಸ �ಾ��ೊe,ರುವI4ಲ".

¶103

�ಾನು 4�ಾಂಕ 10.10.2005ರಂದು �>ೇಷ ಭೂAಾBCೕನ C¢üPÁjUÀ¼À ಕjೇ (ೆ aೕಲbಂಡ �ೆಲಸ�ೆb �ೋ�ಾಗ Xಂಬರಹ ಮತು� �ಾXMಯನು� �>ೇಷ ತಹUೕSಾ�V (ೆ ಕಳ\Xm�ೊಡಲು �>ೇಷ ಭೂAಾBCೕನ ಅC�ಾ ಯವರು U)ೕ /ಾಜ>ೇಖVರವರು ರೂ.25,000/- ಮತು� ಅವರ ಕjೇ ಯ ಗು�ಾಸ � ಾದ U)ೕ ರಂಗಪlನವರು ರೂ.5,000/- ಒಟು, ರೂ. 30,000/-ದ ಲಂಚದ ಹಣವನು� �ೊಟ,/ೆ �ಾತ) ;ಮN �ೆಲಸ �ಾ��ೊಡುವI�ಾ� U)ೕ /ಾಜ>ೇಖV ಮತು� U)ೕ ರಂಗಪlನವರುಗಳ\ ಲಂಚದ ಹಣ�ಾb� ಒ�ಾ�ಯ �ಾ�ರು�ಾ�/ೆ ."

¶104

PW1-Nandakumar has deposed that accused No.2,

¶105

who was working under accused No.1, said that he had to look after his Saheb. However, he had paid Rs.3,000/- to accused No.2 by that time.

¶106

The trial Court has not framed the charge to the effect that accused No.2 had received bribe of Rs.3,000/-

¶107

16 -

¶108

NC: 2026:KHC:28697 CRL.A No. 119 of 2014

¶109

HC-KAR

¶110

from the complainant. Since there was no charge, the trial Court has not discussed anything regarding alleged bribe of Rs.3,000/- said to have been received by accused No.2. Therefore, there is no need to discuss anything in this regard.

¶111

Further, PW1-V.Nandakumar has deposed in his evidence that accused No.2 took him to accused No.1. Thereafter, accused No.1 demanded Rs.25,000/- as bribe and a separate amount of Rs.5,000/- was demanded to be paid to accused No.2. He was not interested in paying the bribe. Hence, he went to Lokayukta Office to lodge a complaint as per Exhibit P1. Thereafter, he went to accused No.2 as directed by accused No.1 and shadow witness was with him and accused No.2 asked him, whether he had seen saheb? and he said yes. He further asked him whether he had brought the money? and he said 'yes'. He showed the file and asked him to keep the money in the file. He kept the money in the file. He asked him to go. He came out and signaled.

¶112

17 -

¶113

NC: 2026:KHC:28697 CRL.A No. 119 of 2014

¶114

HC-KAR

¶115

In the cross-examination of PW1, he has clearly admitted that accused No.2 has not demanded Rs.5,000/-, but accused No.1-Rajashekar had told him to pay the amount to the accused No.2.

¶116

On perusal of the contents of complaint-Ex.P1 and the admission of the complainant-PW1, it is crystal clear that accused No.2 has not demanded amount of Rs.5,000/- as alleged by the prosecution.

¶117

With regard to the acceptance of bribe amount, admittedly, accused No.2 has not received the amount of Rs.5,000/-. It is the case of the prosecution that, PW1 went to accused No.2 as directed by accused No.1, and accused No.2 asked him whether he had seen his saheb

¶118

and he said 'yes' for that. He further asked him whether he had brought the money and he said 'yes'. He showed the file and asked him to keep the money in the file. He kept the money in the file. He asked him to go and he came out and signaled. This is the case of the prosecution. Thereafter, in the presence of shadow witness, PW2-

¶119

18 -

¶120

NC: 2026:KHC:28697 CRL.A No. 119 of 2014

¶121

HC-KAR

¶122

C.Krishnamurthy, the Investigating Officer, has seized that amount as per mahazar-Exhibit P2.

¶123

The accused has given explanation soon after trap as per Exhibit P14, in which he has clearly stated that somebody has put the amount on his table and he do not know about this money. Then, the Lokayukta officials came and asked about the amount and he has shown that amount was kept under the file. Thereafter, Lokayukta officials washed his hands and the colour of the water remained the same.

