Bangalore District Court
Karnataka Lokayuktha P.S vs Jayakumar A.S on 21 July, 2026
1
Spl.C.C. No. 480/2016
KABC010265942016
IN THE COURT OF LXXVII ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL AND
SESSIONS JUDGE & THE SPECIAL JUDGE FOR TRYING
OFFENCES UNDER THE PREVENTION OF CORRUPTION
ACT, AT BENGALURU CITY (CCH-78)
DATED THIS THE 21ST DAY OF JULY 2026
PRESENT:
Sri.PRAKASH NAYAK, B.A.(LAW), LL.B.
LXXVII ADDL. CITY CIVIL & SESSIONS
JUDGE & LOKAYUKTHA SPECIAL JUDGE,
BENGALURU CITY.
SPL. C.C.No. 480/2016
COMPLAINANT: State by Karnataka
Lokayukta Police.
City Division, Bengaluru.
(Rep.by Public Prosecutor)
/VS/
ACCUSED: Sri.A.S.Jayakumar,
S/o late Shivaram,
Assistant Executive Engineer,
K2 Sub-division,
BESCOM,
Anjana Nagar,
Bengaluru
Residing at No.374,
2nd 'B' Cross,
4th Main Road,
14th Block,
2
Spl.C.C. No. 480/2016
Nagarabhavi,
2nd Stage,
Bengaluru.
(Rep by Sri.RRG., Advocate )
*****
TABULATION OF EVENTS
01. Date of commission of offence : 03-02-2015
02. Date of report of offences to
the Police Station (FIR date) : 07-02-2015
03. Date of arrest of accused : 07-02-2015
04. Date of release of accused
from JC : 11-02-2015
05. Name of the complainant : Sri.K.M.Dinesh
06. Nature of offence complained : U/Sec.7, 13(1)
(d) R/w Sec.
13(2) of Prevention
of Corruption Act
1988.
07. Date of submission of
charge sheet : 21-10-2016
08. Date of commencement of
recording of evidence : 27-01-2026
09. Date of closing of evidence : 12-06-2026
10. Date of judgment : 21-07-2026
11. Opinion of the Judge in : Accused is
respect of the offences. acquitted
*****
3
Spl.C.C. No. 480/2016
JUDGMENT
The Police Inspector of Bengaluru City Division
Karnataka Lokayuktha, Bengaluru has filed the
charge sheet against the accused under Section 7,
13 (1) (d) r/w Section 13 (2) of Prevention of
Corruption Act, 1988.
2. The factual matrix of the case reveals that, it is
the specific case of the prosecution that C.W.1-
K.M.Dinesh, the complainant, is the licenced
Electrical Contractor and he approached the
accused who is a public servant, working as AEE,
K-2 Sub Division, BESCOM, Ajana Nagar,
Bengaluru, in respect of approval of sanction of 10
HP power each to the factories of CW-4
Sri.B.R.Sridhar and CW-5 Sri.Vinay and then the
accused demanded illegal gratification of
Rs.40,000/- from the complainant. It is further
alleged by the prosecution that on 07-02-2015 in
between 3-10 pm to 3-20 pm at his office the
accused demanded and received Rs.30,000/- from
CW-1 as motive or reward to show his official favour
4
Spl.C.C. No. 480/2016
and thereby he has committed an offence
punishable under Section 7 of Prevention of
Corruption Act. It is also case of the prosecution
that on the above said date, time and place the
accused who was working as a public servant
abused his position as public servant by illegally
obtaining a sum of Rs.30,000/- from CW-1 and
thereby committed the offence punishable under
Section 13 (1) (d) r/w Section 13 (2) of Prevention of
Corruption Act.
3. After securing the presence of the accused before
the Court, initially he was remanded to judicial
custody and thereafter he was enlarged on regular
bail. Subsequently, as mandated under Section 207
of Cr.P.C the prosecution papers were supplied to
the accused and since there exist prima-facie
materials to frame charge, charge was framed and
read over to the accused who pleaded not guilty and
claims to be tried. In order to prove its case the
prosecution has examined PWs. 1 to 11 and got
exhibited Ex.P-1 to P-40 and Mos.1 to 15 were also
5
Spl.C.C. No. 480/2016
got marked on behalf of the prosecution.
4. The prosecution evidence in gist is described as
under:
Prosecution Charge Person examined Evidence Exhibits
witness No. Sheet regarding marked
witness
No.PW.1 CW.1 Sri.K.M.Dinesh Evidence Ex.P.1 to
regarding P-10
submitting Ex.P-3 (a),
Ex.P-3 FIS Ex.P4(a),
and Ex.P.5(a),
regarding Ex.P18 (a),
pre-trap Ex.P-9(a),
and Ex.P10(a),
trap pancha Mo.1 to Mo.7
nama
PW.2 CW. 2 Sri.B.S.Kiran Evidence Ex.P4(b),
Kumar regarding Ex.P11,
pretrap and P11(a),
trap Ex.P5 (b),
pancha Ex.P-12, P-
nama 12(a), Ex.P-
13, P-13 (a),
14 to
14 (a),
Ex.P.15, P-
15(a), Ex.P-
16, P-16(a),
Ex.P-17,
Ex.P- 17(a),
M.O.8 to
MO.14
PW.3 CW.5 Sri.Vinay.S. Evidence
regarding
submission
of
application --
seeking
power
sanction
PW.4 CW.4 Sri.B.R.Sridhar -- --
PW.5 CW.3 Sri.Yogesh.B. Trap and Ex.P- 4(c),
pre trap Ex.P-5(c),
6
Spl.C.C. No. 480/2016
panchanam Ex.P-12 (b),
a Ex.P-18,
18(a), Ex.P-
17(b), Ex.P-
19, Ex.P-
19(a), Ex.P-
14 (b), Ex.P-
15(b), Ex.P-
16(b), Ex.P-
13 (b), Ex.P-
20, Ex.P-20
(a), MO.15
PW.6 CW.9 Dr.Basavaraj Evidence Ex.P-22,
Govinagidad regarding Ex.P-22(a),
issuance of Ex.P-23, P-
chemical 23 (a), Ex.P-
examinatio 24, Ex.P24
n report (a)
PW.7 CW.1 C. Vidya Evidence Ex.P-25,
0 regarding Ex.P25 (a),
issuance of Ex.P-26,
FSL report Ex.P-26(a)
PW.8 CW.6 M.Ramakrishna Evidence Ex.P-28,
regarding Ex.P-28(a),
issuance of Ex.P-29,
prosecution Ex.P-30,
sanction Ex.P-30(a)
PW.9 CW.7 Sri.H.C.Rame Evidence Ex.P.31 and
gowda regarding Ex.P31(a)
furnishing
documents
pertaining
to work
allotment of
accused
PW.10 CW- Sri.Raju.T.V. Evidence Ex.P-3(b) to
18 regarding Ex.P-32 (a),
conducting Ex.P-14(c),
of Ex.P-11(b),
investigatio Ex.P-4(d),
n and Ex.P-14(d),
submission Ex.P-19(b),
of charge Ex.P-15(c),
sheet Ex.P-33,
Ex.P-34,
Ex.P-17,
17(c), 17(d),
Ex.P-35,
7
Spl.C.C. No. 480/2016
35(a), Ex.P-
16(c), Ex.P-
5(d), 5 (e),
Ex.P-36,
36(a)Ex.P-
37, 37(a),
Ex.P-22(b),
Ex.P-23(b),
Ex.P-28(b),
Ex.P-24(b),
Ex.P-38,
38(a), P-
12(c), P-
12(d), Ex.P-
39, 39(a),
Ex.P-25 (b),
Ex.P-40,
40(a)
PW.11 - M.V.Chandrashekar Ex.P16(d)
5. After closure of the prosecution evidence, the
statement of accused under Section 313 of Cr.P.C.
was recorded. The accused has denied the
incriminating evidence as appears against him and
he has not chosen to adduce any defence evidence.
The accused has filed his statement under Section
313 (5) of Cr.P.C. along with one document. During
the evidence of the prosecution Ex.D-1 to D-4 were
confronted to the prosecution witnesses and got
exhibited.
6. On behalf of prosecution the learned Public
Prosecutor submitted the arguments on merits in
8
Spl.C.C. No. 480/2016
detail and on behalf of accused, the learned counsel
for accused submitted his arguments and also filed
written synopsis with citation subsequently.
7. After analyzing the available oral and
documentary evidence on record and after hearing
the submission of both sides on merits, the point
that would arise for determination are;
1. Whether the prosecution has secured
the valid sanction to prosecute the
accused?
2. Whether the prosecution further proves
beyond reasonable doubt that the
accused being public servant working
as AEE, K-2 Sub-Division, BESCOM,
Ajana Nagar, Bengaluru, demanded
illegal gratification of Rs.40,000/- from
CW-1 K.M.Dinesh for approval of 10
H.P. power to each factories of CW-4
Sri.B.R.Sridhar and CW-5 Sri.Vinay
and on 07-02-2015 in between 3-10 to
3-20 pm. at his office the accused has
demanded and received Rs.30,000/-
from CW-1 as motive and reward to
show his official favour and thereby he
has committed offence punishable
under Section 7 of Prevention of
Corruption Act, 1988?
