Smt N Usha v. the State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC22 Jan 2026CRL.A/719/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

CRL.A No. 719 of 2023 (C), High Court of Karnataka, 22.01.2026 — PC Act S.7, 13(1)(d) r/w 13(2) graft conviction set aside; appeal allowed; appellant (PDO, Hoskote) acquitted; complainant died during appeal; shadow witness PW-1 did not hear/support demand; demand of illegal gratification not proved, mere recovery insufficient; Neeraj Dutta (2023) 4 SCC 731 paras 88-90 relied upon; bail bonds cancelled; impugned conviction 25.03.2023, Spl.C.No.117/2015, IX Addl. D&SJ/Special Judge Bangalore Rural.

What did the court decide?

Criminal Appeal allowed; judgment of conviction and order on sentence dated 25.03.2023 in Spl.C.No.117/2015 set aside; appellant acquitted of the offences under Sections 7, 13(1)(d) read with 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988; bail bonds, if any, cancelled. ¶143

Smt N Usha Vs the State of Karnataka — Corruption | Karnataka HC (2026)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶143

Issue for consideration

Whether the findings of the Trial Court (convicting the appellant under Sections 7, 13(1)(d) r/w 13(2) P.C. Act) are proper, requiring re-appreciation of the witnesses, particularly where the shadow witness did not hear or support the alleged demand and the complainant died during pendency. +1 more

¶91

Court's answer

PW-1, the shadow witness, did not hear the conversation between the complainant and the accused and did not support the prosecution's case in respect of the demand of illegal gratification.

¶136

Ratio / Principle

Since the prosecution failed to prove the demand of illegal gratification, mere recovery of the amount would not be sufficient to hold that the accused demanded illegal gratification for discharging his official duty.

¶136

Key takeaways

Per the court's reading of Neeraj Dutta (2023) 4 SCC 731, paras 88-90, when the direct evidence of the complainant is unavailable on account of his death or any other reason, it is permissible to draw an inferential deduction of culpability of a public servant based on the other evidence adduced by the prosecution; here, however, the surviving witness evidence did not establish the demand.ratio¶132
The prosecution failed to establish the demand of illegal gratification; the Trial Court committed error in appreciating the evidence, and it is appropriate to set aside the conviction rendered by the Trial Court.ratio¶136

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

High Court of Karnataka (S Rachaiah, J.), CRL.A No. 719 of 2023 (C), decided 22.01.2026 — Appeal under S. 374(2) Cr.P.C. by Smt. N Usha, Panchayath Development Officer, Lakkondahalli Grama Panchayath, Hoskote Taluk, against conviction dated 25.03.2023 (IX Addl. District & Sessions Judge and Special Judge, Bangalore Rural District, Spl.C.No.117/2015) under Sections 7, 13(1)(d) r/w 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 for allegedly demanding 14% illegal gratification (stated balance Rs.23,200/-) from pipeline contractor Munivenkatappa. The complainant died during the appeal; the shadow witness PW-1 did not hear and did not support the alleged demand conversation. Relying on Neeraj Dutta v. State (GNCTD), (2023) 4 SCC 731, paras 88-90 (demand and acceptance as sine qua non; inferential deduction permissible where complainant is dead or hostile), the court held the prosecution failed to establish the demand of illegal gratification and that mere recovery of the amount is insufficient; the Trial Court was held to have erred in appreciating the evidence. Conviction and sentence were set aside, the appellant was acquitted, and bail bonds, if any, stood cancelled.

¶1

NC: 2026:KHC:3747 CRL.A No. 719 of 2023

¶2

¶3

HC-KAR

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 22^ND DAY OF JANUARY, 2026

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S RACHAIAH CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 719 OF 2023 (C)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

SMT. N USHA

¶9

D/O HANUMANTHAPPA N AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS, PANCHAYATH DEVELOPMENT OFFICER, LAKKONDAHALLI GRAMA PANCHAYATH, KASABA HOBLI, HOSKOTE TALUK, PINCODE – 574 227.

¶10

Digitally signed by SREEDHARAN BANGALORE SUSHMA LAKSHMI Location: High Court of Karnataka

¶11

PRESENTLY R/AT NO.5, 2^ND FLOOR, 1^ST CROSS, VINAYAKA LAYOUT, BHOOPSANDRA, BENGALURU NORTH, RMV EXTENSION, BENGALURU – 560 094.

