Dismissed

State by Lokayukta Police v. Muniyappa

Karnataka HC2 Apr 2026CRL.A/660/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Appeal by Lokayukta police against acquittal of an Assistant Sub-Inspector trapped for demanding Rs.5,000 bribe to file a 'B' report. The High Court found evidence of demand rested only on ambiguous gestures unsupported by the shadow witness and panchanama, upheld the acquittal and dismissed the appeal.

What did the court decide?

Leave to appeal against acquittal refused; appeal dismissed and acquittal upheld.

State by Lokayukta Police Vs Muniyappa — Corruption | Karnataka HC (2026)

¶1

¶2

NC: 2026:KHC:18154 CRL.A No. 660 of 2014

¶3

HC-KAR

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶5

DATED THIS THE 2^ND DAY OF APRIL, 2026

¶6

BEFORE

¶7

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.G.S. KAMAL

¶8

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 660 OF 2014 (A)

¶9

BETWEEN:

¶10

STATE BY LOKAYUKTA POLICE BANGALORE RURAL

¶11

REP. BY SPL PUBLIC PROSECUTOR FOR LOKAYUKTA, HIGH COURT BENCH, BANGALORE-560001

¶12

…APPELLANT

¶13

(BY SRI.H.D.KUMAR, ADVOCATE, A/W SRI.VENKATESH S. ARBATTI, SPL.PP)

¶14

AND:

¶15

Digitally signed by SUMA B N Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶16

MUNIYAPPA

¶17

AGE:MAJOR, ASSISTANT SUB-INSPECTOR OF POLICE, THALAGHATTAPURA POLICE STATION, RAMANAGAR DISTRICT-571511

¶18

…RESPONDENT

¶19

(BY SRI. PARAMESHWAR N HEGDE, ADVOCATE)

¶20

THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL IS FILED U/S.378(1) AND (3) CR.P.C R/W SECTION 27 OF P.C.ACT BY THE SPL. P.P. FOR THE STATE PRAYING THAT THIS HON'BLE COURT MAY BE PLEASED TO GRANT LEAVE TO FILE APPEAL AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND

¶21

¶22

NC: 2026:KHC:18154 CRL.A No. 660 of 2014

¶23

HC-KAR

¶24

ORDER OF ACQUITTAL DATED 25.02.2014 PASSED BY THE PRL. SESSIONS JUDGE AND SPL. JUDGE, BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT, BANGALORE IN SPL.C.NO.17/2012. SET ASIDE THE IMPUGNED JUDGMENT AND ORDER OF ACQUITTAL DATED 25.02.2014 IN SPL.CASE No.17/2012 ARISING OUT OF LOKAYUKTHA P.S.CR.NO.4/2011 BY THE PRL.SESSIONS JUDGE AND SPL. JUDGE, BANGALORE RURAL. CONVICT THE ACCUSED/RESPONDENT FOR THE OFFENCES PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTIONS 7, 13(1)(d) R/W SECTION 13(2) OF THE PREVENTION OF CORRUPTION ACT, AND CONSEQUENTLY SENTENCE THE ACCUSED/RESPONDENT FOR THE CHARGES LEVELED AGAINST HIM.

¶25

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

¶26

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.G.S. KAMAL

¶27

ORAL JUDGMENT

¶28

This appeal is by the Lokayuktha being aggrieved by the Judgment and Order dated 25.02.2014 passed by the Principal Sessions Judge and Special Judge, Bangalore Rural District, Bangalore in Special Case No.17/2012 in and by which the accused/respondent herein has been acquitted for the offences punishable under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as `P.C. Act' for short).