3. Whether the prosecution further proves
that in connection with the above at
9
Spl.C.C. No. 480/2016
the above mentioned time, date and
place the accused having demand and
accepted an illegal gratification of
Rs.30,000/- from the complainant
against the public interest and thereby
committed criminal misconduct under
Section 13(1) (d) which is punishable
under Section 13 (2) of Prevention of
Corruption Act?
4. If so, What order?
8. My answers to above points are as under:
POINT NO.1:- In the AFFIRMATIVE,
POINT NO.2:- In the NEGATIVE,
POINT NO.3:- In the NEGATIVE,
POINT No.4 :- As per the final order
for the following:
REASONS
9. POINT NO.1:- The materials on record reveals
that initially Crime No.6/2015 is registered against
this accused for the offences punishable under
Section 7, 13 (1) (d) r/w Section 13(2) of Prevention
of Corruption Act, 1988 and subsequently the
accused was discharged by the orders of this Court
dated 23-11-2017 and the complainant Police
challenged the said order by filing Crl. Revision
10
Spl.C.C. No. 480/2016
Petition No.889/2024 before the Hon’ble High Court
of Karnataka, Bengaluru and on 28-08-2025 the
Hon’ble High Court of Karnataka, Bengaluru allowed
the Criminal Revision Petition filed by the
complainant police and remanded the matter to this
Court to dispose off the case in accordance with law.
10. In this case, it is an undisputed fact that
accused is the public servant, at the time of alleged
incident and he was working as an Assistant
Executive Engineer, BESCOM, K-2, City Division,
Anjana Nagar, Bengaluru. The undisputed facts on
record clearly reveals that there is no dispute that as
on the date of alleged incident the accused was
working as public servant as defined under section
2(c) of Prevention of corruption Act, 1988.
11. In this case the accused has not seriously
challenged the validity of Ex.P-30 sanction order
issued by the concerned competent authority.
However before considering the facts and evidence
on record pertaining to the validity of said sanction
order which was issued to prosecute the accused,
11
Spl.C.C. No. 480/2016
this Court is of the opinion that it is just and proper
to rely upon the decision of Hon’ble Apex Court
reported in [2013] 8 SCC 119 [State of Maharashtra
through CBI vs Mahesh G.Jain] in this regard. In
the said decision the Hon’ble Apex Court held that
“the adequacy of the materials placed before the
sanctioning authority cannot be gone into by the
Court as it does not sit in appeal over the sanction
order. An order of sanction should not be construe
in a pedantic manner and there should not be a
hyper technical approach to test its validity. When
there is an order of sanction by the competent
authority indicating the application of mind, the
same should not lightly dealt with. The flimsy
technicalities cannot be allowed to become tools in
the hands of the accused”.
12. The Hon’ble Apex Court in the decision reported
in [2014] 4 SCC 295 [CBI vs Ashok Kumar Agarwal]
held that ” Prosecution has to satisfy the Court that
at the time of sending the matter for the grant of
sanction by the competent authority, adequate
12
Spl.C.C. No. 480/2016
material for such grant was made available to the
said authority. This may also be evident from the
sanction order, in case, it is not extremely
comprehensive, as all the facts and circumstances of
the case may be spelt out in the sanction order.
However, in every individual case, the court has to
find out whether there has been an application of
mind on the part of the sanctioning authority
concerned on the material placed before it. It is also
necessary for the reason that there is an obligation
on the sanctioning authority to discharge its duty to
give or withhold sanction only after having full
knowledge of the material facts of the case. The
grant of sanction is not a mere formality. Therefore,
the provisions in regard to the sanction must be
observed with complete strictness keeping in mind
the public interest and the protection available to
the accused against whom the sanction is sought “.
13. The catena of decisions of Hon’ble Apex Court
reveals that sanction lifts the bar for prosecution
and therefore it is not an acrimonious exercise, but
13
Spl.C.C. No. 480/2016
a sacrosanct act which affords protection to the
public servants against the frivolous prosecution.
Further, it is a weapon to discourage vexatious
prosecution and it is a safeguard for innocent,
though not a shield for the guilty. Further these
above said decisions clearly contemplate that the
order of sanction must ex-facie disclose that the
sanctioning authority had considered the evidence
and other materials placed before it. In every
individual case, the prosecution has to establish and
satisfy the court by adducing evidence that those
facts were placed before the sanctioning authority
and the authority has applied its mind on the same.
Further, there is an obligation on the sanctioning
authority to discharge his duty to give or withhold
only after full knowledge of material facts of the
case. Therefore, the prosecution must send the
entire relevant records to the sanctioning authority
including F.I.R., Statement of the witnesses,
recovery memos, draft charge-sheet and other
relevant materials. The concerned competent
authority itself has to do complete and conscious
14
Spl.C.C. No. 480/2016
scrutiny of the whole record, so produced by the
prosecution independently by applying its mind and
taking into consideration of all relevant facts before
grant of sanction while discharging its duty to give
or withhold the sanction. The power to grant
sanction is to be exercised strictly by keeping in
mind the public interest and protection available to
the accused against whom the sanction is sought.
14. Admittedly, it is for the prosecution to establish
that it has obtained valid sanction as contemplated
under Section 19 of Prevention of Corruption Act,
1988, so as to prosecute the accused for the offences
alleged against him. The prosecution can prove this
aspect by producing the oral sanction order which
consist the facts constituting offences on the ground
of satisfaction and also by adducing evidence of
author of the sanction order. As stated above a valid
sanction is a pre-requisite to take cognizance of
enumerated offence alleged to have been committed
by public servant.
15
Spl.C.C. No. 480/2016
15. In the light of the aforesaid settled principle of
law, now, this Court has to examine the evidence
adduced by the prosecution in respect of the aspect
of validity of sanction order. The available materials
on record reveals that in order to prove the factum of
valid sanction, in this case the prosecution relies
upon the evidence of PW.8 Sri.M.Ramakrishna and
Ex.P-28 to P-30.
16. The said PW-8 Sri.M.Ramakrishna in his
examination-in-chief has deposed that the
complainant police have sought an order of sanction
to prosecute accused and they have furnished the
copy of the complaint, FIR, copy of pre-trap
panchanama, trap pachanama, copy of defence
statement of the accused, copy of the spot sketch,
final report and the copy of the audio which was
reduced into writing etc. He has also deposed in his
examination-in-chief that since he was working as
Director of Administration H.R. KPTCL, he had the
authority to appoint and remove the accused who
was working as AEE. He has further deposed that
16
Spl.C.C. No. 480/2016
as per Ex.P-30 he has issued sanction order to
prosecute the accused and the said order was issued
under Section 19 (1)(c) of Prevention of Corruption
Act and on 23-9-2016 he has issued the said
sanction order to prosecute the accused for the
offences punishable under Section 7, 13 (1) (d) r/w
Section 13 (2) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.
17. In his cross-examination made by learned
counsel for accused nothing favourable to the case
of the accused is elicited. PW-8 has denied all the
suggestions put to him by the learned counsel for
accused and he has denied that without applying his
mind mechanically he has issued Ex.P-30 sanction
order.
18. Relying upon the aforesaid evidence on record
learned public prosecutor has submitted that the
oral and documentary evidence on record clearly
discloses that the competent authority has accorded
the sanction after applying his mind and after
verifying records and hence Ex.P-30 Sanction order
is valid in accordance with law. On the other hand
17
Spl.C.C. No. 480/2016
the learned counsel for the accused has submitted
that without applying his mind PW-8 has
mechanically issued Ex.P-30 Sanction order and it is
invalid.
19. It is an admitted fact that a public servant
entitled to question the validity of sanction order at
any stage of the proceedings, even at the appellate
stage. However, in this case materials on record
clearly reveals that the accused has evasively
challenged the validity of Ex.P-30 sanction order
without substantiating the same. On the other hand
Ex.P-30 and the oral evidence of PW-8 and evidence
available on record clearly reveals that the
prosecution beyond all reasonable doubt proved that
it has secured valid sanction order as per
Ex.P-30 to prosecute the accused. Hence
considering all these facts, the Court holds that
Ex.P-30 sanction order is valid and hence the Court
proceed to answer Point No.1 in the Affirmative.
20. POINT No.2: As afore mentioned the accused in
this case is alleged to have committed the offence
18
Spl.C.C. No. 480/2016
punishable under Section 7, 13 (1) (d) r/w Section
13 (2) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. It is
settled law that the prosecution has to prove the
charge under section 7 and 13 (1) (d) of the Act, like
in any criminal offence and that the accused should
be considered to be innocent till it is established,
otherwise by proper proof of demand and acceptance
of illegal gratification which are vital ingredients
necessary to be proved to record a conviction. The
followings are the ingredients of Section 7 of the Act.