¶12

…APPELLANT

¶13

(BY SRI. SANDESH J CHOUTA, SR. ADVOCATE FOR SRI. K B K SWAMY, ADVOCATE)

¶14

2 - NC: 2026:KHC:3747 CRL.A No. 719 of 2023

¶15

HC-KAR

¶16

AND:

¶17

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY POLICE INSPECTOR, KARNATAKA LOKAYUKTA, BENGALURU. PINCODE-560001. REPRESENTED BY SPECIAL PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, BENGALURU-560001.

¶18

…RESPONDENT

¶19

(BY SRI. B S PRASAD, SPL.PP)

¶20

THIS CRL.A IS FILED U/S 374(2) CR.PC PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND CONVICTION DATED 25.03.2023 PASSED BY THE IX ADDL. DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, AND SPECIAL JUDGE, BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT, BENGALURU IN SPL.C.NO.117/2015, CONVICTING THE APPELLANT/ACCUSED FOR THE OFFENCE PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTION 7, 13(1)(d) R/W SEC 13(2) OF P.C ACT AND ETC.,

¶21

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

¶22

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S RACHAIAH

¶23

3 - NC: 2026:KHC:3747 CRL.A No. 719 of 2023

¶24

HC-KAR

¶25

ORAL JUDGMENT

¶26

This appeal has been filed by the appellant being aggrieved by the judgment of conviction and order on sentence dated 25.03.2023 passed in Spl.C.No.117/2015 on the file of IX Additional District and Sessions Judge and Special Judge, Bangalore Rural District, Bangalore. Wherein, the appellant has been convicted for the offence punishable under Section 7, 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 ( for short P.C. Act ).

¶27

The ranks of the parties henceforth shall be considered as per the rankings of the Trial Court.

¶28

Factual matrix of the case:

¶29

The case of the prosecution is that the accused was working as Panchayath Development Officer (PDO) at Lakkondahalli Grama Panchayath, Hoskote Taluk. The complainant-Munivenkatappa was holding civil contract license and it is stated that he had completed the work of laying pipelines in Lakkondahalli, Hasigala and Kammasandra Village worth of Rs.3,80,000/-. It is alleged that the appellant/accused

¶30

4 - NC: 2026:KHC:3747 CRL.A No. 719 of 2023

¶31

HC-KAR

¶32

had insisted the complainant to pay illegal gratification of 14%. It is further stated that a sum of Rs.20,000/- was paid through cheque and remaining balance of Rs.23,200/- was to be paid. As the complainant had not interested to pay the amount, it is stated that he lodges a complaint before the respondent – Police.

¶33

The respondent-Police after registering a case

¶34

conducted investigation and submitted the charge-sheet.

¶35

To prove the case of the prosecution the

¶36

prosecution examined 04 witnesses and got marked 41 documents and also identified 08 material objects.

¶37

The Trial Court after appreciating oral and documentary evidence on record, convicted the appellant for the offences stated supra . Being aggrieved by the said conviction, the appellant has preferred this appeal.

¶38

Heard Sri.Sandesh.J.Chouta., learned Senior Counsel appearing for Sri.K.B.K.Swamy., learned counsel for the appellant and Sri.B.S.Prasad., learned Special Public Prosecutor for respondent.

¶39

5 - NC: 2026:KHC:3747 CRL.A No. 719 of 2023

¶40

HC-KAR

¶41

Learned Senior Counsel Sri.Sandesh.J.Chouta.,

¶42

appearing for Sri.K.B.K.Swamy., learned counsel for the appellant vehemently submitted that, the Trial Court has committed error in recording a conviction, which is liable to be set aside.

¶43

It is further submitted that the complainant has died during the pendency of the case. P.W.-1 being a shadow witness has been examined. His evidence would disclose that he did not hear the conversation between the complainant and the accused relating to the demand of illegal gratification. When the shadow witness did not support the case in respect of demand of illegal gratification, the ingredients of Section 7 and 13(1)(d) of P.C. Act cannot be attracted. However, the Trial Court recorded the conviction on assumption and presumption which is against to the settled principles of law.

¶44

It is further contended that unless the demand of illegal gratification is proved, even though the amount is recovered from the accused would not sufficient to hold that the same amount is illegal gratification and the same has been received for the purpose of discharging his official duties. The

¶45

NC: 2026:KHC:3747 CRL.A No. 719 of 2023

¶46

¶47

HC-KAR

¶48

Trial Court has ignored in considering the settled principles of law. Consequently, the impugned judgment is passed which is required to be set aside.

