State by Police Inspector Vs Sri. T. Ramaiah — Corruption | Karnataka HC (2026)

State by Police Inspector Vs Sri. T. Ramaiah — Corruption | Karnataka HC (2026)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Dismissed

Issue for consideration

Point No.(1): Whether the Trial Court erred in acquitting accused Nos.1 and 2 — under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) punishable under Section 13(2) of the PC Act against accused No.1 and Section 8 of the PC Act against accused No.2 — and whether the acquittal requires interference of this Court. +1 more

Court's answer

In a trap case done by the Lokayuktha police, proof of both very demand and acceptance is the sine qua non for convicting the accused persons.

Ratio / Principle

The complainant's own evidence establishes that accused No.2 made no demand: in cross-examination he admitted that accused No.2 spoke nothing to him and that on 02.02.2007 accused No.2 did not demand money from him.

Key takeaways

Shadow witness P.W.2 was made to go outside the office of accused No.1 (his presence having been enquired into), and was therefore not present at the time of demand and acceptance of money by accused No.1 nor even when accused No.1 gave instructions to accused No.2 to receive the money.ratio¶110
Since P.W.2 admitted in cross-examination that he did not hear the conversation between accused No.1 and P.W.2, the question of demand and acceptance does not arise.ratio¶114
The charge-sheet in the complainant's own case (Crime No.255/2006) had already been filed on 02.02.2007 itself, so with regard to the filing of the charge-sheet no work was pending with accused No.1 at the time of the alleged trap.

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Karnataka High Court, Bengaluru (H.P. Sandesh J., oral judgment dated 02.04.2026) dismisses Criminal Appeal No.557/2015 filed by the Lokayukta Police under Sections 378(1) and (3) Cr.P.C. against the acquittal dated 31.12.2014 in Spl.Case No.152/2007 (XXIII Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge and Special Judge, Bengaluru) of Police Inspector T. Ramaiah and Head Constable 1193 C.V. Krishnegowda of Siddapura Police Station under Sections 7, 13(1)(d) r/w 13(2) and Section 8 of the PC Act. Counsel for both respondents were absent; the Court considered appointing an amicus curiae but disposed of the appeal without one. Held: in a Lokayukta trap, proof of both demand and acceptance is the sine qua non of conviction. Here: (i) the complainant-priest P.W.1 conceded in cross-examination that accused No.2 never demanded money from him; (ii) the shadow witness P.W.2 was sent out by accused No.1, was absent at the demand/acceptance and admitted hearing nothing, so the question of demand and acceptance did not arise; (iii) the charge-sheet in P.W.1's own case (Crime No.255/2006, s.419 IPC) had already been filed by accused No.1 on 02.02.2007, leaving no pending official work and giving rise to likely animosity; (iv) the presence of accused No.1 was disputed and the defence theory that the tainted notes were thrusted into accused No.2's pocket stood probabilized; (v) mere recovery of phenolphthalein-tainted notes without corroborated demand does not fasten guilt, consistent with the Supreme Court authorities relied on by the Trial Court (AIR 2013 SC 3368; AIR 2012 SC 2263; (2011) 6 SC 450). The evidence of P.Ws.1 and 2 was mutually inconsistent and contrary; reversal of an acquittal finding requires cogent evidence, which was absent. Point No.(1) answered against interference; the criminal appeal was dismissed and the acquittal stands.

NC: 2026:KHC:18106 CRL.A No. 557 of 2015

1 -

HC-KAR

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

DATED THIS THE 2^ND DAY OF APRIL, 2026

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.557 OF 2015

BETWEEN:

STATE BY POLICE INSPECTOR KARNATAKA LOKAYUKTA POLICE WING BENGALURU CITY DIVISION BENGALURU-560 001.

…APPELLANT

(BY SRI. B.S.PRASAD, SPECIAL COUNSEL)

AND:

VINAYAKA B V

Digitally signed by VINAYAKA B V Date: 2026.04.06 14:28:49 +0530

SRI. T. RAMAIAH S/O LATE THIMMAIAH AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS POLICE INSPECTOR SIDDAPURA POLICE STATION BENGALURU RESIDENT OF AT BANAVARA MAIN ROAD YESHWANTHAPURA HOBLI BENGALURU-560 001.