(i) The accused must be a public servant or
expecting to be a public servant.
ii) he should accept, or obtain, or agrees to accept
and attempts to obtained from any person.
(iii) for himself or for other person.
(iv) any gratification other than the legal
remuneration .
(v) as a motive or reward for doing or forbearing
to do any official act or to show favour or disfavour.
21. It is also settled law that mere possession and
recovery of currency notes from the accused without
19
Spl.C.C. No. 480/2016
proof of demand would not establish an offence
under Section 7 as well as 13 (1) (d) (i) and (ii) of the
Act. This is because proof of demand is
Sine-qua-non or an indispensable essentiality and a
mandate for an offence under Section 7 and 13 (1)
(d) and (i) and (ii) of the Act. That proof of
acceptance of illegal gratification could follow only if
there was proof of demand. That proof of demand of
illegal gratification is the gravamen of the offence
under Section 7 and 13 (1) (d) (i) and (ii) of the Act
and in the absence thereof, the charge would
thereby fail. In other words, mere acceptance of any
amount by way of illegal gratification or recovery
thereof dehors the proof of demand, ipso-facto would
not be sufficient to bring home the charge under the
said section of the Act. In the absence of proof of
demand a legal presumption under section 20 of the
Prevention of Corruption Act, would also not arise.
22. Once it was established that there was a
demand or payment or acceptance of gratification
and once the foundational facts were proved, the
20
Spl.C.C. No. 480/2016
presumption for payment or acceptance of illegal
gratification was applicable. It is well settled that
when an allegation of commission of offence
punishable under Section 7 of the Prevention of
Corruption Act, is made, the prosecution must prove
both demand and acceptance of the bribe or
gratification. When an allegation of this nature is
made the burden is heavily upon the prosecution to
prove beyond all shadow of doubt that the accused
did demand for gratification and tainted amount was
received by him is that illegal gratification.
23. All these facts and settled principles of law
contemplate that in order to fulfill the above said
requirements there are certain prerequisites.
Firstly, the accused must be a public servant and
there must be a work pending with him of the
complainant and finally he must have demanded the
complainant or aggrieved person of bribe or
gratification for showing any favour to him which
comes in the way of public duties.
21
Spl.C.C. No. 480/2016
24. In this case so for as the first ingredient is
concerned, there is no dispute that the accused is a
public servant and he is presently working in
Bescom and at the time of alleged commission of
offence he was working as AEE, K-2 Sub-Division,
Bescom, Anjana Nagar, Bengaluru. Now in respect
of other essentials i.e. demand, acceptance and in
respect of work of the complainant pending with the
accused etc, the evidence on record has to be
analysed carefully.
With regard to Demand:
25. In this case it is an undisputed fact that the
complainant PW-1 K.M.Dinesh, is an Electrical
Contactor which is evident from Ex.P-1 the copy of
licence and Ex.P-2 reveals his registered address.
Further it is also an admitted fact that CW-5
Vinay.S. and CW.4 Sridhar B.R. have approached
the complainant seeking to obtain 10 HP power
sanction each to their respective factories which is
evident from Ex.P-6 and Ex.P-7. Further it is also
an admitted fact that said Ex.P-6 and Ex.P-7 were
22
Spl.C.C. No. 480/2016
submitted to the concerned office of Bescom prior to
the date of trap i.e. on 7-2-2015 and it is also an
admitted fact that in support of the application the
charges which are required to be paid were also paid
by CW-4 and CW-5 and in this regard there is no
dispute. Further there is no dispute as to the
identification of the accused in this case.
26. Demand Refers to explicit positive act of a
public servant soliciting or asking for undue
advantage. In this case it is the specific case of the
prosecution that the accused has demanded for
gratification of Rs.40,000/- initially and thereafter
reduced it to Rs.30,000/- from the complainant in
order to grant 10 H.P. each power sanction to CWs 4
and 5. In this regard the learned Public Prosecutor
has submitted that Ex.P-3 F.I.S. and Ex.P-11
transcription of voice conversation recorded in
MO.1 C.D. and evidence of PW.1 clearly supports
that the said acceptable circumstantial evidence
indicates that the accused has demanded for
gratification from the complainant on 03-02-2015
23
Spl.C.C. No. 480/2016
which was recorded by the complainant in his
mobile and same was furnished to the I.O. prior to
conducting pre-trap panchanama and trap
panchanama. Hence it is the contention of the
learned Public Prosecutor that the prosecution has
discharged its initial burden of proving the aspect of
demand by the accused.
27. However, on the other hand the learned
counsel for the accused has submitted that the
evidence of PW.1 itself is unworthy and nowhere he
has stated that the accused has demanded
gratification from him and even in Ex.P-11 nowhere
it reveals that the accused has demanded for any
amount from the complainant and all these
allegations were made by the prosecution against
the accused without any corroborative piece of
evidence and all the allegations are baseless and the
prosecution has miserably failed to prove the
allegation of demand as made against the accused.
28. In order to adjudicate the respective contentions
24
Spl.C.C. No. 480/2016
of both prosecution and the defence, it is just and
necessary to consider the oral and documentary
evidence on record with reference to the aspect of
demand. It is relevant to note that in Ex.P-3 FIS
submitted by CW.1 to the Karnataka Lokayuktha
Police on 07-02-2015, the complainant has alleged
that when he approached the accused and enquired
regarding non sanctioning of power in respect of file
pertaining to CW.4 and CW.5, the accused wrote
Rs.40,000/- on a paper and demanded the said
amount as a gratification and thereafter he came
back and on 03-02-2015 again he approached the
accused and then also the power was not sanctioned
and files were not cleared and even though he was
not interested to pay the bribe amount and when the
accused has demanded the gratification, he has
recorded the said conversation and ultimately he
agreed to pay Rs.30,000/- to the accused on his
demand.
29. In Ex.P-3 itself the complainant has clearly
stated that he has transferred the conversation
25
Spl.C.C. No. 480/2016
recorded in his mobile to C.D. and along with Ex.P-3
he has furnished the same to the police. It is
relevant to note that said complainant
Sri.Dinesh.K.M. is examined as PW.1 who in his
examination-in-chief at para-4 has stated that on
03-02-2015 when he met the accused and enquired
regarding sanctioning of power, then the accused
wrote Rs.40,000/- on a paper and if the said
amount is paid he will sanction the power and again
on the next day morning he met the accused and
requested for concession, then the accused
demanded him to pay Rs.30,000/- at once. All these
conversation was recorded by him in his mobile
phone. Admittedly the said portion of examination-
in-chief of CW.1 is contrary to the contents of Ex.P-3
wherein the complainant has not stated that on the
next day of 03.02.2015, he went to the office of the
accused and on that day he has recorded the said
conversation. As per Ex.P-3 the said conversation
was recorded by the complainant on 03-02-2015,
whereas as per examination-in-chief of PW.1 the
complainant has recorded the said conversation on
26
Spl.C.C. No. 480/2016
04-02-2015. Therefore it is the prosecution which
has to explain on which date exactly the
complainant has recorded said conversation in
mobile. Admittedly in this regard no satisfactory
explanation is offered by the prosecution.
30. It is an admitted fact that along with Ex.P-3
itself the complainant said to have furnished M.O.1
C.D. to the police and Ex.P-11 is the transcription of
the conversation/contents of M.O.1 C.D. The said
Ex.P-11 reads as follows.
ಫಿರ್ಯಾದಿ ಸರಿ ಸಾರ್ ಎಲ್ಲಾ ಒಟ್ಗೆ ೕ ಕೊಡ್ಬೆ ೕಕ ಸಾರ್ ಅಮೌಂಟ್
ಅದು,
ಆಪಾದಿತ ಎಲ್ಲಾ ಕ್ಲ ೋಸ್ಮಾಡಕ್ಸರಿ ಹೋಗ್ತ ದೆ ,
ನಮ್ಗಾ ದ್ರೂ ಯೂಸ್ ಅಗ್ತ ದೆ , ಏನಪ್ಪಾ ಅಗ್ತ ದೆ ಅಂದ್ರೆ ,
ದಿನೇಶ್ಕೊಟ್ಟಿ ದ್ದು ಅಂತ ಹೇಳ್ಕ ಬೋದು ,
ಫಿರ್ಯಾದಿ ಅದೇನ್ಆಗ್ತ ದೆ ಅಂದ್ರೆ , ಎಲ್ಲಾ ಒಬ್ಬೊ ಬ್ರೆ ಬರ್ತಾರೆ
ಆಪಾದಿತ ಏನಿಕ್ಅಪ್ಲೆ ೃ ಮಾಡ್ತಿ ರೋದು ಅವ್ರು
ಫಿರ್ಯಾದಿ 10, 10 ಹೆಚ್ಪಿ ಎಲ್ಲಾ 10 10 ಹೆಚ್ಪಿ ಅಷ್ಟೆ ಅದು .
ಆಪಾದಿತ ನಿಮ್ಮ ನ್ ಬಿಟ್ ಎಲ್ಲ ೋಗ್ತಾ ರೆ ಅವ್ರೂ , ಲೋಕಲ್ ಅವ್ರು
ನಿಮ್ಮ ನ್ಬಿಟ್ಎಲ್ಲೂ ಹೋಗಲ್ಲ .