¶29

Case of the prosecution is that:

¶30

3 - NC: 2026:KHC:18154 CRL.A No. 660 of 2014

¶31

HC-KAR

¶32

Accused/respondent was working as Assistant SubInspector of Police at Thalaghattapura Police Station. That a complaint was filed by one Srinivas and his father Narasimhaiah against the defacto-complainant G. Shankaregowda. When the defacto complainant G. Shankaregowda had approached the accused, enquiring about the said case, accused on 17.01.2011 allegedly demanded a sum of Rs.5,000/- from the defacto complainant to close the case by filing B' report. Defacto complainant had allegedly paid Rs.1,000/- to the accused and had assured payment of remaining amount. Complainant being unwilling to pay the bribe amount had approached the police inspector of Lokayuktha, who had secured the punch witnesses and conducted the entrustment mahazar and had laid a trap on 20.01.2011 at about 4.00 p.m. at Thalaghattapura Police Station. Accused allegedly demanded and accepted the illegal gratification of Rs.4,000/- from the complainant as a reward for closing the file of the complainant by filing B' report, he was trapped by the police inspector-Lokayuktha. A charge sheet was filed. Charges were framed for the offences noted above. Accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

¶33

4 - NC: 2026:KHC:18154 CRL.A No. 660 of 2014

¶34

HC-KAR

¶35

Prosecution examined six witnesses as PW1 to PW6

¶36

and marked 16 documents as PW1 to PW16 apart from producing material objects, marked Mos.1 to 13. Two documents have been marked on behalf of the defendants as Exhibits D1 and D2. The statement of accused was recorded under Section 313 of Cr.P.C denying the incriminating circumstances.

¶37

The trial Court framed the following points for its consideration:

¶38

"(i) Does the prosecution prove that the accused being a public servant, while working as Assistant Sub-Inspector of Police of Thalaghattapura Police Station on 17.01.2011 demanded illegal gratification of Rs.5,000/- from PW1- Shankaregowda to show an official favour of filing B report in connection with the complaint lodged against him and received Rs.1,000/- from him and on 20.01.2011, the accused demanded and accepted illegal gratification of Rs.4,000/- from PW1 and thereby committed an offence punishable under Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988?

¶39

(ii) Does the prosecution prove that by corrupt or illegal means or by otherwise abusing his position as a public servant, on 17.01.2011 and on 20.01.2011, at Thalaghattapura Police Station, the one Srinivas on 16.01.2011 at 8.30 p.m. and he lodged a complaint to Thalaghattapura Police Station with Wound Certificate, but they did not register his complaint. On 17.01.2011 at about 10.30 a.m., he was informed by the Station House Officer/Assistant Sub-Inspector of Police Muniyappa being the accused that a case is registered against him on the complaint of Srinivas. When he took exception, the accused told that he will submit B report and told him to take care of his "Sayebru" i.e., Sub-Inspector of Police of that Police Station namely Kumar. He has further stated that he asked the accused what is the amount to be paid by him and then the accused told him to pay Rs.5,000/- and immediately, he paid

¶40

¶41

NC: 2026:KHC:18154 CRL.A No. 660 of 2014

¶42

HC-KAR

¶43

Rs.1,000/- to the accused and took time of 2-3 days to pay the remaining amount of Rs.4,000/-. He went to Lokayuktha office on 20.01.2011 at 1 p.m. and gave complaint to the Police Inspector, Lokayuktha as per Ex.P1. The Police Inspector, Lokayuktha on registering his complaint, secured two official witnesses as Panch witnesses to his office and the Panch witnesses perused the complaint and accused obtained pecuniary advantage by receiving the bribe amount of Rs.1,000/- and Rs.4,000/- respectively and thereby committed an offence under Section 13(1)(d) punishable under Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988?

¶44

(iii) What order?"

¶45

On appreciation of evidence, answered point No.1 and point No. 2 in the negative and consequently passed the impugned Judgment and order. Being aggrieved the present appeal.

¶46

Learned counsel appearing for the appellantLokayuktha, at the outset drawing attention to this Court to paragraphs 29 and 30 of the impugned Judgment submits that the trial Court despite there being specific and categorical deposition of PW1 and PW2 with regard to accused demanding the bribe amount and PW1 paying in the presence of PW2, the trial Court has erroneously held as PW2 not stating anything about demand made by the accused either verbal or by gesture which, goes to the very root of the case resulting in impugned Judgment suffering from perversity.

¶47

¶48

NC: 2026:KHC:18154 CRL.A No. 660 of 2014

¶49

HC-KAR

¶50

6.1 That the trial Court has found discrepancies in the trap mahazar marked at Exhibit P6, where the date is shown as 20.01.2011. However, in the charge sheet, the date of trap is shown as 21.01.2011, which is insignificant and inconsequential. Since such discrepancy has not caused any prejudice or detriment to the accused, the same ought to have been overlooked.