SRI. C.V.KRISHNEGOWDA S/O SRI. VEEREGOWDA, AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS, HEAD CONSTABLE 1193, SIDDAPURA POLICE STATION BENGALURU, RESIDENT OF HOUSE NO.31/C, 16^TH CROSS,

2 - NC: 2026:KHC:18106 CRL.A No. 557 of 2015

HC-KAR

B.T.M.LAYOUT, 2^ND STAGE BENGALURU-560 001.

…RESPONDENTS

(BY SRI. D.R. SUNDARESHA, ADVOCATE FOR R1 – [ABSENT]; SRI. B.J. PRAKASH SINGH, ADVOCATE FOR R2 – [ABSENT])

THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 378(1) AND (3) OF CR.P.C PRAYING TO GRANT LEAVE TO APPEAL AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND ORDER OF ACQUITTAL DATED 31.12.2014 IN SPL.CASE NO.152/2007 PASSED BY THE COURT OF THE XXIII ADDL. CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE AND SPL. JUDGE, BENGALURU, ACQUITTING THE RESPONDENTS OF THE OFFENCES PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTIONS 7, 13(1)(D) R/W SECTION 13(2) OF THE P.C. ACT, AND TO SET ASIDE THE AFORESAID JUDGMENT AND ORDER OF ACQUITTAL OF THE OFFENCES PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTIONS 7, 13(1)(D) R/W SECTION 13(2) OF THE P.C. ACT, DATED 31.12.2014 IN SPL.CASE NO.152/2007 PASSED BY THE COURT OF THE XXIII ADDL. CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE AND SPL. JUDGE, BENGALURU, BY ALLOWING THE APPEAL AND TO CONVICT AND SENTENCE THE RESPONDENTS FOR THE AFORESAID OFFENCES PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTIONS 7, 13(1)(D) R/W SECTION 13(2) OF THE P.C. ACT, WITH WHICH HE HAS BEEN CHARGED AND TRIED IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW.

THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:

3 -

NC: 2026:KHC:18106 CRL.A No. 557 of 2015

HC-KAR

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH

ORAL JUDGMENT

Heard learned Special counsel appearing for the

appellant.

This appeal is filed praying this Court to set aside the judgment and order of acquittal dated 31.12.2014 in Spl.C.C.No.152/2007, on the file of the XXIII Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge and Special Judge, Bengaluru, for the offences punishable under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act (‘PC Act’ for short) and to convict and sentence the respondents for the above offences in accordance with law.

The factual matrix of the case of the Lokayuktha Police is that accused No.1 was indulged in committing the offences under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) of the PC Act, which is punishable under Section 13(2) of the PC Act and accused No.2 for the offence punishable under Section 8 of the PC Act. It is the case of the Lokayuktha Police that, accused No.1 was working as Police Inspector and accused No.2 was working as Head Constable in Siddapura Police Station and as such,

4 - NC: 2026:KHC:18106 CRL.A No. 557 of 2015

HC-KAR

accused Nos.1 and 2 are public servants. The complainant P.W.1 is the Priest in Sri Shakthi Durga Parameshwari Temple and Varasiddi Vinayaka Temple at Byrasandra, Bengaluru. On 11.12.2006 at 5.00 p.m., one Jayaram and others stopped the developmental programme of the above temples and in that connection, case in Crime No.255/2006 for the offence punishable under Section 419 of IPC has been registered against P.W.1. The investigation in that case was conducted by accused No.1 herein, who on completion of the investigation, filed the charge-sheet on 02.02.2007 against P.W.1. According to the prosecution, very often P.W.1 approached accused No.1 to facilitate him to offer pooja in the above temples and to finalise the complaint in Crime No.255/2006 of Siddapura Police Station, Bengaluru in his favour. In that connection, accused No.1 demanded illegal gratification of Rs.50,000/- to extend official favour. Feeling offended by the said illegal demand of accused No.1, P.W.1 set law into motion with the help of his complaint Ex.P.1, which has been registered by P.W.5 Sri B.S.Ram Mohan. After registration of the case against accused No.1 in Crime No.2/2007, P.W.5 submitted FIR, which is marked as Ex.P.18 in a sealed cover and thereafter secured one