¶49

The learned Senior Counsel to substantiate his

¶50

argument relied on the following judgments:

¶51

i. Neeraj Dutta Vs. State (Government of NCT Delhi)¹

¶52

ii. Neeraj Dutta Vs. State (Government of NCT Delhi)²

¶53

iii. K. Shanthamma Vs. State of Telangana³

¶54

iv. Soundarajan Vs. State⁴

¶55

v. Aman Bhatia Vs. State (GNCT of Delhi)⁵

¶56

vi. P. Manjunath Vs. Karnataka Lokayukta⁶

¶57

vii. Mr.N.Thejas Kumar Vs. State by ACB⁷

¶58

viii. Sri.Ramesh K.T. Vs. State of Karnataka by the Anti

¶59

Corruption Bureau P.S.⁸

¶60

1 (2023) 4 SCC 731

¶61

2 (2023) SCC Online SC 280

¶62

3 (2022) 4 SCC 574

¶63

4 (2023) SCC Online SC 424

¶64

5 (2025) SCC Online SC 1013

¶65

6 W.P.No.10027/2022

¶66

7 W.P.No.915/2022

¶67

7 - NC: 2026:KHC:3747 CRL.A No. 719 of 2023

¶68

HC-KAR

¶69

ix. Sri.B.K.Srinivas Vs. Karnataka Lokayukta⁹

¶70

x. Sri.A.Vanangamudi Vs. State of Karnataka¹⁰

¶71

xii. Panalal Damodar Rathi Vs. State of Maharashtra¹¹

¶72

xii. Sri. R. Samba Murthy Vs. State of Karnataka¹²

¶73

xiii. Thulia Kali Vs. State of Tamil Nadu¹³

¶74

Per Contra, Sri.B.S.Prasad, learned Special Public

¶75

Prosecutor for respondent, vehemently justified the judgment of conviction passed by the Trial Court and contended that merely because the shadow witness did not support the case of the prosecution, that itself is not sufficient to set aside the conviction.

¶76

It is further contended that the Trial Court has rightly appreciated the facts and circumstances of the case and recorded the conviction even though the complainant did not

¶77

8 W.P.No.10799/2023

¶78

9 W.P.No.925/2023

¶79

10 Criminal Appeal No.430/2013

¶80

11 1979 (4) SCC 526 12 Criminal Appeal No.662/2010 13 1972 (2) SCC 393

¶81

8 - NC: 2026:KHC:3747 CRL.A No. 719 of 2023

¶82

HC-KAR

¶83

appear before the Court on account of his death. The law is well settled that conviction can be awarded on the facts and circumstances of the case even though the complainant has turned hostile or not available on account of his death on the given facts and circumstances of the case.

¶84

It is further contended that in the present case it is undisputed fact that the complainant was entrusted work of laying pipelines and he had completed it and he was waiting for his bills to be cleared by the accused. However, the accused had demanded 14% of the amount payable to the complainant. Though, amount of Rs.30,000/- had been paid by way of cheque, the balance amount of Rs.23,200/- was to be paid. The prosecution has proved the case by producing cogent evidence that the amount was recovered from the accused in the presence of witnesses. As such the prosecution has proved the case beyond the doubt regarding demand and acceptance of illegal gratification. Hence, the findings of the Trial Court need not be interfered with. Making such submissions the learned Special Prosecutor prays to dismiss the appeal.

¶85

¶86

NC: 2026:KHC:3747 CRL.A No. 719 of 2023

¶87

HC-KAR

¶88

In support of his contentions learned Special Public Prosecutor for the respondent relied upon the following citation:

¶89

i). Neeraj Dutta Vs. State (Government of NCT of

¶90

Delhi)¹⁴

¶91

Heard the learned counsel for the respective parties and perused the findings of the Trial Court. It is relevant at this stage to re-appreciate all the witnesses to arrive at a conclusion as to whether the findings of the Trial Court is proper or not.

¶92

Before adverting to the evidence of the case, it is relevant to refer the proposition of law which is relevant for the purpose of better understanding. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Neeraj Dutta Vs. State (Government of NCT of

¶93

Delhi)¹⁵ in paragraph No.88 , reads as under:

¶94

88. What emerges from the aforesaid discussion is summarised as under

¶95

88.1. (a) Proof of demand and acceptance of illegal gratification by a public servant as a fact in issue by the prosecution is a sine qua non in order

¶96

14 (2023) 4 SCC 731

¶97

15 (2023) 4 SCC 731

¶98

10 - NC: 2026:KHC:3747 CRL.A No. 719 of 2023

¶99

HC-KAR

¶100

to establish the guilt of the accused public servant under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d)(i) and (ii) of the Act.

¶101

88.2. (b) In order to bring home the guilt of the accused, the prosecution has to first prove the demand of illegal gratification and the subsequent acceptance as a matter of fact. This fact in issue can be proved either by direct evidence which can be in the nature of oral evidence or documentary evidence.