¶51

6.2 That in terms of Section 20 of the P.C. Act, a burden is casted on the accused to explain possession of currency which was recovered from his person and the same has not been discharged by the accused in the manner known to law.

¶52

6.3 That technical flaws shall not be the reason for vitiating the trial as the accused had clearly understood the nature of allegation and had fully participated in the proceedings. Learned counsel relies upon the following judgments of the Apex Court and the Coordinate Bench of this Court in support of the aforesaid submissions:

¶53

(i) Crl.A.No.1617/2026 -Sandeep Yadav Vs Satish and others

¶54

(ii) (2007) 4 SCC 415 -Chandrappa and others Vs State of Karnataka

¶55

(iii) ILR 2007 Kar 1106 - State of Karnataka, by Police Inspector Karnataka Lokayukta Vs C.Chand Saheb

¶56

7 - NC: 2026:KHC:18154 CRL.A No. 660 of 2014

¶57

HC-KAR

¶58

Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the accused, justifying the impugned judgment and order passed by the trial Court, submits:

¶59

7.1 That though at the first blush the reasoning recorded by the trial Court at paragraph 29 appears to be incorrect, he submits the final outcome is what has to be appreciated. Even if the trial Court has overlooked the evidence made available by the prosecution and if the appellate Court finds the material available on record is sufficient on re-appreciation leading to the conclusion which is already arrived at by the trial Court, matter do not require interference.

¶60

7.2 That to bring home the guilt of the accused under Sections 7 and 13 of the PC Act, the prosecution is required to prove existence of element of demand and payment of bribe beyond reasonable doubt, that the same cannot be left to be inferred from circumstances, that the prosecution must prove acceptance of the bribe amount by the accused, fully being conscious of the receipt of the said amount being towards the illegal gratification, which is absent in the instant case.

¶61

¶62

NC: 2026:KHC:18154 CRL.A No. 660 of 2014

¶63

HC-KAR

¶64

7.3 He submitted there were two cases pending before

¶65

the Thalaghattapura Police Station. One in Crime No.16/2011 filed by certain Srinivas and his son against the complainant as PW1. Another is case in Crime No.17/2011 filed by the complainant against the said Srinivas and his father. The alleged B report was to be filed in the case in Crime No.16/2011 which was being investigated by PSI- Kumar and the accused here had no control over the same. Pendency of the work is one of the circumstances which may weigh either side of the prosecution of the accused and in the instant case admittedly accused was not in charge of investigation pertaining to the case in Crime No.16/2011. As such the circumstances of accused deriving benefit from the illegal gratification would not arise.

¶66

7.4 He points out to the deposition of PW1 found at page numbers 71, 76, 83, 85, 86 and 87 to indicate that admittedly there was no oral demand made by the accused. That the complainant himself has admitted to there being certain animosity between him and the accused having registered a case against the complainant. Thus, he submits it is a clear case of vindication of his personal grievance. That there are

¶67

9 - NC: 2026:KHC:18154 CRL.A No. 660 of 2014

¶68

HC-KAR

¶69

overwriting and insertion in the prosecution papers. He points out to Exhibit P10-FIR wherein there is admitted usage of whitener and over writing to indicate the day and the date as different from one which was furnished to the accused, giving rise to serious doubt with regard to the integrity of the prosecution.

¶70

7.5 That in Exhibit P8 panchanama, PW2 has never whispered about there being demand made by the accused which finds mention in his deposition before the Court indicating improvement in his version.

¶71

7.6 That CW5-Muthuraju who is stated to be the relative of complainant had accompanied the complainant before the entrustment trap mahazar and during the trap. But for the reasons best known to the prosecution said witness has not been examined. He submitted this factor has to be held in favour of the accused, as no explanation is given by the prosecution for his non-examination.

¶72

7.7 That though PW1 and PW2 in their deposition have spoken about accused posing some gesture through his

¶73

10 - NC: 2026:KHC:18154 CRL.A No. 660 of 2014

¶74

HC-KAR

¶75

hand/finger, it is not clear as to whether it was towards demand of the bribe or indicating something else.