5 - NC: 2026:KHC:18106 CRL.A No. 557 of 2015

HC-KAR

shadow witness P.W.2 and one panch witness as P.W.3 to his office. P.W.1 produced cash of Rs.10,000/- in denomination of Rs.1,000/- each, 11 currency notes of denomination of Rs.500/- each and 5 currency notes of denomination of Rs.100/- each before P.W.5. P.W.5 got entered the numbers of the above currency notes on a sheet Ex.P.2 and also did the formalities of pre-trap mahazar and got placed tainted notes in the left side pocket of shirt of P.W.1 and also got prepared the solution with water and sodium carbonate powder. After obtaining the sample of solution, P.W.3 washed fingers of both hands in the residual solution which consequently turned to pink colour. P.W.5 seized the finger wash of hands of P.W.3 in a bottle and thereafter instructed P.W.1 to approach accused No.1 and to give tainted currency notes to accused No.1 in case of express demand by accused No.1. P.W.1 was also instructed by P.W.5 to wipe spectacles with kerchief in case of acceptance of tainted notes by accused No.1 and by that mode to communicate the acceptance of tainted notes by accused No.1. P.W.5 instructed P.W.2 to accompany P.W.1 and to watch what transpires between accused No.1 and P.W.1. P.W.5 conducted pre-trap mahazar in terms of Ex.P.8 in his office and left his

6 - NC: 2026:KHC:18106 CRL.A No. 557 of 2015

HC-KAR

office in two Maruti Omni vehicles along with his staff and P.W.1 to P.W.3 to Siddapura Police Station. P.W.5 along with his staff and P.W.1 to P.W.3 got down at a distance of about 200 metres from Siddapura Police Station, Bengaluru.

P.W.1 and P.W.2 went to Siddapura Police Station

at about 3.15 p.m. After the entry of P.W.1 and P.W.2, on the instructions of accused No.1, P.W.1 asked P.W.2 to remain outside. Accordingly, P.W.2 went out of the chamber of accused No.1. Thereafter, accused No.1 demanded a sum of Rs.50,000/-. P.W.1 pleaded inability and expressed that a sum of Rs.10,000/- is brought. Accused No.1 called accused No.2 and instructed accused No.2 to receive Rs.10,000/-. As per the instructions of accused No.1, P.W.1 gave tainted notes of Rs.10,000/- to accused No.2, who accepted the same with right hand and placed in the right side pocket of the pant at about 4.30 pm. The same was witnessed by P.W.2. Thereafter, P.W.1 came out of Siddapura Police Station and conveyed the message as instructed and immediately P.W.5 along with his staff and P.W.3 entered the police station and disclosed his identity to accused Nos.1 and 2 and did the trap mahazar by

7 -

NC: 2026:KHC:18106 CRL.A No. 557 of 2015

HC-KAR

seizing the tainted notes and hand wash of accused No.2 was made with the solution and the same turned to pink colour and collected the same in two different bottles and seized the pant and provided alternative pant and all formalities were done. Accused No.1 offered written explanation in terms of Ex.P.14. Accused No.2 equally offered written explanation as per Ex.P.15. P.W.5 obtained the papers pertaining to P.W.1 and obtained the certified copies i.e., Ex.P.19 and also obtained certified copies of Ex.P.20 of Station House Dairy and accused Nos.1 and 2 were arrested by P.W.5 and photographs were also taken in respect of pre-trap and also trap mahazar. Thereafter, P.W.5 recorded the statement of P.W.1 to P.W.3 and other witnesses. During the investigation, received the service particulars of accused Nos.1 and 2 and report of chemical examiner and sanction order. Thereafter, filed the charge-sheet against accused Nos.1 and 2.