¶124

The alleged file has not been seized by the Investigating Officer. The IO has not explained anything as to the non-seizure of that file. During the evidence of PW1,

¶125

he has clearly admitted that accused No.2 has not received the amount. PW1 has clearly deposed that he has not accepted the amount. However, he has deposed that Rajshekar asked him to give it to accused No.2 and he went to accused No.2, he asked him to keep it below the file.

¶126

19 -

¶127

NC: 2026:KHC:28697 CRL.A No. 119 of 2014

¶128

HC-KAR

¶129

PW2-C.Krishnamurthy, the shadow witness has also deposed the same.

¶130

Exhibit P15-Trap Panchanama dated 11.10.2005, also reveals that accused No.2 has not received the amount by his hands. However, the Investigating Officer washed the hands of the accused in phenolphthalein solution, the test turned ‘Negative’.

¶131

On perusal of the evidence placed before this Court, it is clear that, accused No.2 has not accepted the bribe amount as alleged by the prosecution.

¶132

With regard to the pending work is concerned, Exhibit P16 is the file maintained by accused No.2, which reveals that he has completed his work and he has issued the letter as per Exhibit P19.

¶133

At this stage, it is relevant to mention as to the Sanction order-Exhibit P18 filed by PW4. To substantiate this, M.A.Sadiq who is examined as PW4 has stated before

¶134

the Court that, on examination of the documentary materials sent to him, he found that there were prima

¶135

20 - NC: 2026:KHC:28697 CRL.A No. 119 of 2014

¶136

HC-KAR

¶137

facie grounds to grant sanction to prosecute the accused

¶138

for the offence, as sought for. Accordingly, the sanction order was issued as per Exhibit P18. During his crossexamination, he has clearly admitted that, on perusal of the file, he found that complainant had gone to the office of the accused for an endorsement from the LAO regarding the lands that were deleted from acquisition by virtue of the quashing orders of High Court of Karnataka. The complainant was in need of the endorsement to be sent to Tahsildar. Accused was the case-worker and the work of the accused is to put-up the note to SLAO and the note Exhibit P19 was put-up on 14.07.2005. He has also admitted that the case file is marked as Exhibit P20.

¶139

On careful examination of the entire materials on record, it is crystal clear that, no work was pending before accused No.2 as on the date of commission of alleged offence. The Special Land Acquisition Officer has to give endorsement to the effect that the lands of the complainant was deleted from acquisition proceedings. The Competent Authority to issue endorsement in this regard

¶140

21 - NC: 2026:KHC:28697 CRL.A No. 119 of 2014

¶141

HC-KAR

¶142

as per the order of the Court, is accused No.1. The Sanctioning Authority is the Secretary to Government, Department of Personnel and Administrative Reforms (DPAR). The Department has submitted a letter to the Additional Inspector General of Police, Karnataka Lokayukta, Bengaluru vide Letter No.SiAaSuE-147 SCN-05 dated 04.12.2006, in which it is stated as under:

¶143

"ªÀiÁ£ÀågÉ,

¶144

«µÀAiÀÄ: ²æ JA. J. gÁd±ÉÃRgï, PÉJJ¸ï, «±ÉÃµÀ ¨sÀÆ¸Áé¢üÃ£Á¢üPÁj CªÀgÀ «gÀÄzÀÞ zÁR¯ÁVgÀÄªÀ ®AZÀ ¥ÀæPÀgÀt-C©AiÉÆÃd£Á ªÀÄAdÆgÁw PÀÄjvÀÄ

¶145

G¯ÉèÃR: vÀªÀÄä ¥ÀvÀæ ¸ÀA:¯ÉÆÃPï/LJ£ï«(f)/¹n/PÉæöÊA.40/2005 ¢: 18.10.05 ªÀÄvÀÄÛ 30.05.06