ಫಿರ್ಯಾದಿ ಒಂದು ದಾರಿ ಮಾಡ್ಕ ೋಡೋದು ಅಷ್ಟೆ ಸಾರ್
ಇಂತಾವೆಲ್ಲಾ , ಒಂದ್ ದಾರಿ ಮಾಡ್ಕೊ ಡೋದು ಅಮೇಲೆ
ಅವ್ರ ೇ
ಫಿರ್ಯಾದಿ ಸರಿ ಸಾರ್ ನಾನ್ಬರ್ಲಾ ಸಾರ್
ಆಪಾದಿತ ಒಟ್ಗೆ ಮಾಡ್ಸ ಕಳ್ಳಿ
ಫಿರ್ಯಾದಿ ಒಟ್ನ ಲ್ಲಿ ಸಿಂಗಲ್ ಸಿಂಗಲ್ ತಂಗಡ್ರೆ ನನ್ಗೂ ಅನ್ಕೂ ಲ
ಆಗೋದು.
ಆಪಾದಿತ ನಿಮ್ಮ ನ್ ಬಿಟ್ ಎಲ್ಲ ೋಗ್ತಾ ರೆ ಅವ್ರೂ , ಬಿಟ್ ಎಲ್ಲಾ ದೂ್ರ
ಹೋಗ್ತಾ ರ ,
27
Spl.C.C. No. 480/2016
ಫಿರ್ಯಾದಿ ಟೋಟಲ್30 ಅಷ್ಟೆ . ಇನ್ನೂ ಜಾಸ್ತಿ ಕೇಳ್ಬೆ ೕಡಿ
ಆಪಾದಿತ ಎಲ್ಲಾ 10 10 ಹೆಚ್ಪಿನೆ , ಹಾಕ್ಕ ೋಬೇಕು
ಫಿರ್ಯಾದಿ ಅಷ್ಟೆ ಸಾರ್ 10 10 ಹೆಚ್ಪಿನೆ , ಅವ್ರು ಲೈಟಿಂಗ್
ಅದೂ ್ರ ತಗೊಳ್ಳಿ ಎಷ್ಟಾ ದೂ್ರ ತಗೊಳ್ಳಿ ಲಮ್ಸ ಮ್ 30
ಸಾವಿರ ಕೊಡ್ತ ೀನಿ .
ಆಪಾದಿತ ಲೈಟಿಂಗ್ಅಂದ್ಬಿ ಟ್ಟು 60 ಹೆಚ್ಪಿ ತಗೊಂಬಿಟ್ಟಿ ೕರ
ಫಿರ್ಯಾದಿ ಇಲ್ಲಾ ಸಾರ್ ಚಿಕ್ಕ ವು ಕಟ್ಟಿ ರದು ಸಾರ್ , ಹಾಗಂದ್ರೆ ಜಾಸ್ತಿ
ಕೊಡುಸ್ತಿ ೕನಿ ಬಿಡಿ ಸಾರ್ ,
ಆಪಾದಿತ 10 10 ಹೆಚ್ಪಿಗೆ ಕೊಟ್ಬಿ ಡಿ ………
31. Relying upon the aforesaid conversation said to
have been recorded by the complainant in M.O.1
C.D., the learned Public Prosecutor has submitted
that the said conversation as evident from Ex.P-11
clearly reveals that the accused made a demand not
directly, but the circumstances indicates that he has
demanded for gratification. However learned counsel
for accused submitted that as admitted by PW.1-
Sri.Dinesh in his cross examination and as admitted
by PW.10 I.O. Sri.T.V.Raju, nowhere in Ex.P11
accused has demanded for gratification of any kind
of amount from the complainant. It is relevant to
note that in his cross-examination at para No.58
P.W.10 I.O. has admitted that ” ಸದರಿ ಧ್ವ ನಿ ಮುದ್ರ ಣದ
28
Spl.C.C. No. 480/2016
ವಿವರದಲ್ಲಿ ಎಲ್ಲಿ ಯೂ ಆರೋಪಿಯು ಚಾಸಾ 1 ರವರಿಗೆ
ರೂ.30 ಸಾವಿರ ಲಂಚದ ಹಣ ಅಥವಾ ರೂ. 30 ಸಾವಿರ ಹಣ
ಕೊಡು ಎಂಬ ಬಗ್ಗೆ ಎಲ್ಲಿ ಯೂ ಬೇಡಿಕೆ ಇಟ್ಟ ಬಗ್ಗೆ ನಮೂದು
ಇಲ್ಲ ಎಂದರೆ ಸರಿ “. Further PW.1 Dinesh in his cross-
examination at para No.18 has admitted that
“ಧ್ವ ನಿಮುದ್ರ ಣದ ವಿವರವನ್ನು ಕೇಳಿದ್ದ ಬಗ್ಗೆ ಯಾಗಲೀ
ಅಥವಾ ಅನಂತರ ರೂ.30 ಸಾವಿರ ಕೊಡುವ ಬಗ್ಗೆ ಹೇಳಿದ್ದ
ಬಗ್ಗೆ ಎಲ್ಲಿ ಯೂ ನಮೂದು ಇಲ್ಲ ಎಂದರೆ ಸರಿ “.
32. The above said evidence of PW.1 and PW.10 the
I.O. and careful reading of Ex.P11 reveals that the
prosecution has failed to prove that the accused has
made demand with the complainant to pay either
Rs.40,000/- or Rs.30,000/- as alleged in Ex.P-3 FIS.
As mentioned above, it is the burden upon the
prosecution to prove that the said allegation of
demand made against the accused beyond
reasonable doubt.
33. During the course of argument the learned
counsel for accused has submitted that the IO has
not seized any chit or slip said to have been written
by the accused demanding Rs.40,000/- from the
29
Spl.C.C. No. 480/2016
complainant on 03-02-2015, and no investigation is
made in that regard. According to the prosecution
at the first instance and on that day the accused
demanded for Rs.40,000/-. However according to
Ex.P-3 on 03-02-2015 once again the complainant
met the accused and on that day and he agreed to
pay the amount as demanded by the accused and
said conversation was recorded by him in his
mobile. As pointed out above in his examination-in-
chief PW.1 has stated that on 03-02-2015 the
accused demanded Rs.40,000/- which appears to be
missing in Ex.P-3 and according to PW.1 on
04-02-2015 he met the accused and requested for
concession, then the accused demanded
Rs.30,000/- at once. The above said inconsistency
and discrepancies regarding the alleged date of
demand made by the accused as alleged in Ex.P-3
FIS and as deposed by PW.1 in his evidence is not
satisfactorily explained by the prosecution.
34. Apart from this it is relevant to note that the IO
has not made any attempt to ascertain in which
30
Spl.C.C. No. 480/2016
device the complainant has recorded the alleged
conversation and the IO has clearly admitted in his
cross-examination at para No.57 that during the
investigation he has not made any attempts to seize
the original device in which the complainant has
recorded the said conversation. Further it is also
surprising to note that in his cross-examination
PW.10 the I.O. has admitted that M.O.1 C.D. and
M.O.11 and M.O.13 C.D. are of the same company
and their manufacturing serial number is one and
the same. However the I.O. volunteers that their
serial numbers are different. It is relevant to note
that M.O.1 C.D., according to the prosecution
handed over to the police by P.W.1 and whereas
M.O.11 and 13 are the C.Ds collected from the
office of Karnataka Lokayuktha Police. Hence the
learned counsel for the accused submitted that a
doubt arises regarding genuineness of M.O.1 C.D.
and admittedly the said clouds of doubt existing in
this regard is not clearly and satisfactorily explained
by the prosecution and a doubt arises in this regard
also.
31
Spl.C.C. No. 480/2016
35. During the course of arguments the learned
counsel for accused has further submitted that even
the evidence of experts and Ex.P-25 report reveals
that the voice sample of the complainant was not
sent to FSL and only the alleged voice of the accused
was sent and the evidence of prosecution witnesses
clearly reveals that none of the witnesses have
identified the voice of the complainant and hence
even the FSL report is not proved. However the
learned Public Prosecutor has submitted that the
dispute is only with regard to the alleged voice of the
accused and therefore the voice sample of the
complainant was not sent for scientific analysis.
However the court opines that the said contention
of the prosecution is not tenable. It is relevant to
note that prosecution witnesses particularly P.W.11
Sri.Chandrashekar M.V. in his evidence has deposed
that the IO made him to hear the voice of one person
which he found similar to the voice of the accused
and in his cross-examination he has clearly stated
that the Audio which he heard contain voices of two
persons and he is not in a position to identify
32
Spl.C.C. No. 480/2016
another voice and apart from this it is relevant to
note that PW.7 C. Srividya in her cross-examination
has deposed that a person can alter or tamper the
conversation recorded in device while transfering it
to C.D. and there is possibility to tamper the same.