The accused persons did not plead guilty and claimed trial. Hence, the prosecution relied upon the prosecution witnesses’ evidence P.W.1 to P.W.5 and documents at Exs.P.1 to 24 are marked and so also M.O.1 to M.O.10 are

8 - NC: 2026:KHC:18106 CRL.A No. 557 of 2015

HC-KAR

marked. The defence also confronted and marked Exs.D.1 to 7. The Trial Judge having considered both oral and documentary evidence available on record, comes to a conclusion that the Lokayuktha Police have not proved the case against the accused and acquitted the accused.

Being aggrieved by the acquittal, the present appeal is filed before this Court.

The main contention of the learned counsel for the appellant is that accused No.1 demanded Rs.50,000/- and in terms of the demand, an amount of Rs.10,000/- was paid to accused No.2. The evidence of P.W.1 complainant, P.W.2 shadow witness and P.W.3 panch witness is very clear that tainted money was recovered from the pocket of accused No.2 and FSL report also supports the case of the prosecution. The learned counsel would submit that explanation was given in terms of Ex.P.14 by accused No.1 and accused No.2 gave the explanation in terms of Ex.P.15 and also work was pending. P.W.3 is a witness to pre-trap and post-trap and Ex.P.16 is a post-trap mahazar and Ex.P.8 is the pre-trap mahazar. The learned counsel also submits that Ex.P.22 is the FSL report and

9 - NC: 2026:KHC:18106 CRL.A No. 557 of 2015

HC-KAR

there is a presumption under Section 20 of the PC Act and no explanation was offered by the accused persons. The Trial Court committed an error in acquitting both the accused and an erroneous reasoning is given in paragraph Nos.17 to 19. It is not in dispute that case was registered against the complainant by the police and he was arrested and made to sit in the police station and thereafter, he was produced before the Court and he was enlarged on bail. The very reasoning given by the Trial Court is that the Lokayuktha Police relied upon the evidence of the complainant, shadow witness and panch witness and comes to the conclusion that the same is not worthy evidence before the Court to convict the accused. The Trial Court committed an error in relying upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in coming to the conclusion that mere recovery of tainted notes itself is not enough and there must be a demand and proof. The Trial Court comes to the conclusion that with regard to the demand and proof, there is no consistent evidence and the very approach of the Trial Court is erroneous. The learned counsel brought to the notice of this Court that the evidence of P.W.1 and P.W.2 is consistent. Though P.W.2 not heard the demand and acceptance, but his evidence is very clear that he was

NC: 2026:KHC:18106 CRL.A No. 557 of 2015

10 -

HC-KAR

standing outside the police station, since he was asked to go out from the police station and he had accompanied P.W.1. The accused No.1 doubted his presence and sent him out from the place where the tainted notes were received from P.W.1 and hence, this Court has to reverse the finding of the Trial Court.

This Court heard the matter yesterday i.e., on 02.04.2026 and respective counsels for respondent Nos.1 and 2 are absent. Hence, made it clear that if learned counsel for respondent Nos.1 and 2 do not appear today, Amicus Curie will be appointed to assist the Court before disposal of this appeal. Inspite of the said order, learned counsels for respondent Nos.1 and 2 failed to appear before this Court to address their argument. However, considering the submission of learned counsel for the appellant, this Court thought it fit not to appoint any Amicus Curie in the matter to dispose of this appeal.

Having heard learned counsel for the appellant and also no assistance from learned counsels for respondent Nos.1 and 2, the points that would arise for consideration of this Court are:

NC: 2026:KHC:18106 CRL.A No. 557 of 2015

11 -

HC-KAR

(1) Whether the Trial Court committed an error in acquitting the accused for the offences invoked against accused Nos.1 and 2 for the offence punishable under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) which is punishable under Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act against accused No.1 and so also for the offence under Section 8 of the Prevention of Corruption Act against accused No.2 and whether it requires interference of this Court?