¶146

ªÉÄÃ®ÌAqÀ «µÀAiÀÄPÉÌ ¸ÀA§A¢ü¹zÀAvÉ, ¨ÉAUÀ¼ÀÆgÀÄ f¯ÉèAiÀÄ «±ÉÃµÀ ¨sÀÆ¸Áé¢üÃ£Á¢üPÁjAiÀÄ PÀbÉÃjAiÀÄ°è «±ÉÃµÀ ¨sÀÆ¸Áé¢üÃ£Á¢üPÁj ºÀÄzÉÝAiÀÄ°è PÁAiÀÄð ¤ªÀð»¸ÀÄwÛzÀÄÝ ²æ JA. J. gÁd±ÉÃRgï, PÉJJ¸ï C¢üPÁj ºÁUÀÆ ²æÃ r. gÀAUÀAiÀÄå, ¥ÀæxÀªÀÄ zÀeÉð ¸ÀºÁAiÀÄPÀgÀÄ CªÀgÀÄUÀ¼ÀÄ PÉÆvÀÛ£ÀÆgÀÄ UÁæªÀÄzÀ ¸À.£ÀA.121/10 ªÀÄvÀÄÛ 121/11gÀ°è£À 2.27 JPÀgÉ d«ÄÃ¤£À ¥ÀºÀtÂ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ ¥Ëw SÁvÉAiÀÄ£ÀÄß ²æÃ «. £ÀAzÀPÀÄªÀiÁgï, ¨ÉAUÀ¼ÀÆgÀÄ CªÀgÀ ºÉ¸ÀjUÉ §zÀ¯ÁªÀuÉ ªÀiÁrPÉÆqÀÄªÀ ¸ÀA§AzsÀ ¨sÀÆ ¸Áé¢üÃ£À PÀæªÀÄªÀ£ÀÄß PÉÊ©nÖgÀÄªÀ PÀÄjvÀAvÉ «±ÉÃµÀ vÀºÀ²Ã¯ÁÝgïgÀªÀjUÉ »A§gÀºÀ PÀ¼ÀÄ»¹PÉÆqÀ®Ä ²æ JA. J. gÁd±ÉÃRgï, PÉJJ¸ï C¢üPÁj

¶147

22 -

¶148

NC: 2026:KHC:28697 CRL.A No. 119 of 2014

¶149

HC-KAR

¶150

CªÀgÀÄ gÀÆ.25,000/- ºÁUÀÆ ²æÃ r. gÀAUÀAiÀÄå, ¥ÀæxÀªÀÄ zÀeÉð ¸ÀºÁAiÀÄPÀgÀÄ CªÀgÀÄ gÀÆ.5,000/- UÀ¼À ®AZÀzÀ ºÀtPÉÌ MvÁÛ¬Ä¹ CzÀ£ÀÄß CªÀgÀÄUÀ¼ÀÄ ¥ÀqÉAiÀÄÄwÛzÁÝUÀ¯ÉÃ PÀ£ÁðlPÀ ¯ÉÆÃPÁAiÀÄÄPÀÛ ¥ÉÆ°Ã¸ÀgÀÄ ¢: 11.10.05 gÀAzÀÄ ©Ã¹zÀ §¯ÉUÉ ¹QÌ ©¢ÝzÀÝgÀ ªÉÄÃgÉUÉ ²æ JA. J. gÁd±ÉÃRgï, PÉJJ¸ï C¢üPÁj »A¢£À «±ÉÃµÀ ¨sÀÆ ¸Áé¢Ã£Á¢üPÁj, «±ÉÃµÀ ¨sÀÆ ¸Áé¢Ã£Á¢üPÁjAiÀÄªÀgÀ PÀbÉÃj, ¨ÉAUÀ¼ÀÆgÀÄ CªÀgÀ£ÀÄß 1988gÀ ®AZÀ ¤gÉÆÃzsÀPÀ PÁAiÉÄÝ PÀ®A 19(1)gÀ£ÀéAiÀÄ ¸ÀPÀëªÀÄ £ÁåAiÀiÁ®AiÀÄzÀ°è C©AiÉÆÃd£ÉUÉÆ¼À¥Àr¸À®Ä ¸ÀPÁðgÀzÀ C£ÀÄªÀÄw ¤ÃqÀÄªÀAvÉ PÉÆÃj ¸À°è¹gÀÄªÀ G¯ÉèÃTvÀ ¥ÀvÀæzÀ°è£À ¥Àæ¸ÁÛªÀ£ÉAiÀÄ£ÀÄß ¥Àj²Ã°¸À¯ÁVzÉ.