¶102

88.3. (c) Further, the fact in issue, namely, the proof of demand and acceptance of illegal gratification can also be proved by circumstantial evidence in the absence of direct oral and documentary evidence.

¶103

88.4. (d) In order to prove the fact in issue, namely, the demand and acceptance of illegal gratification by the public servant, the following aspects have to be borne in mind:

¶104

(i) if there is an offer to pay by the bribegiver without there being any demand from the public servant and the latter simply accepts the offer and receives the illegal gratification, it is a case of acceptance as per Section 7 of the Act. In such a case, there need not be a prior demand by the public servant.

¶105

(ii) On the other hand, if the public servant makes a demand and the bribe-giver accepts the demand and tenders the demanded gratification which in turn is received by the public servant, it is a case of obtainment. In the case of obtainment, the prior demand for illegal gratification emanates from the public servant. This is an offence under Sections 13(1)(d)(i) and (ii) of the Act.

¶106

(iii) In both cases of (i) and (ii) above, the offer by the bribe-giver and the demand by the public servant respectively have to be proved by the prosecution as a fact in issue. In other words, mere acceptance or receipt of an illegal gratification without anything more would not make it an offence under Section 7 or Sections 13(1)(d)(i) and (ii), respectively of the Act.

¶107

11 -

¶108

NC: 2026:KHC:3747 CRL.A No. 719 of 2023

¶109

HC-KAR

¶110

Therefore, under Section 7 of the Act, in order to bring home the offence, there must be an offer which emanates from the bribe-giver which is accepted by the public servant which would make it an offence. Similarly, a prior demand by the public servant when accepted by the bribe-giver and in turn there is a payment made which is received by the public servant, would be an offence of obtainment under Sections 13(1)(d)(i) and (ii) of the Act.

¶111

88.5. (e) The presumption of fact with regard to the demand and acceptance or obtainment of an illegal gratification may be made by a court of law by way of an inference only when the foundational facts have been proved by relevant oral and documentary evidence and not in the absence thereof. On the basis of the material on record, the court has the discretion to raise a presumption of fact while considering whether the fact of demand has been proved by the prosecution or not. Of course, a presumption of fact is subject to rebuttal by the accused and in the absence of rebuttal presumption stands. 88.6. (f) In the event the complainant turns “hostile”, or has died or is unavailable to let in his evidence during trial, demand of illegal gratification can be proved by letting in the evidence of any other witness who can again let in evidence, either orally or by documentary evidence or the prosecution can prove the case by circumstantial evidence. The trial does not abate nor does it result in an order of acquittal of the accused public servant.

¶112

88.7. (g) Insofar as Section 7 of the Act is concerned, on the proof of the facts in issue, Section 20 mandates the court to raise a presumption that the illegal gratification was for the purpose of a motive or reward as mentioned in the said Section. The said presumption has to be raised by the court as a legal presumption or a presumption in law. Of course, the said presumption is also subject to rebuttal. Section 20 does not apply to Sections 13(1)(d)(i) and (ii) of the Act.

¶113

NC: 2026:KHC:3747 CRL.A No. 719 of 2023

¶114

12 -

¶115

HC-KAR

¶116

88.8. (h) We clarify that the presumption in law under Section 20 of the Act is distinct from presumption of fact referred to above in sub-para 88.5(e), above, as the former is a mandatory presumption while the latter is discretionary in nature.

¶117

The complainant namely Sri.Munivenkatappa has

¶118

died during the pendency of this appeal. Hence, rest of the witnesses and their evidence has to be scrutinized for the purpose of re-appreciation.

¶119

PW-1 is the shadow witness. PW-2 is another panch witness. PW-3 is the Chief Executive Officer, Bengaluru Rural District Zilla Panchayath, Bengaluru, who is stated to have sanctioned to prosecute the appellant in accordance with law. PW-4 was the Police Inspector, Lokayukta, who is stated to have conducted investigation and submitted the charge-sheet.

¶120

The evidence of PW-1 would indicate that he was called by the Lokayukta Police and requested him to be a shadow witness. It is further stated that he accompanied the complainant when he went to the office of the appellant. Firstly, the attempt of trap was failed. Subsequently, on 08.09.2014 again P.W.-1 and complainant went to the office of the accused

¶121

13 - NC: 2026:KHC:3747 CRL.A No. 719 of 2023

¶122

HC-KAR

¶123

and conversation had taken place between the complainant and accused. However, P.W.-1 did not hear the conversation that had taken place between the complainant and the accused. Thereafter, P.W.-1 was informed that complainant and accused were going on the motorcycle and he was requested to follow them along with other staff. It is further stated that P.W.-1 and other staff have been asked to come near Avimukteshwara Temple where it is stated that illegal gratification was paid to the accused. On reading the cross-examination of P.W.-1 a solution was made that in photographs which are marked as Ex-P.8 to P.23, the complainant was not seen in the said photographs, the same has been admitted by P.W.-1 and further it is suggested him that the alleged motor cycle was not seen in the said photographs, he has admitted the same.