1. What order?

Point No.(1):

Having heard learned Special Counsel appearing for appellant-Lokayuktha and considering the material available on record, the case of the prosecution in brief is that in the year 2007, accused No.1 was working as Police Inspector and accused No.2 was working as Head Constable in Siddapura Police Station and as such, accused Nos.1 and 2 are public servants. The complainant P.W.1 is the Priest in Sri Shakthi Durga Parameshwari Temple and Varasiddi Vinayaka Temple at Byrasandra, Bengaluru. On 11.12.2006 at 5.00 p.m., one Jayaram and others stopped the developmental programme of

12 -

NC: 2026:KHC:18106 CRL.A No. 557 of 2015

HC-KAR

the above temples and in that connection, case in Crime No.255/2006 for the offence punishable under Section 419 of IPC has been registered against P.W.1. The investigation in that case was conducted by accused No.1 herein, who on completion of the investigation, filed the charge-sheet on 02.02.2007 against P.W.1. According to the prosecution, very often P.W.1 approached accused No.1 to facilitate him to offer pooja in the above temples and to finalise the complaint in Crime No.255/2006 of Siddapura Police Station, Bengaluru in his favour. In that connection, accused No.1 demanded illegal gratification of Rs.50,000/- to extend official favour. Feeling offended by the said illegal demand of accused No.1, P.W.1 set law into motion with the help of his complaint Ex.P.1, which has been registered by P.W.5-Sri B.S.Ram Mohan. After registration of the case against accused No.1 in Crime No.2/2007, P.W.5 submitted FIR, which is marked as Ex.P.18 in a sealed cover and thereafter, secured one shadow witness P.W.2 and one panch witness as P.W.3 to his office. P.W.1 produced cash of Rs.10,000/- tainted notes to the P.W.5 and P.W.5 instructed P.Ws.1 and 2 to go to the office of accused No.1 and on demand, pay the said amount to the accused No.1.

13 - NC: 2026:KHC:18106 CRL.A No. 557 of 2015

HC-KAR

It is the case of the prosecution that when P.Ws.1 and 2 went to the office of accused No.1 and accused No.1 sent out P.W.2 making an enquiry and P.W.2 was outside the office of accused No.1 and thereafter, accused No.1 demanded money and when the P.W.1 said that he had brought money, accused No.1 instructed him to pay the amount to P.W.2 and kept the amount in the hands of P.W.2 and immediately, P.W.1 gave signal to the Lokayuktha police and all of them rushed to the office of accused No.1 and apprehended accused Nos.1 and 2 and also conducted trap mahazar in terms of Ex.P16 and formalities have been done and accused Nos.1 and 2 also offered written explanation as per Exs.P14 and P15 respectively and conducted mahazar in the presence of all the witnesses and also recorded the statement of other witnesses and filed the charge-sheet. The accused Nos.1 and 2 were secured before the Trial Court and both of them claimed for trial.

Accordingly, the prosecution relies upon the evidence of P.Ws.1 to 5 and also got marked the documents as Exs.P1 to P24 and M.Os.1 to 10.

14 -

NC: 2026:KHC:18106 CRL.A No. 557 of 2015

HC-KAR

Having reassessed both oral and documentary evidence in view of the grounds which have been urged in the appeal memo and no argument was canvassed by learned counsels for respondent Nos.1 and 2. The P.W.1, who is the complainant in his evidence reiterates the contents of the complaint that accused No.1 demanded an amount of Rs.50,000/- from P.W.1 and the same was negotiated and he informed that at present, he is not having that much of amount and he pleaded inability and the same was scaled down to Rs.10,000/- and he was also interested to pay only Rs.10,000/. Accordingly, on demand, he paid amount of Rs.10,000/- to accused No.2 on the instructions of accused No.1. It is his evidence that before handing over the money, it was subjected to pre-trap mahazar and the amount which was entrusted to P.W.1 was given to accused No.1 and he reiterated that accused No.1 called Krishnagowda i.e., accused No.2 and asked him to receive the money and he handed over the amount to accused No.2 and accused No.2 received the same and kept it in his right side pocket of his pant and Lokayuktha Police rushed to the office of accused No.1 on his signal and drawn trap mahazar. But this witness in the cross-examination when