¶151

zÁR¯ÉUÀ¼À ¥Àj²Ã®£É¬ÄAzÀ F PÉ¼ÀV£À CA±ÀUÀ¼ÀÄ ªÀåPÀÛªÁUÀÄvÀÛªÉ:-

¶152

(i) ¸ÀzÀj C¢üPÁjAiÀÄªÀgÀÄ ®AZÀ ¥ÀqÉAiÀÄÄwÛzÁÝUÀ ¹QÌ©¢ÝgÀÄªÀÅ¢®è. (ii) CªÀgÀ PÉÊ¨ÉgÀ¼ÀÄUÀ¼À£ÀÄß ¦£Á¥ÀÛ°£ï ªÀÄvÀÄÛ ¸ÉÆÃrAiÀÄA PÁ¨ÉÆÃð£ÉÃmï zÁæªÀtzÀ°è C¢Ý¹ vÉÆ¼ÉzÁUÀ CzÀÄ £ÀPÁgÁvÀäPÀ ¥sÀ°vÁA±À §A¢gÀÄvÀÛzÉ.

¶153

(iii) £ÉgÀ¼ÀÄ ¸ÁQë WÀl£É £ÀqÉzÁUÀ ¸ÀzÀj C¢üPÁjAiÀÄªÀgÀ PÉÆoÀr¬ÄAzÀ ºÉÆgÀUÉ ºÉÆÃVzÀÄÝ CªÀgÀÄ C°è ºÁdjgÀ°®è.

¶154

(iv) «±ÉÃµÀ vÀºÀ²Ã¯ÁÝgÀjUÉ »A§gÀºÀ ¤ÃqÀÄªÀ ¥Àæ¸ÁÛªÀ£ÉAiÀÄÄ ¥ÀæxÀªÀÄ zÀeÉð ¸ÀºÁAiÀÄPÀjAzÀ ¢: 14.07.05gÀAzÀÄ ¸À°è¸À¯ÁVzÀÄÝ, ªÀåªÀ¸ÁÜ¥ÀPÀgÀÄ CzÉÃ ¢£À PÀqÀvÀªÀ£ÀÄß «±ÉÃµÀ ¨sÀÆ¸Áé¢üÃ£Á¢üPÁjAiÀÄªÀjUÉ ªÀiÁPïð ªÀiÁrzÀÄÝ, ¢: 15.07.05 gÀAzÀÄ «±ÉÃµÀ ¨sÀÆ ¸Áé¢Ã£Á¢üPÁjAiÀÄªÀgÀÄ "zÀ. ZÀað¹" JAzÀÄ PÀqÀvÀªÀ£ÀÄß »A¢gÀÄV¹gÀÄvÁÛgÉ.

¶155

(v) ¸ÀzÀj C¢üPÁjAiÀÄªÀgÀÄ PÀAzÁAiÀÄ E¯ÁSÉ¬ÄAzÀ ªÀUÁðªÀuÉ ºÉÆA¢ ¢: 14.09.05gÀAzÀÄ «±ÉÃµÀ ¨sÀÆ¸Áé¢Ã£Á¢üPÁjAiÀiÁV PÀvÀðªÀåPÉÌ

¶156

23 -

¶157

NC: 2026:KHC:28697 CRL.A No. 119 of 2014

¶158

HC-KAR

¶159

ºÁdgÁVzÀÄÝ, PÀqÀvÀªÀÅ ¸ÀzÀj DgÉÆÃ¦vÀ C¢üPÁjUÉ ªÀiÁPïð DVgÀÄªÀÅ¢®è.