It is true that she volunteers that in case any such
tampering was done, during the process of
scientific examination it will be detected.
36. It is relevant to note that I.O. in his cross-
examination has clearly admitted that he has not
obtained and recorded voice sample of C.W.1 and
sent it for scientific examination. It is relevant to
note that even the complainant himself has given
Ex.P-8 certificate under Section 65 (B) and during
his evidence at para No.13 itself, he has deposed
that he do not know the contents of the same and at
the request of the police he has given said
requisition as per Ex.P-8. PW.1 has only identified
his signature in Ex.P-8 and not deposed regarding
issuance of Section 65 (B) Certificate.
Admittedly, even Ex.P-8 Certificate not in
33
Spl.C.C. No. 480/2016
accordance with law and it does not meet the
requirement of Section 65-B of Indian Evidence Act.
37. Hence the evidence on record clearly reveals
that mobile of the complainant was no secured and
voice sample of the complainant also not taken and
not sent for scientific examination for comparison
with the voice recorded in M.O.1 C.D. When a
serious allegation of this nature is made, I.O. ought
to have collected and sent the voice sample of the
complainant for comparison with the voice as
recorded in M.O.1 C.D. which admittedly got
transferred by the complainant himself. If at all the
said conversation recorded in the mobile of the
complainant is seized by the I.O. or if at all
conversation in the said device was transferred to
C.D. by the police then the situation would have
been different. However all the materials on record
reveals that the I.O. has not taken effective steps to
determine and ascertain the genuineness of the
conversation said to have been recorded in M.O.1
C.D.
34
Spl.C.C. No. 480/2016
38. Aforesaid over all analysis of oral and
documentary evidence on record clearly reveals that
the prosecution has failed to establish its prima-
facie allegation that the accused has demanded for
gratification as alleged.
With regard to acceptance:
39. So for as this aspect is concerned, the burden is
upon the prosecution to prove that apart from
demanding gratification, the accused has accepted
the gratification from the complainant or aggrieved
person. In this case it is evident from the materials
on record that before conducting trap mahazar on
07-02-2015, the I.O. has conducted pre-trap
mahazar as per Ex.P-4. In respect of said pre-trap
panchanama the complainant and PW.2 Sri.Kiran
Kumar and P.W.5 Sri.Yogesh and PW-10 Sri.T.V.Raju
I.O. deposed before the court. According to PW.1 as
per Ex.P-4 pretrap panchanama was conducted and
he put his signature to it as per Ex.P-4 (c) and in
his presence and in the presence of panch
witnesses, the Police have prepared a list and noted
serial number of the currency notes of Rs.1,000/-
35
Spl.C.C. No. 480/2016
denomination, an amount of Rs.30,000/- which he
carried to give it to the accused and also police have
put penapthaline powder on each currency notes
and also they have put the penapthaline powder to
the solution which turned to pink colour and they
have taken photographs and videos and recorded all
the process of preparation of pre-trap panchanama.
40. PW.2 Sri.Kiran Kumar also deposed that in
his presence Ex.P-4 pre-trap panchanama was
conducted. He has also deposed that all the process
of pre-trap panchanama was video-graphed, and
CW.3 was asked to wash his hand in a chemical
solution which turned to pink colour and also I.O.
collected the sample of the said solution. Further
P.W.5 Sri.Yogeesh, in his examination-in-chief also
deposed that in his presence during Ex.P-4 pre-trap
panchanama police have prepared a list of
denomination and serial number of 30 notes of
Rs.1000/- denomination and applied penapthaline
powder to it and asked him and CW.3 to wash their
hand in the solution which turned to pink colour. He
36
Spl.C.C. No. 480/2016
has also deposed that he put signature to Ex.P-4
spot panchanama as per Ex.P-4(c). In the cross-
examination of PW.1, PW-2 and PW-5 the Ex.P-4
pre-trap panchanama is concerned nothing
contrary to the case of the prosecution is elicited
and the accused has not seriously disputed the
Ex.P-4 pre-trap panchama. The accused in this
case has denied the allegation of the prosecution
that he has accepted the said gratification of
Rs.30,000/-from the complainant.
41. Now the burden is upon the prosecution to
prove that on the said date the accused has
accepted the said amount of Rs.30,000/- as
gratification as per his motive. To substantiate this
aspect the prosecution has to prove due execution of
Ex.P-5 trap panchanama and in this regard the
prosecution much relies upon the evidence of PW.1
the complainant, the evidence of PW.2 Sri.K.Kiran
Kumar, shadow witness, evidence of PW.5
Sri.Yogeesh, evidence of PW.6 Sri.Basavaraj
Govinagidada and evidence of PW.10 Sri.T.V. Raju
37
Spl.C.C. No. 480/2016
along with evidence of experts regarding
conversation recorded in the voice recorder which
was sent along with the complainant at the time of
trap is very much relevant.
42. Relying upon the evidence on record, the
learned Public Prosecutor has submitted that the
said oral and documentary evidence on record and
existing circumstantial evidence clearly reveals that
it is the accused who has not only demanded, the
gratification from the complainant, he has accepted
the same even though he has not directly touched
the amount in his hand and considering the
circumstantial evidence on record, the fact of
acceptance of gratification by the accused can be
assumed. However the learned counsel for the
accused submitted that it is settled law that mere
recovery of tainted amount from the possession of
the accused is not sufficient. Further mere fact that
the left hand of the accused turned to pink colour
when his left hand was immersed in the chemical
solution itself is not sufficient to prove guilt of the
38
Spl.C.C. No. 480/2016
accused because in a case of this nature the
prosecution has to prove the twin aspect of demand,
acceptance and also the prosecution has to establish
that the work of the complainant was pending with
the accused and all these facts have to be proved
beyond reasonable doubt. The learned counsel for
the accused has highlighted the various portions of
evidence of prosecution witnesses in support of his
said contention.
43. In order to ascertain and determine the said
respective contentions of the prosecution and the
defence it is just and necessary to scrutinize,
analyse the version of the prosecution witnesses
coupled with evidence on record carefully.
44. Admittedly, the trap in this case is conducted
on 07-02-2015. There is no dispute that on
07-02-2015 when the trap was conducted, the
accused was present at his office. The said fact is
evident from Ex.P-33 the copy of the attendance
register extract. Even the accused has not denied his
presence in the office on 07-02-2015. However, it is
39
Spl.C.C. No. 480/2016
the defence of the accused that when the IO and
other witnesses conducted trap panchanama in his
chamber he was not present and only after IO
summoned him he came. Said defence of the
accused will be discussed at a later stage with
reference to the evidence on record.
45. So for as the fact of acceptance is concerned, it
is the specific case of the prosecution that on 07-02-
2015 the complainant Sri.K.M.Dinesh was sent to
the chamber of accused along with Penaphatline
applied currency notes and a voice recorder and
PW.2 Sri.Kiran Kumar was sent as a shadow
witness. It is also the case of the prosecution and
version of PW.10 I.O. that PW.1 was instructed
initially to discuss with the accused regarding
pending file and if the accused demands for
gratification, then only he has to pay the amount
and PW.2 Kiran Kumar was instructed to
accompany the complainant and to observe the
conversation between the complainant and accused.
It is the case of the prosecution that on the said day
40
Spl.C.C. No. 480/2016
the accused has received an amount of Rs.30,000/-
from the complainant and the complainant came out
side and gave signal and immediately I.O. and other
members of the trap team entered into the chamber
of accused and Ex.P-5 trap panchanama was
conducted and all the process was video-graphed. It
is also the case of the prosecution that in the
process when the left hand of the accused was
immersed in the chemical solution, it turned to pink
colour and said fact is substantiated by PW.6 who is
the expert and Ex.P-24 also corroborates this
aspect.
46. So for as the contentions of the prosecution
regarding the acceptance of gratification amount by
the accused is concerned, the version of PW.1 varies
in his examination-in-chief and in his cross-
examination. Though PW.2 is stated to have
accompanied PW.1 and though according to the
prosecution he has witnessed the incident took place
inside the chamber of the accused, the said aspect
is not supported by PW.2 Sri.Kiran Kumar in his
41
Spl.C.C. No. 480/2016
evidence. PW.2 Kiran Kumar, in his examination-
in-chief itself has clearly stated that on 07-02-2015
he accompanied PW.1 Dinesh to the chamber of the
accused and he was asked to stand nearby the main
door and therefore he has not entered into the office
of the accused. Since PW.2 is partly treated as
hostile witness he was subjected to cross-
examination by learned Public Prosecutor and in his
said cross-examination made by the learned Public
Prosecutor PW.2 has denied the suggestion that on
the said day along with the complainant he went
inside the chamber of the accused and witnessed the
incident. He has further denied that on the said day
he entered the chamber of the accused. Therefore
the said evidence of PW.2 is inconsistent with the
case of the prosecution and prosecution cannot relay
upon said version of PW.2 in respect of aspect of
acceptance of gratification amount by the accused
from the complainant as alleged.