¶76

7.8 That from the holistic reading of the circumstances would indicate that when the complainant and the shadow witness had gone to the police station accused had handed over the FIR to the complainant. It could be during this process there was some movement of hands and the same cannot be held to be the one demanding the bribe amount. He submits unless this aspect of the matter is established beyond reasonable doubt, the prosecution cannot contend such bodily gesture was only towards the demand of money, when particularly such demand is not spoken to by PW2 the mahazar witnesses.

¶77

7.9 Referring to paragraphs 18 and 20 of the Judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Neeraj Dutta Vs State (Govt. of N.C.T of Delhi) reported in 2023 SCC Online SC 280 , which was passed after reference order by the Constitution Bench, he submits the established principles of requirement of proof of demand and acceptance has not been

¶78

11 -

¶79

NC: 2026:KHC:18154 CRL.A No. 660 of 2014

¶80

HC-KAR

¶81

dispensed with and the same cannot be inferred in the circumstances either.

¶82

7.10 Referring to paragraph 24 of the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Mukhtiar Singh Vs State of Punjab reported in (2017) 8 SCC 136 he submits that mere enquiry by the accused as to whether money had been brought or not, could no means constitute demand as contemplated under the provisions of Sections 7 and 13 of the Act. That in the instant case, except the self-serving statement of PW1 and improvised statement of PW2, no acceptable evidence is brought on record to prove the factum of demand.

¶83

7.11 Referring to paragraph 23 of the judgment of Apex Court in the case of Constable 907 Surendra Singh and Another Vs State of Uttarakhand reported in (2025) 5 SCC

¶84

433 , he insists presumption of innocence is available to the accused who has already acquitted which gets reinforced, reaffirmed and strengthened and unless prosecution makes out a case with compelling cogent evidence normally, the appellate Court shall not interfere with the finding recorded by the trial

¶85

12 -

¶86

NC: 2026:KHC:18154 CRL.A No. 660 of 2014

¶87

HC-KAR

¶88

Court. Thus, he submits appeal lacks merits and seeks for

¶89

dismissal of the same.

¶90

Heard and perused the records.

¶91

Point that arise for consideration is:

¶92

"Whether the Trial Court is justified in acquitting the appellant/accused for the offences punishable under Sections 7, 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act?"

¶93

PW1 against whom a case in Crime No.17/2011 had been registered in the Thalaghattapura Police Station upon the complaint filed by one, Srinivas and his father Narasimhaiah, had apparently visited the said police station enquiring about the status of the said case upon which accused- the Assistant Sub Inspector of Police had assured of closing the said case subject to PW1 paying Rs.5,000/-. That the said demand was allegedly made on 17.01.2011 on which date PW1 is stated to have paid Rs.1,000/- and had promised to pay remaining Rs.4,000/-. This according to the prosecution is the first instance of demand made by the accused. Based on the said complaint, prosecution laid the trap which was carried out on

¶94

13 -

¶95

NC: 2026:KHC:18154 CRL.A No. 660 of 2014

¶96

HC-KAR

¶97

20.01.2011 at about 04.00 p.m. at Thalaghattapura Police Station.

¶98

Six witnesses have been examined by the prosecution of which only PW1 and PW2 have witnessed the alleged demand and payment of bribe amount.

¶99

PW1 being the complainant is interested witness. Settled position of law that his testimony cannot be taken as a sole basis for conviction. The same requires to be corroborated. PW1 in his deposition has stated that on the date fixed for the trap, he along with PW2 went to the police station. The relevant portion of his deposition is as under:

¶100

"The accused with his right hand, specifically with his right thumb and his right index finger demanded money implicitly……I was sitting to the left side of the accused. On demand made by the accused as above. I removed the tainted notes with a cover from my pocket and passed on the same to the accused. He received the same from his right hand took it by his left hand and placed the cover with the currency notes in the left pocket of his uniform pant."

¶101

Thus according to PW1 accused had demanded the money with his right thumb and right index finger implicitly. There is no oral demand even according to PW1.