¶160

ªÉÄÃ®ÌAqÀ CA±ÀUÀ¼À »£Éß¯ÉAiÀÄ°è ¦£Á¥ÀÛ°£ï ¥ÀjÃPÉëAiÀÄÄ mÁæöå¥ï ¥ÀæPÀgÀtzÀ°è §ºÀ¼À ¥ÀæªÀÄÄR ¸ÁQëAiÀiÁVzÀÄÝ, CzÀÄ «¥sÀ®UÉÆArgÀÄªÀÅzÀjAzÀ ºÁUÀÆ AiÀiÁªÀÅzÉÃ MAzÀÄ Qæ«Ä£À¯ï ªÉÆPÀzÀÝªÉÄAiÀÄ°è ¥ÀæPÀgÀtªÀ£ÀÄß ¸ÀªÀÄyð¹PÉÆ¼Àî®Ä ±ÉÃPÀqÀ 100gÀµÀÄÖ ¸ÁQë ¥ÀÄgÁªÉUÀ¼À CªÀ±ÀåPÀvÉ EgÀÄªÀ »£Éß¯ÉAiÀÄ°è ²æ JA. J. gÁd±ÉÃRgï, PÉJJ¸ï C¢üPÁj »A¢£À «±ÉÃµÀ ¨sÀÆ¸Áé¢Ã£Á¢üPÁj, «±ÉÃµÀ ¨sÀÆ¸Áé¢Ã£Á¢üPÁjAiÀÄªÀgÀ PÀbÉÃj, ¨ÉAUÀ¼ÀÆgÀÄ CªÀgÀ£ÀÄß 1988gÀ ®AZÀ ¤ªÀÄÆð®£Á PÁAiÉÄÝ PÀ®A 19(1)gÀ£ÀéAiÀÄ ¸ÀPÀëªÀÄ £ÁåAiÀiÁ®AiÀÄzÀ°è C©AiÉÆÃUÀUÉÆ½¸ÀÄªÀ vÀªÀÄä ¥Àæ¸ÁÛªÀ£ÉAiÀÄ£ÀÄß ¸ÀPÁðgÀªÀÅ wgÀ¸ÀÌj¹zÉ JAzÀÄ vÀªÀÄUÉ w½¸À®Ä ¤zÉÃð²¸À®ànÖzÉÝÃ£É."

¶161

Though the Sanctioning Authority of accused No.1

¶162

has refused to accord sanction to prosecute accused No.1 for the commission of alleged offence, the Investigating Officer has submitted charge sheet against accused Nos.1 and 2 for the commission of offence under Sections 7, 13(1)(d), r/w 13(2) of the PC Act, 1988. The Special Judge has taken cognizance against accused Nos.1 and 2 for the commission of alleged offence without any sanction. The accused No.1 has preferred a petition in WP.No.3760/2007 before this Court and this Court has

¶163

24 -

¶164

NC: 2026:KHC:28697 CRL.A No. 119 of 2014

¶165

HC-KAR

¶166

quashed the proceedings initiated against accused No.1. Only then the proceedings against accused No.1 were dropped. The Sanctioning Authority of accused No.1 has clearly assigned reasons for refusal to accord sanction to prosecute accused No.1 under Section 19(1) of Prevention of Corruption Act, though the IO has submitted the charge sheet against the accused Nos.1 and 2.

¶167

On careful examination/independent appreciation of the evidence on record, I do not find any cogent and convincing legal evidence before the Court to convict accused No.2 for the commission of alleged offence. The trial Court has failed to appreciate the evidence on record in its proper perspective. Accordingly, the appellant/accused No.2 has made out grounds to interfere with the impugned judgment of conviction and order on sentence passed against the appellant. Accordingly, I answer point number 1 in the Affirmative .

¶168

Regarding Point No.2:

¶169

For the aforesaid reasons and discussions, I proceed to pass the following:

¶170

25 -

¶171

NC: 2026:KHC:28697 CRL.A No. 119 of 2014

¶172

HC-KAR

¶173

O R D E R

¶174

i. Appeal is allowed ;

¶175

ii. The judgment of conviction and order on sentence passed in Special C.C.No.29/2007 dated 30.01.2014 by the Special Judge, Bangalore Urban District, Bangalore, is hereby

¶176

set aside;

¶177

iii. Accused No.2/appellant is acquitted of the offence punishable under sections 7, 13(1)(d) and 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988; and

¶178

iv. The trial Court is directed to refund the fine amount, if any, deposited by accused

¶179

No.2/appellant upon due identification;

¶180

Registry is directed to send copy of the judgment

¶181

along with Trial Court Records to the concerned Court.

¶182

Sd/(G BASAVARAJA) JUDGE

¶183

DHA List No.: 1 Sl No.: 2

Rangaiah v. State of Karnataka by

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rangaiah v. State of Karnataka by

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

Sri. Chandrappa Vs State of Karnataka

Smt S Premaleela Vs K B Jayanna

Shankar Jayanth Vs Srinivasan

Davanagere Mahanagara Palike Vs Smt Nagarathnamma

Nagaraju D M Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri. Shivanna Vs State of Karnataka