47. Hence when the version of PW.2 in this regard is
excluded the only evidence regarding the aspect of
42
Spl.C.C. No. 480/2016
acceptance remain is the evidence of PW.1 the
complainant. It is relevant to note that PW.1 in his
examination-in-chief at para No.9 has stated that on
07-02-2015 at about 2 p.m. when he visited the
office of the accused, except the accused no one was
present in the chamber of accused and CW.2
accompanied him. He further stated that ನಾನು
ಆರೋಪಿತರನ್ನು ಈ ಫೈಲ್ನ್ನು ಅಪ್ರೂ ವ್ ಮಾಡಿಕೊಡಿ
ಎಂದು ಕೇಳಿದಾಗ ಕಳುಹಿಸಿಕೊಡುತ್ತ ೇನೆ ಎಂದು ಹೇಳಿ, ಏನೋ
ನೋಡಿಕೋ ಎನ್ನು ವ ರೀತಿಯಲ್ಲಿ ಸಂಜ್ಞೆ ಮಾಡಿದರು. ಆಗ
ನಾನು ನನ್ನ ಬಳಿ ತೆಗೆದುಕೊಂಡು ಹೋಗಿದ್ದ ರೂ. 30 ಸಾವಿರ
ಹಣವನ್ನು ಆರೋಪಿತರ ಡ್ರಾ ಯರ್ ನಲ್ಲಿ ನಾನೇ ಇಟ್ಟೆ ನಾನು
ಸದರಿ ಹಣವನ್ನು ಇಟ್ಟಾ ಗ ಆರೋಪಿತರು ಅಲ್ಲೆ ೕ ಕುಳಿತಿದ್ದ ರು.
48. Having deposed so in his examination-in-chief ,
when PW.1 treated as partly hostile witness and
subjected to cross-examination by learned Public
Prosecutor, in his said cross-examination made by
learned Public Prosecutor, particularly at para No.16
PW.1 has denied the suggestion that ” ಅದೇ ರೀತಿ
ನಾನು ಪೋಲಿಸರ ಮುಂದೆ ರೂ.30 ಸಾವಿರ ಹಣವನ್ನು
ಆರೋಪಿತರ ಕೈಗೆ ಕೊಡಲು ಹೋದಾಗ ಅವರು ಅದನ್ನು
43
Spl.C.C. No. 480/2016
ಕೈಯಲ್ಲಿ ಪಡೆಯದೇ ಟೇಬಲ್ನ ಎಡಭಾಗದ ಡ್ರಾ ಯರ್ ನಲ್ಲಿ
ಇಡುವಂತೆ ಡ್ರಾ ಯರ್ ಅನ್ನು ಎಳೆದಿರುತ್ತಾ ರೆ ಎಂದು
ಹೇಳಿರುತ್ತೆ ೕನೆ ಅಂದರೆ ಸರಿ ಅಲ್ಲ .
49. Further the same PW.1 in his cross-examination
made by learned counsel for accused at para No.20
has deposed that “ಆರೋಪಿತರು ಫೈಲ್ ಇಡಿ ಎಂದು
ಹೆೇಳಿದಾಗ ನಾನು ಫೈಲ್ನ್ನು ಇಟ್ಟು ಜೊತೆಗೆ ಅಲ್ಲೆ ತೆರೆದಿದ್ದ
ಡ್ರಾ ಯರ್ ನಲ್ಲಿ ಹಣವನ್ನು ಇಟ್ಟಿ ದ್ದೆ . ನಾನು ಮುಖ್ಯ
ವಿಚಾರಣೆಯಲ್ಲಿ ಹೇಳಿದಂತೆ ಆರೋಪಿತರು ಸಂಜ್ಞೆ
ಮಾಡಿದ್ದ ರು ಎಂದು ಹೇಳಿದ್ದು ಫೈಲನ್ನು ಇಡಲೋ ಅಥವಾ
ಹಣವನ್ನು ಇಡಲೋ ಎಂದು ಹೇಳಿದಾಗ ಸಾಕ್ಷಿ ಯು ಆ ಬಗ್ಗೆ
ನನಗೆ ಏನು ಸ್ವ ಷ್ಟ ವಾಗಿ ಗೊತ್ತಾ ಗಿರಲಿಲ್ಲ ಎನ್ನು ತ್ತಾ ರೆ “.
Even the prosecution has failed to prove that
Ex.P.13 and M.O.11 C.D. consist, the conversation
which undoubtedly reveals the accused has
accepted the gratification amount on 07-02-2015.
Apart from this even the above said oral evidence of
the complainant clearly reveals that the prosecution
has miserably failed to prove that on the said day
the accused has accepted the gratification amount
from the complainant as alleged. As above
44
Spl.C.C. No. 480/2016
mentioned, mere recovery of tainted amount from
the drawer of the office table of the accused is not
sufficient, the prosecution must establish that the
accused has voluntarily accepted the money
knowing it to be bribe.
50. Now so for as the case of the prosecution
regarding collecting of the chemical solution in
which when the left hand of the accused was
immersed turned to pink colour is concerned, said
contention of the prosecution is also not sufficient to
hold that the accused has received the tainted
amount. It is relevant to note that it is not the case
of the prosecution that the accused received the said
tainted amount from the complainant by his hand. It
is not necessary that in all circumstance the
prosecution has to prove that the accused has
received the bribe amount by his hand only.
However, the prosecution has to prove that accused
has voluntarily accepted the amount either by his
hand or by any other means. It is true that the
evidence of PW.6-Dr.Basavaraj Govingidada and
45
Spl.C.C. No. 480/2016
Ex.P-24 chemical examination report reveals that
the said chemical solution turned to pink colour
when the left hand of the accused immersed in the
said solution. Even the accused has not much
disputed the said aspect. However in this regard the
evidence of prime witness i.e. PW.1 K.M.Dinesh,
P.W.2 Kiran Kumar and P.W.5 Yogesh.B. differs with
the case of the prosecution. PW.1 K.M.Dinesh in his
examination-in-chief at para No.11 deposed that he
has not seen when the hands of the accused were
immersed in the chemical solution. In his cross-
examination made by learned Public Prosecutor
P.W.1 at para No.16 when suggestion is put to him
that he has witnessed that when the hands of the
accused was immersed in the sodium carbonate
solution it turned to pink colour, he pleaded
ignorance in this regard and stated that he has not
seen it. Therefore, the evidence of PW.1 is not helpful
to the prosecution to prove this aspect.
51. So for as the evidence of PW.2 Kiran Kumar is
concerned, in this regard his evidence is also not
46
Spl.C.C. No. 480/2016
helpful to the prosecution because he has deposed
in his examination-in-chief at para No.8 that when
the IO immersed both hands of the accused in the
chemical solution, then there was no change in
colour of the chemical solution. In his cross-
examination made by learned Public prosecutor
PW.2 has denied the suggestion that in his presence
when the left hand of the accused was washed in the
said chemical solution it turned to pink colour. The
evidence of PW.5- Yogeesh.B. also not helpful to the
case of the prosecution in this regard because he in
his examination in chief at para No.6 has stated that
when the accused came out from the toilet police
made him to wash his both hands in chemical
solution and same was not turned into pink colour.
PW.5 in his cross-examination made by learned
Public Prosecutor has also denied the suggestion
that he witnessed that when the left hand of the
accused immersed into chemical solution it turned
to pink colour. Even he has denied that in this
regard as per Ex.P-21 he has given statement before
the police. Therefore, the evidence of these witnesses
47
Spl.C.C. No. 480/2016
is not helpful to the prosecution even to establish
that on the said day the hands of the accused when
immersed in the chemical solution turned to pink
colour.
52. As rightly pointed out by learned Public
Prosecutor the Ex.P-24 report and evidence of PW.6
reveals that the said solution which was turned to
pink colour, consisted contents of phenolphthalein.
It is relevant to note that even the accused has not
much disputed Ex.P-24 report and also the accused
has not disputed the fact of change in colour of
chemical solution into pink when his left hand was
immersed in the said solution. However as rightly
submitted by learned counsel for accused it is the
burden upon the prosecution to prove the aspect of
acceptance of gratification by accused by adducing
evidence beyond reasonable doubt and mere reason
that the solution turned to pink colour is not
sufficient to presume the theory of acceptance.
Even the evidence of PW.10, I.O. in this regard is
also not helpful to the prosecution since in a case of
this nature the heavy burden is upon the
48
Spl.C.C. No. 480/2016
prosecution to prove the demand, acceptance and
also the fact that the accused has received the
gratification amount knowing it to be bribe and the
work of complainant was pending with him at that
point of time and unless all these ingredients were
proved presumption under Section 20 of the Act
cannot be drawn.