¶102

14 -

¶103

NC: 2026:KHC:18154 CRL.A No. 660 of 2014

¶104

HC-KAR

¶105

PW1 in the cross examination has deposed as under:

¶106

"It is true to suggest that in the police station apart from the accused other staff were also there. Some public were also there. The entire conversation from the moment I entered into the police station, till the I.O entered the police station is recorded in the tape recorder, I have heard the same. I do not know whether the said conversation is mentioned in the trap mahazar. It is true to suggest that the accused did not demand the bribe orally."

¶107

PW2, shadow witness in his examination-in-chief has

¶108

stated as under:

¶109

"While the complainant and the accused were talking to each other, the accused made gesture with his right hand as if inviting some thing. (The witness repeats the gesture, he is waiving his right hand fingers inwards). P.W.1 removed the cover from his right pocket of his pants, tendered the same to the accused, in turn the accused received the pocket with his right hand, transferred to his left hand and kept the same in the left pocket of his pant."

¶110

In the cross-examination, the said witness however

¶111

has stated at page 100 as under:

¶112

"It is not correct to suggest that the accused did not demand the bribe amount, instead P.W.1 made attempt to forcibly thirst the cover to his right pocket of his pant. It is not correct to suggest that on that the accused removed the cover from his pocket and while returning the same to the complainant the Lokayuktha apprehended him."

¶113

Thus evidence of PW1 and PW2 indicate that the

¶114

accused had allegedly demanded the money only by gesture,

¶115

15 - NC: 2026:KHC:18154 CRL.A No. 660 of 2014

¶116

HC-KAR

¶117

by waving in/his hand and finger. As rightly pointed out by learned counsel for accused/respondent, perusal of trap panchanama at Exhibit P6 indicate PW2 who was present has not spoken about demand being made by the accused. Relevant portion of the said trap panchanama is as under:

¶118

"ನಂತರ ತ��ಾ��ಾ�ಯವರು ¦gÁå¢AiÀÄªÀgÀ �ೊ�ೆಯ��ದ� ಪಂಚ-1 ರವರನು� ಕು�ತು ' ನ�ೆದ �ದ��ಾನಗಳ ಬ"ೆ# �$ಾ�%&ಾಗ, ಪಂಚ-1 ರವರು "'ಾನು ಮತು) ¦gÁå¢AiÀÄªÀgÀÄ ತಲಘಟ-ಪ.ರ /�ೕ1 2ಾ3ೆ"ೆ 4ೋ5ದು�, 2ಾ3ೆಯ ಪ67ೇಶ &ಾ9ರದ ಎದು�ನ %ೕ;ನ�� ಸಮವಸ=>ಾ� /�ೕ1 ಅ��ಾ�ಯವರು ಕು@Aದು� ಅವರನು� ¦gÁå¢AiÀÄªÀgÀÄ Bೇ;. �ಾC&ಾಗ ಸದ� /�ೕ1 ಅ��ಾ�ಯು ¦gÁå¢AiÀÄªÀgÀ£ÀÄß ತಮD ಪಕEದ %ೕ;ನ�� ಕು@ತು�ೊಳFGವಂ�ೆ A@%&ಾಗ HIಾJKಯವರು %ೕ;ನ�� ಕು@ತು�ೊಂCರು�ಾ)Lೆ . ನಂತರ ¦gÁå¢AiÀÄªÀgÀÄ ತನ� �ರುದM &ಾಖOಾ5ರುವ ಪ6ಕರಣದ ಎQ.ಐ.ಆT ಅನು� �ೕಡುವಂ�ೆ �ೇ@ ನಂತರ ನನ�ನು� ತನ� �ೊ�ೆ ಬಂKರುವ ಅ%Wೆ-ಂX OಾಯT ಎಂದು ಪ�ಚY%&ಾಗ ಸದ� /�ೕ1 ಅ��ಾ�ಯು ನನ�ನು� ತಮD ಎದು�ನ��ದ� ಮ�ೊ)ಂದು ಕುZJಯ [ೕOೆ ಕು@ತು�ೊಳFGವಂ�ೆ A@%&ಾಗ 'ಾನು ಪರ7ಾ5ಲ� ಎಂದು A@% ¦gÁå¢AiÀÄªÀgÀÄ ಕು@Aದ� ಕುZJಯ ಎದು�ನ�� ಂತು�ೊಂCರು�ೆ)ೕ'ೆ . ನಂತರ ಸದ� /�ೕ1 ಅ��ಾ�ಯು ತಮD %ಬ\ಂKಯವ�"ೆ ಎQ. ಐ.ಆT ಅನು� ತರುವಂ�ೆ ಸೂZ% ಅದನು� ಪ�ೆದು�ೊಂಡ ನಂತರ ಸದ� ಎQ. ಐ.ಆT [ೕOೆ ತ]ಮ ಸ^ಯನು� �ಾC ಮತು) _ಹರನು� 4ಾa ನನ"ೆ ಸದ� ಎQ.ಐ.ಆT ಅನು� �ೊಟು- ಅದರ��ರುವ ಕಲಂ ಗಳ ಬ"ೆ# �ವ�ಸಲು ಬಂ&ಾಗ 'ಾನು ಅ&ೆಲ� ನನ"ೆ "ೊ�ಾ)ಗುವ.Kಲ� 'ಾನು CqÉÆéPÉÃmï ಆbೕ%ನ�� ೆಲಸ �ಾಡು�ೆ)ೕ'ೆ ಅcೆ- ಎಂದು A@%&ಾಗ ಸದ� /�ೕ1 ಅ��ಾ�ಯು 4ಾ"ಾದLೆ �ಮ"ೆ A@ಸುವ ಅವಶ�ಕ�ೆ Yರುವ.Kಲ� ಎಂದು 4ೇ@ ¦gÁå¢ಯವLೊಂK"ೆ �ಾತುಕ�ೆ ನ�ೆ%ರು�ಾ)Lೆ ಅದು ಏನು ಎಂದು ನನ"ೆ ಸ�Iಾ5 "ೊ�ಾ)5ರುವ.Kಲ�. ನಂತರ, "ೊ�ಾ)5ರುವ.Kಲ�. eಾ6fೕ5ಕ ಪಂಚ'ಾ[ಯ ಸಮಯದ�� ¦gÁå¢AiÀÄªÀgÀÄ �ಾನು ಧ�%ದ� eಾ�ಂ;ನ ಬಲBಾಗದ Wೈi �ೇjನ��;-ದ� ಕವರನು� �ೆ"ೆದು ಸದ�ಯವ�"ೆ �ೕC&ಾಗ, ಸದ� /�ೕ1 ಅ��ಾ�ಯವರು ಅದನು� ತನ� ಬಲ"ೈ�ಂದ ಪ�ೆದು�ೊಂಡು ನಂತರ ತನ� ಎಡ"ೈ ಮೂಲಕ �ಾನು ಧ�%ದ� �ಾa eಾ�ಂ;ನ ಎಡBಾಗದ eಾ�ಂ;ನ Wೈi �ೇjನ��ಟು-�ೊಂಡು ಎk-&ೆ ಎಂದು ¦gÁå¢AiÀÄªÀjUÉ �ೇ@&ಾಗ, ¦gÁå¢AiÀÄªÀgÀÄ

¶119

16 - NC: 2026:KHC:18154 CRL.A No. 660 of 2014

¶120

HC-KAR

¶121

'ಾಲುE ಇ&ೆ ಎಂದು A@%ರು�ಾ)Lೆ . ಆಗ ನನ"ೆ ಸದ� /�ೕ1 ಅ��ಾ�ಯವLೇ ಆeಾKತ ಮು�ಯಪm, ಎ.ಎ1. ಐ ಎಂದು A@ದುಬಂKರುತ)&ೆ . ನಂತರ ¦gÁå¢AiÀÄªÀgÀÄ 2ಾ3ೆಯ 4ೊರ"ೆ ಬಂದು ತನ� ಬಲ"ೈಯನು� [ೕಲ�ೆE ಎA) ಸ'ೆ� �ಾಡುವ ಮೂಲಕ ಆeಾKತ /�ೕ1 ಅ��ಾ�ಯವರು ಲಂಚದ ಹಣವನು� ಪ�ೆKರುವ ಬ"ೆ# ಸೂಚ'ೆ �ೕCರು�ಾ)Lೆ " ಆಗ ಸಮಯ 16-00 ಗಂnೆ Iಾ5ರುತ)&ೆ ಎಂದು A@%ರು�ಾ)Lೆ "