15 - NC: 2026:KHC:18106 CRL.A No. 557 of 2015

HC-KAR

the learned counsel for accused No.2 cross-examined him, categorically admits that in the matter of his case, accused No.2 has not spoken anything with him. But, he admits that since accused No.1 instructed him to place currency notes at the hands of accused No.2, he placed the currency notes at the hands of accused No.2. He also admits that accused No.2 gave explanation that as per the instructions of accused No.1, he received the cash and admits that on 02.02.2007, accused No.2 has not demanded money from him. Hence, evidence of P.W.1 is clear that accused No.2 has not demanded any money from him.

During the course of cross-examination of P.W.1 by learned counsel for accused No.1, he categorically admitted that he has not changed his name and caused any publication in the newspaper on 25.06.2003 and also he has not met notary by name B.G.Sridhar. He also admits that he gave evidence during departmental enquiry and also copy of the evidence given before the Enquiry Officer during departmental enquiry which is marked as Ex.D6. In the cross-examination, he also admits that one Jayaram, Secretary of Eshwara Temple is known to him and he had filed complaint against him in

16 - NC: 2026:KHC:18106 CRL.A No. 557 of 2015

HC-KAR

Siddapura Police Station, Bengaluru which came to be registered in Crime No.255/2006 and the accused No.1 himself investigated the matter and filed the charge-sheet against him. He admits that he visited the office of Lokayuktha twice. He also admits that on 01.02.2007 when he visited the Lokayuktha Police Inspector, he told about demand of bribe by accused No.1 and he has given oral statement on 01.02.2007 and the same was not reduced into writing. But, he says he was not possessing cash on 01.02.2007 and accused No.2 was working as Assistant Sub-Inspector of Police and he did not know the rank of accused No.2 in the year 2007. But, accused No.2 had not visited the above temple and he do not know who is the witness by name Sridhar. He also says that one witness by name Aradhya is known to him. Earlier to 02.02.2007 twice he visited Siddapura Police Station, Bengaluru. On 29.12.2006 and 30.12.2006, he went to Siddapura Police Station and he also says that he voluntarily went to the said police station on these two days to ascertain about the case registered against him. At that time, charge-sheet was not filed. But, he has not spoken to Jayaram on those two days. When the suggestion was made that, no work was pending with accused No.1 as on the date of

NC: 2026:KHC:18106 CRL.A No. 557 of 2015

17 -

HC-KAR

alleged trap and the same was denied and suggestion was made that accused No.1 never demanded any money and the same was denied. It is suggested that accused No.2 was favouring him in his official work in Siddapura Police Station and the same was denied.

The other witness is P.W.2, who is a shadow witness. He says that he accompanied P.W.1 and also speaks about mahazar drawn in terms of Ex.P2 as well as Exs.P8 and P16. He also says that he went along with P.W.1 and accused No.1 demanded a sum of Rs.50,000/- from P.W.1 and P.W.1 pleaded inability and told that he brought Rs.10,000/-. The accused No.1 pointed out accused No.2 and told P.W.1 to give Rs.10,000/- to accused No.2 and accused No.2 counted the same in both hands and kept the same in right side pocket of his hand. The accused No.1 came out of police station and wiped his face with kerchief. This witness was subjected to cross-examination. In the cross-examination, he admits that he has given evidence before the Enquiry Officer in the departmental enquiry against accused Nos.1 and 2. But, he says that he has not read the complaint against P.W.1 touching Durgaparameshwari Temple and he has not read Ex.P1 which

18 -

NC: 2026:KHC:18106 CRL.A No. 557 of 2015

HC-KAR

was filed by P.W.1. He also says that he cannot say the date on which the statement was recorded by the Investigating Officer. Except on the day of trap, he has not visited the office of C.W.15 on any other day and he has not seen the sketch drawn by C.W.15 and he has not given any statement as per Ex.D1. However, he gave evidence during departmental enquiry and also admits two sheets consisting his evidence which is now marked as Ex.D2. He also admits that he cannot say the name of Centri in Siddapura Police Station, Bengaluru and also cannot say the total number of police staff present in that police station. It is also his evidence that P.W.1 entered that police station and he was outside the said police station when P.W.1 entered and he could not hear the conversation between P.W.1 and accused No.1 and he has not heard the conversation between accused No.1 and P.W.1. However, he says between 3.15 p.m. and 4.15 p.m. on that day, accused No.1 was not in that police station. Nobody told him that accused No.1 had left the police station for rounds.