53. The evidence of the prosecution witnesses
regarding the presence of the accused at the time of
conducting Ex.P-5 trap panchanama is also
inconsistent. PW.1 the complainant in his
examination-in-chief deposed that on 07-02-2015 he
met the accused at his chamber and in his cross-
examination made by learned counsel for accused
he has deposed that on the said day he was asked
to keep the file on the table and the accused was
about to leave the place and whereas PW.2 Kiran
Kumar has deposed that when the I.O. and other
witnesses came inside the chamber of the accused,
the accused was not in his chamber, he was in the
toilet and as per the instructions of the I.O. he
49
Spl.C.C. No. 480/2016
knocked the doors of the toilet and called the
accused. Even PW.5 Sri.Yogeesh in his examination-
in-chief itself has stated that he along with I.O. and
complainant and PW.2, when entered the office of
the accused, accused was not in his chamber and he
was found in the toilet. However the I.O. who is
examined as PW.10 in his examination-in-chief
deposed that when he went inside the chamber he
saw the accused in his chamber itself. Hence the
presence of the accused at the time of conducting
Ex.P-5 trap panchanama as deposed by prosecution
witnesses varies and doubt arises about the case of
the prosecution in this regard also.
54. Apart from this in respect of the above said
theory of acceptance is concerned, as mentioned
above the complainant was sent to the office of the
accused on 07-02-2015 along with voice recorder
and it is the case of the prosecution that the
complainant has recorded the conversation between
him and accused in the said device and later handed
over it to the I.O. and I.O. had transferred said
50
Spl.C.C. No. 480/2016
conversation recorded in the said device to a C.D.
Admittedly, in respect of the said device no
documents were produced before the court by the
I.O, which reveals about the details like company,
model, and other particulars of the said
device/recorder. Apart from this, the said aspect is
clearly admitted by PW.10 I.O. in his cross-
examination. It is also the case of the prosecution
that in respect of transfering of the contents of said
recorder to the C.D. is concerned, I.O. has
produced M.O.11 C.D. and I.O. has also furnished
section 65-B certificate as per Ex.P.36. It is also case
of the prosecution that the I.O. has summoned the
accused and other witnesses on 31-03-2015 and
collected the sample voice of the accused and in the
presence of panch witnesses video-graphed the
entire process and with the help of computer
transferred it to a C.D. which is marked as M.O.14.
55. As discussed above in this case the prosecution
is much relying upon Ex.P-25 the report of the
expert which states that on comparison of the
51
Spl.C.C. No. 480/2016
respective voice sent to it for examination it was
found that respective speeches said to have been
that of accused in the present case. As discussed
above, sample voice of the complainant was not sent
to FSL, for comparison by I.O. Now even in respect
of the above said MO.11 is concerned, the I.O. said
to have been issued Ex.P-36 certificate under
Section 65(B) of Indian Evidence Act. However it is
very surprised to note that Ex.P-36 is dated 07-02-
2015, whereas at page No.2 its contents reveals that
the I.O. has obtained the sample voice of accused in
the presence of witnesses on 31-03-2015 and in
respect of the said fact of collecting sample voice of
the accused he has issued this Ex.P-36 certificate.
As rightly pointed out by learned counsel of accused,
when the alleged sample voice of the accused is
collected by the I.O. on 31-03-2015 how a certificate
in this regard can be issued much prior to
31-03-2015 i.e., on 07-02-2015.? Even in his cross-
examination PW.10 has admitted this aspect. It is
surprised to note that even when a question is put
to P.W.10 I.O. in this regard I.O. has not made any
52
Spl.C.C. No. 480/2016
attempt to give his explanation or clarification
regarding the dates mentioned in the said certificate.
However, it is argued by learned Public Prosecutor
that there appears some clerical and typographical
error in Ex.P36. However no materials were
furnished to substantiate it. Even, said Ex.P-36
certificate is not in compliance with Section 65-B of
Indian Evidence Act. These facts also create a doubt
about the manner in which the investigation done in
the case.
56. Further a doubt also arises about the case of
the prosecution regarding use of M.O.15 seal
consisting ‘V’ alphabet. It is the case of the
prosecution that said seal M.O.15 was given to the
custody of PW.5 Sri.Yogeesh who brought it on
07-02-2015 and subsequently. In this regard the
prosecution relies upon Ex.P-18 acknowledgment
said to have been given by said PW.5 Sri.Yogeesh
that he has received back said M.O.15 seal which
was used during conducting Ex.P5 trap
panchanama on 07-02-2015. Further the
53
Spl.C.C. No. 480/2016
prosecution also relies upon Ex.P-20
acknowledgment said to have been issued by PW.5
on 31.03.2015, when PW.5 from his custody
produced M.O.15 seal for the purpose of seizure of
articles on the said day.
57. Even P.W.10 T.V.Raju, I.O. in his evidence has
stated that M.O.15 seal was in the custody of P.W.5
Sri.Yogeesh.B. However, said PW.5 Sri.Yogeesh.B. in
his evidence before the court deposed that MO.15
was collected by the Police on the day of trap itself
and though he has admitted his signature in Ex.P-
18 and Ex.P.20 denied its contents. Even in his
cross-examination made by learned Public
Prosecutor he has denied that M.O.15 seal was with
him and he has further denied that he is falsely
deposing that said seal was handed over to him by
the police on the date of his examination-in-chief
before the Court. Further in his cross-examination
made by learned counsel for accused PW.5 has
deposed that MO.15 seal was taken back by the
police on 07-02-2015 and thereafter again they have
54
Spl.C.C. No. 480/2016
gave it to him on 25-02-2026, the day of his
examination before this Court. The said version of
P.W.5 on record falsifies the case of the prosecution
that M.O.15 seal was in the custody of PW.5. The
said evidence regarding MO.15 seal on record
creates doubt about the manner in which the
investigating agency used the said seal.
58. The aforesaid over all evidence on record clearly
reveals that the prosecution has failed to prove
beyond reasonable doubt that, the accused has
accepted the gratification amount, as alleged.
With regard to pendency of the work of the
complainant with the accused:
59. With reference to the above said aspect of
pendency of the work of the complainant with the
accused is concerned, the learned Public Prosecutor
has submitted that the conversation as recorded in
M.O.1 C.D. which is reduced into writing as per
Ex.P-11 and the circumstantial evidence on record
including the endorsement on the left side of Ex.P-6
clearly reveals that the accused had the knowledge
55
Spl.C.C. No. 480/2016
about the pendency of the applications filed by the
complainant on behalf of C.W.3 and 4. The learned
Public Prosecutor has further submitted that since
the accused was the head of the said Section office
he had the knowledge about the pendency of the
applications and therefore the accused has
demanded the gratification and accepted the same.
60. On the other hand it is the submission of
learned counsel for accused that the I.O. has not
investigated about the pendency of the work of the
complainant with the accused and in this regard
even no attempts were made by the I.O. Further it is
also pointed out by learned counsel for accused that
as per the evidence of I.O. and the complainant, the
copies of Ex.P-6 and P-7 files were obtained by the
I.O. from the possession of the complainant and not
from the chamber of the accused, which further
clarifies that the said file pertaining Ex.P-6 and P-7
not reached the table of the accused and therefore
there is no pending work of the complainant with
the accused as on 07-02-2015 and hence the
56
Spl.C.C. No. 480/2016
question of making demand for gratification by the
accused does not arise at all.
61. In order to adjudicate the aforesaid respective
contentions of the prosecution and the defence, the
court has to consider the evidence of PW.1 the
complainant, PW.10 the Investigating Officer, PW.8
Sri.Ramakrishna, PW.9 Ramegowda and Ex.P-11
and Ex.P-6 and 7 and Ex.P-28 and Ex.P-31 on
record. So for as the aspect of IO, obtaining the
xerox copies of the said Ex.P-6 and Ex.P-7 file is
concerned, PW.1 Sri.Dinesh K.M. in his cross-
examination made by learned counsel for accused at
para No.20 has stated that on 07-02-2015 when he
met the accused he has carried the file with him.
Whereas PW.10 I.O. Sri.Raju T.V. in his cross-
examination at para-65 has admitted that in his
Ex.P-5 trap panchanama no where he has
mentioned that file pertaining to the complainant
was seized from the possession of the accused. He
further admits that in the trap panchanama he has
mentioned that the concerned file was seized from
57
Spl.C.C. No. 480/2016
the possession of the complainant. He has also
admitted that he has not made any enquiry how the
said file went to the custody of the complainant. He
has also admitted that he has not made any
investigation when exactly the file pertaining to the
complainant was reached to the table of the accused
or whether it reached to him or not etc. He further
admitted that no where in the charge sheet he has
mentioned that the file pertaining to the
complainant was pending with the accused and the
accused was in a position to assist the complainant
and he is in an official position to do the needful. He
has admitted that in this regard he has not
furnished any documents along with the charge-
sheet. Hence the said evidence of PW-1 and PW-10
when read together, it reveals that I.O. has not
collected any documents pertaining to Ex.P-6 and
P-7 from the possession of the accused and rather
the I.O. collected the same from the possession of
the complainant which appears to be very surprise.
58
Spl.C.C. No. 480/2016
62. Now the only point remains for consideration is
whether the work of the complainant was pending
with the accused or not. In this regard the evidence
of PW.8- Sri.M.Ramakrishna reveals that as per the
request of the police he has furnished the service
particulars of the accused as per Ex.P-29 along with
Ex.P-28 covering letter. Said PW.8 in his cross-
examination has clearly admitted that he has no
information whether the file related to the
complainant was pending before the accused or not.