¶122

18. The Apex Court in the case of Neeraj Dutta supra

¶123

at paragraphs 18 and 20 has held as under:

¶124

"18. The allegation of demand of gratification and acceptance made by a public servant has to be established beyond a reasonable doubt. The decision of the Constitution Bench does not dilute this elementary requirement of proof beyond a reasonable doubt. The Constitution Bench was dealing with the issue of the modes by which the demand can be proved. The Constitution Bench has laid down that the proof need not be only by direct, oral or documentary evidence, but it can be by way of other evidence including circumstantial evidence. When reliance is placed on circumstantial evidence to prove the demand for gratification, the prosecution must establish each and every circumstance from which the prosecution wants the court to draw a conclusion of guilt. The facts so established must be consistent with only one hypothesis that there was a demand made for gratification by the accused. Therefore, in this case, we will have to examine whether there is any direct evidence of demand. If we come to a conclusion that there is no direct evidence of demand, this Court will have to consider whether there is any circumstantial evidence to prove the demand.

¶125

20. Rest of the examination-in-chief deals with the acceptance by the appellant and recovery. Now the question is whether, on the basis of the evidence on record, the prosecution has proved the demand of gratification by the accused. When we consider the issue of proof of demand within the meaning of Section 7, it cannot be a simpliciter demand for money but it has to be a demand of gratification other than legal remuneration. All that PW 5 says is when the appellant visited the shop of the complainant, she asked the complainant to give papers regarding the electricity meter and Rs 10,000 to her by telling him that she was in a hurry. This is not a case where a specific demand of gratification for providing electricity meter was made by the appellant to the complainant in the presence of the

¶126

17 -

¶127

NC: 2026:KHC:18154 CRL.A No. 660 of 2014

¶128

HC-KAR

¶129

shadow witness. PW 5 has not stated that there was any discussion in his presence between the appellant and the complainant on the basis of which an inference could have been drawn that there was a demand made for gratification by the appellant. The witness had no knowledge about what transpired between the complainant and the appellant earlier. PW 5 had admittedly no personal knowledge about the purpose for which the cash was allegedly handed over by the complainant to the appellant."

¶130

Similarly in the case of Mukhtiar Singh supra at

¶131

paragraph 24 has held as under:

¶132

"24. It would thus……….Viewed in this perspective, the statement of the complainant and the Inspector Satpal, the shadow witness in isolation that the original accused had enquired as to whether money had been brought or not, can by no means constitute demand as enjoined in law as an ingredient of the offence levelled against the original accused. Such a stray query ipso facto in absence of any other cogent and persuasive evidence on record cannot amount to a demand to be a constituent of the offence under Section 7 or 13 of the Act."

¶133

The trial Court having taken note of the aforesaid aspect of the matter has found the testimony of PW1 and PW2 to be unreliable.

¶134

Another aspect of the matter is non-examination of CW5 who had admittedly accompanied the complainant when the first demand was made on 17.01.2011 and had also accompanied the team on 20.01.2011.

¶135

18 -

¶136

NC: 2026:KHC:18154 CRL.A No. 660 of 2014

¶137

HC-KAR

¶138

The other discrepancy found by the trial Court is with

¶139

regard to difference in the date of the trap and the one mentioned in the charge.

¶140

Since the very deposition of PW1 and PW2, as noted above, falls short of the requirement of proving the factum of demand beyond reasonable doubt and though the trial Court has lost sight of the deposition of PW2 in this matter, as rightly pointed out by the learned counsel for respondent, the conclusion arrived at cannot be found fault with.

¶141

Appeal lacks merits and the same is dismissed.

¶142

Sd/(M.G.S. KAMAL) JUDGE

¶143

SBN

¶144

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 35

State by Lokayukta Police v. Muniyappa

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

State by Lokayukta Police v. Muniyappa

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sri Dhananjay Kumar @ Dhananjay Gowda Vs State of Karnataka

Shivaswamy Vs State by

Venkatesh @ Venkatesh Vs the State of Karnataka

Mr.Sathisha Vs State of Karnataka

Senior Intelligence Officer Vs Mwinshehe Shabani Selemani

Smt. Saroja,. H. v. Vs Sri. Rajashekhara. K. S