¶124

The learned Special Prosecutor relied on the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Neeraj Dutta Vs. State (Government of NCT of Delhi) stated supra especially in paragraph Nos.89 and 90 , reads as under:

¶125

89. In view of the aforesaid discussion and conclusions, we find that there is no conflict in the three-Judge Bench decisions of this Court in B. Jayaraj [B. Jayaraj v. State of A.P., (2014) 13 SCC

¶126

14 -

¶127

NC: 2026:KHC:3747 CRL.A No. 719 of 2023

¶128

HC-KAR

¶129

55 : (2014) 5 SCC (Cri) 543] and P. Satyanarayana Murthy [P. Satyanarayana Murthy v. State of A.P., (2015) 10 SCC 152 : (2016) 1 SCC (Cri) 11] with the three-Judge Bench decision in M. Narsinga Rao [M. Narsinga Rao v. State of A.P., (2001) 1 SCC 691 : 2001 SCC (Cri) 258] , with regard to the nature and quality of proof necessary to sustain a conviction for the offences under Sections 7 or 13(1)(d)(i) and (ii) of the Act, when the direct evidence of the complainant or “primary evidence” of the complainant is unavailable owing to his death or any other reason. The position of law when a complainant or prosecution witness turns “hostile” is also discussed and the observations made above would accordingly apply in light of Section 154 of the Evidence Act. In view of the aforesaid discussion, we hold that there is no conflict between the judgments in the aforesaid three cases.

¶130

90. Accordingly, the question referred for consideration of this Constitution Bench is answered as under:

¶131

In the absence of evidence of the complainant (direct/primary, oral/documentary evidence) it is permissible to draw an inferential deduction of culpability/guilt of a public servant under Section 7 and Section 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of the Act based on other evidence adduced by the prosecution.

¶132

On careful reading of these paragraphs it would indicate that when the direct evidence of the complainant is unavailable on account of the death of the complainant or any other reason, it is permissible to draw inferential deduction of culpability of a public servant based on the other evidence adduced by the prosecution.

¶133

15 - NC: 2026:KHC:3747 CRL.A No. 719 of 2023

¶134

HC-KAR

¶135

Regard being had to the proposition of law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in respect of the said issue now it is relevant to refer the evidence of P.W.-1 who is the material witness to the case.

¶136

On reading of the evidence of P.W.-1 it appears that, he has not supported the case of the prosecution in respect of demand of illegal gratification. When the prosecution is failed to prove the case regarding demand of illegal gratification, it is needless to say that mere recovery of the amount would not sufficient to hold that the accused has demanded illegal gratification to discharge official duty. As such I am of the considered opinion that the prosecution has failed to establish the demand of illegal gratification, the Trial Court has committed error in appreciating the evidence. Hence, it is appropriate to set aside the conviction rendered by the Trial Court.

¶137

In the light of the observations made above, I proceed to pass the following:

¶138

16 -

¶139

NC: 2026:KHC:3747 CRL.A No. 719 of 2023

¶140

HC-KAR

¶141

ORDER

¶142

i. This Criminal Appeal is allowed .

¶143

ii. The judgment of conviction and order on sentence dated 25.03.2023 passed in Spl.C.No.117/2015 on the file of IX Additional District and Sessions Judge and Special Judge, Bangalore Rural District, Bangalore. Wherein, the appellant has been convicted for the offence punishable under Section 7, 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, is hereby, set aside.

¶144

iii. The appellant is acquitted for the offences stated supra .

¶145

iv. The bail bonds executed, if any, stands cancelled.

¶146

Sd/(S RACHAIAH) JUDGE

¶147

¶148

List No.: 2 Sl No.: 1

Smt N Usha v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt N Usha v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

State of Karnataka Vs Vasanth Chouhan

Sri. H Nagaraj Vs Mr K Rangaswamy

Sri S Satish Kumar Vs Mr P Lakshmipathy

Sri. N.S. Vishwanath Vs Kum. Khushi Radhya

Sri Vijayasarathy M S Vs M/S Gokul Films

Ravi Vs State of Karnataka