The other witness is P.W.3, who is a panch witness with regard to pre-trap. So also, P.W.4 is the retired Superintendent of Police, who accorded sanction in terms of

NC: 2026:KHC:18106 CRL.A No. 557 of 2015

19 -

HC-KAR

Ex.P17. The other witness is P.W.5, who is a retired Deputy Superintendent of Police and having received the complaint, he has done all the formalities.

Having considered the evidence available before the

Court, in a case of trap done by the Lokayuktha police, very demand and acceptance is the sine qua non for convicting the accused persons. In the case on hand, it is the case of prosecution that work was pending with accused. It is also the case of prosecution that accused No.1 instructed the accused No.2 to receive money from P.W.1. The prosecution, in order to prove the case of demand and acceptance relied upon the evidence of P.Ws.1 and 2. No doubt, P.W.1 in his evidence says that accused demanded money only to help him to do pooja as priest in the temple. It is not the case of the prosecution that in order to help him in the case registered against him, he gave the money.

It is important to note that already charge-sheet was filed on 02.02.2007 itself. When such being the case, with regard to filing of charge-sheet, no work was pending with accused No.1. It is also important to note that P.W.1 says that

20 - NC: 2026:KHC:18106 CRL.A No. 557 of 2015

HC-KAR

in order to help him to continue the job in the temple, he gave him the cash. But, the fact is that to continue pooja as priest in the temple demanded money and the fact that accused No.1 investigated the matter and filed the charge-sheet against P.W.1 is not in dispute. When such being the case, the Court has to appreciate the evidence with due care and caution and the fact that accused No.1 initiated criminal prosecution against P.W.1 is not in dispute and investigation is completed and charge-sheet is also filed. Hence, normally, when the accused No.1 has not helped him during the course of investigation, there will be an animosity against accused No.1.

It is also important to note that P.W.1 says when he went along with P.W.2 to the office of accused No.1, accused No.1 enquired him about the presence of P.W.2 and when he replied that he was his uncle, he was made to go outside the office of accused No.1. Hence, it is clear that P.W.2 was not present at the time of demand and acceptance of money by accused No.1 and even given instructions to accused No.2 to receive money. P.W.2 categorically admits in the crossexamination that he did not hear any conversation between

21 -

NC: 2026:KHC:18106 CRL.A No. 557 of 2015

HC-KAR

accused No.1 and P.W.2. Hence, the question of demand and acceptance does not arise.

It is further important to note that P.W.1 says that when he accompanied P.W.2, P.W.2 was sent out and the same is not spoken by P.W.2. But, in his chief evidence, he says that in his presence, demand was made and accused No.2 accepted the money. It is also important to note that it is the case of the prosecution that Lokayuktha police rushed to the office of accused No.1 at 3.45 p.m. and all procedures were done including the trap at 4.30 p.m. P.W.2 says that accused No.1 was not in the police station and when the presence of accused No.1 is disputed and the evidence is not consistent with the evidence of prosecution witnesses and the theory of defence that the tainted money was thrusted in the pant of accused No.2 is probabilized.

It is also important to note that the Trial Court while considering the evidence of P.W.5, who is the Investigating Officer and also considering the evidence of P.Ws.1 and 3 comes to the conclusion that mere recovery of tainted money i.e., phenolphthalein powder on the notes itself

NC: 2026:KHC:18106 CRL.A No. 557 of 2015

22 -

HC-KAR

will not amount to come to such a conclusion. The Trial Judge also having considered the principles laid down in the judgment in AIR 2013 SC 3368, AIR 2012 SC 2263 and the judgment in (2011) 6 SC 450 taken note that mere recovery of tainted amount in the absence of corroboration regarding demand will not fasten the guilt. In the case on hand, when the demand and acceptance is not proved by any of the independent witness and the evidence of shadow witness is not consistent and P.W.1 evidence is not suffice to come to a conclusion that there was demand and acceptance and sine qua non regarding demand and acceptance is not proved in the case on hand.

Hence, the Trial Court rightly not accepted the case of prosecution and arrived at the conclusion that accused Nos.1 and 2 have not committed the offence punishable under Section 8 and 13(1)(d) punishable under Section 13(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act. When such reasoning is given by the Trial Court, it is not a case to reverse the findings of the Trial Court. While reversing the finding, there must be cogent evidence before the Court and evidence of P.Ws.1 and 2 which are material in a case of trap is concerned is not consistent with each other and the evidence of P.Ws.1 and 2 is contrary to

23 - NC: 2026:KHC:18106 CRL.A No. 557 of 2015

HC-KAR

each other. Though, P.W.3 supports the case of prosecution, the same will not tilt the case of prosecution. The P.W.5 conducted the trap and the Court cannot accept the theory of demand and acceptance in the absence of consistent evidence. Hence, I do not find any ground to reverse the finding of the Trial Court in the absence of cogent evidence before the Trial Court. Therefore, I answer Point No.(1) accordingly.

Point No.(2):

In view of the discussion made above, I pass the

following:

ORDER

The criminal appeal is dismissed.

SD/(H.P.SANDESH) JUDGE

MD/ST List No.: 1 Sl No.: 5

Procedural history

How this case reached the court

AI extract

Order under challenge
Judgment and order of acquittal dated 31.12.2014 in Spl.Case No.152/2007 (styled Spl.C.C.No.152/2007 in the body of the judgment), acquitting the respondents of offences under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of the PC Act and Section 8 of the PC Act.¶32
XXIII Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge and Special Judge, Bengaluru · 31.12.2014
Prior proceeding
On 11.12.2006, following an incident at temples at Byrasandra, case in Crime No.255/2006 under Section 419 IPC was registered against the complainant P.W.1; it was investigated by accused No.1, who filed the charge-sheet on 02.02.2007.¶36
Prior proceeding
Complaint of P.W.1 (Ex.P.1) registered by P.W.5 Sri B.S. Ram Mohan as Crime No.2/2007 against accused No.1; FIR submitted in a sealed cover and marked Ex.P.18.¶36
Prior proceeding
Pre-trap formalities: shadow witness P.W.2 and panch witness P.W.3 secured; P.W.1 produced tainted cash of Rs.10,000/-; currency numbers recorded on Ex.P.2; sodium carbonate solution prepared; pre-trap mahazar Ex.P.8 drawn.¶39
Prior proceeding
Trap at Siddapura Police Station: on instructions of accused No.1, P.W.1 handed tainted notes of Rs.10,000/- to accused No.2, who placed them in his right pant pocket at about 4.30 p.m., in the presence of P.W.2 outside; trap mahazar Ex.P.16 drawn.¶44
Prior proceeding
Post-trap: written explanations Ex.P.14 (accused No.1) and Ex.P.15 (accused No.2) recorded; accused Nos.1 and 2 arrested by P.W.5; certified copies, service particulars, chemical examiner report and sanction order obtained.¶48
Prior proceeding
Charge-sheet filed against accused Nos.1 and 2 on completion of investigation.¶48
Prior proceeding
Trial: accused claimed trial; prosecution examined P.Ws.1-5, marked Exs.P.1-24 and M.Os.1-10; defence marked Exs.D.1-7; Trial Court held the case not proved and acquitted the accused.¶52
Prior proceeding
Present criminal appeal under Sections 378(1) and (3) Cr.P.C. filed seeking leave to appeal against the acquittal and to convict and sentence the respondents.¶53