Further PW.9 Sri.H.C.Ramegowda in his
examination-in-chief deposed that as per Ex.P-31 he
has furnished the documents to the police wherein
the work allotment of the accused is clearly
mentioned.
63. On careful perusal of Ex.P-31 it reveals that as
on the date of trap the accused was under the
responsibility of revenue monitoring, making
correspondence with the Divisional office
sanctioning of power to the customer under different
head and also to look after the supervision of entire
59
Spl.C.C. No. 480/2016
Sub-Division. It is relevant to note that PW.9-
H.C.Ramegowda, in his cross-examination has
explained the nature of work of accused during that
period. According to him whenever an application
seeking 10 H.P. power sanction is filed it will be
registered directly in Sub-Division register and
thereafter it will be forwarded to the concerned
section office. Thereafter, the concerned Section
Officer will conduct spot inspection and prepare
estimation and after preparation of estimation the
application and concerned file will be forwarded to
the AEE through Section Officer. He has also
admitted that up to Rs.1,00,000/- estimation AEE
had the authority to grant power sanction and
exceeding the said estimation the concerned
Executive Engineer has the power of approval. The
said version of PW.9 also reveals that as on
07-02-215, said file pertaining to the complainant
appears to have been not placed before the accused.
Further the said fact is evident from Ex.P-6 and
P-7 which reveals that several coloums of the said
application and annexed enclosures were kept
60
Spl.C.C. No. 480/2016
blank.
64. Further PW.11-M.V.Chandrashekar, the
Assistant Engineer, BESCOM deposed in his cross-
examination particularly at para No.8 that in the
year 2015 he worked as A.E., in the aforesaid office
of Bescom and during that period he found that
Ex.P-6 and 7 was not pending before the accused for
the purpose of power sanction since the said files
were sent for field inspection. He has also admitted
that till the file reaches the table of AEE. he will not
have any information or knowledge regarding
pendency of the application or pendency of file for
field inspection report or estimation. Even the said
evidence of PW.11 also reveals that the prosecution
has failed to substantiate that as on the date of the
trap file pertaining to the complainant was pending
before the accused or the accused had the
knowledge in this regard.
65. Apart from this Ex.D-1 to D-4 and the oral
evidence of PW-3 Vinay.S. and PW-4 Sridhar. D.R.
also reveals that the trade licence pertaining to
61
Spl.C.C. No. 480/2016
PW.3 Vinay.S. was issued on 23-12-2015 and
licence in this regard was obtained on 01-04-2015
as per Ex.D-2 and as per Ex.D-3 trade licence
pertaining to PW-4 was obtained on 01-04-2015 and
as per Ex.D-4 the trade licence was obtained on
13-01-2016. The said Ex.D-1 to D-4 and oral
testimony of PW.3 and PW-4 reveals that before
obtaining the licence from the BBMP and trade
licence they have applied for 10 H.P. power sanction
through C.W.1 and the said fact also creates a doubt
because without the licence from the BBMP
generally Bescom will not sanction power supply.
This aspect is also not clearly explained by the
prosecution.
66. The aforesaid oral and documentary evidence
on record clearly reveals that even though there is
no dispute that CW-3 and CW-4 through CW.1
applied for 10 H.P. power sanction, prosecution has
failed to establish by adducing cogent evidence that
the file of the complainant was pending with the
accused or the accused had the knowledge about the
62
Spl.C.C. No. 480/2016
pendency of the file of the complainant at his office.
Hence taking into consideration the available oral
and documentary evidence on record, this Court is
of the view that the prosecution has miserably failed
to prove beyond reasonable doubt that on the said
date the file of the complainant or the work of the
complainant was pending with the accused as
alleged.
67. In view of the aforesaid appreciation of evidence
on record and relying upon settled principle of law
regarding the ingredients to be proved when an
allegation of commission of offence under Section 7
of Prevention of Corruption Act is made, this court is
of the view that prosecution has failed to prove the
vital aspect of demand, acceptance as well as
pendency of work of the complainant with the
accused as discussed above. Since the prosecution
has failed to prove these aspects beyond reasonable
doubt, there is no ambiguity to hold the view that
prosecution has failed to prove that the accused
committed an offence punishable under Section 7 of
63
Spl.C.C. No. 480/2016
the Prevention of Corruption Act. In the result the
Court proceed to answer Point No.2 in the
NEGATIVE.
68. POINT No.3: As mentioned above the prosecution
has also alleged that the accused in this case has
committed an offence punishable under Section 13
(1) (d) r/w Section 13 (2) of P.C. Act. It is specific
allegation made by the prosecution that the act of
the accused in dishonestly or fraudulently,
misappropriating or otherwise, gratification amount
has resulted in misconduct. It is settled law that
when an allegations of commission of offence under
section 13 (1)(d) of the Act is alleged to have been
committed, the prosecution has to prove the
following ingredients to bring home the guilt of
public servant, which are as follows;
(i) the accused must be a public servant.
(ii) by corrupt or illegal means, obtains for
himself or for any other person any valuable
thing or pecuniary advantage or by abusing
his position as public servant, obtains for
64
Spl.C.C. No. 480/2016
himself or for any other person any valuable
thing or pecuniary advantage or while holding
office as public servant, obtains for any
person any valuable thing or pecuniary
advantage without any public interest.
(iii) to make out an offence under Section 13
(1) (d), there is no requirements that the
valuable thing or pecuniary advantage who
have been received as a motive or reward.
(iv) an agreement to accept or an attempt to
obtain does not fall within section 13 (1) (d).
(v) mere acceptance of any valuable thing or
pecuniary advantage is not an offence under
this provision.
(vi) therefore, to make out an offence under
this provision, there has to be actual
obtainment.
(vi) Since the Legislature has used two
different expressions namely “obtain” or
“accepts” the difference between this must be
noted.
69. Now in the light of the aforesaid settled position
65
Spl.C.C. No. 480/2016
of law the evidence of the prosecution witnesses
need to be analyzed to determine whether there is
misconduct on the part of the accused in this case
or not and whether the prosecution has proved it
beyond reasonable doubt or not.
70. Undisputed facts of this case is that through
PW-1, PW-3 and PW-4 have submitted the
application seeking 10 H.P. power sanction and it is
also an admitted fact that PW.1 by submitting Ex.P-
3 FIS along with MO.1 C.D. complained to the
PW.10 that the accused had demanded gratification
of Rs.40,000/- initially and later demanded
Rs.30,000/-. Further it is also evident from the
record that PW.2 and PW.5 are the panch witnesses
who along with PW.1 said to have observed Ex.P-4
pre-trap panchanama and PW.10 has described and
explained them regarding the process of pre-trap
panchanama and also he applied Phenolphthalein
powder to currency notes brought by the
complainant which is to be given to the accused as
gratification demanded by him. PW-6 and PW-7 are
66
Spl.C.C. No. 480/2016
the expert witnesses who deposed about the
chemical examination and scientific examination of
the materials sent to them and PW-8 is the
sanctioning authority. PW.9 and PW-11 deposed
about the work allotment and nature of work to be
carried out by the accused at that point of time.
PW.10 is the IO who in his examination-in-chief
narrated all the events that took place from the
moment of submission of Ex.P-3 FIS by the
complainant till filing of charge sheet.
71. Said PW.10 in his examination-in-chief also
deposed that tainted currency notes were kept in the
right side pocket of the complainant and he has
handed over him a voice recorder to record the
conversation between him and accused and PW.1
was sent along with PW.2 a shadow witness to the
office of the accused on 07-02-2015.
72. As discussed above while discussing aforesaid
Point No.2 this court has discussed at length the
evidence of the prosecution witnesses regarding
execution of trap panchanama and credibility of
67
Spl.C.C. No. 480/2016
those witnesses.
72. The evidence of PW.10 on record clearly reveals
that he has not obtained and collected the voice
sample of the complainant and not sent it for
scientific examination for comparison and the said
fact is fatal to the case of the prosecution because
the accused in this case is disputing the other voice
in MO.1 and MO.11 C.D. Further the evidence of
I.O. clearly reveals that there is no valid certificate
under Section 65-B of Indian Evidence Act is
furnished in support of MO.11. Further the evidence
of complainant clearly reveals that though he has
identified his signature in Ex.P-8, he is unaware
about the contents of Ex.P-8 Certificate. These facts
on record reveals that there is no acceptable
evidence adduced by the prosecution in respect of
M.O.1 and MO.11. Further the I.O. clearly admitted
that he has not conducted any investigation to
ascertain whether actually the file of the
complainant was pending with the accused or not.
73. Further Ex.P-6 and Ex.P-7 also reveals that
68
Spl.C.C. No. 480/2016
several coloumns in the said application and its
enclosures were kept blank. Further the I.O. in his
cross-examination has unable to explain how Ex.P-
36 Certificate was issued much prior to the process
of obtaining the voice sample of the accused. All
these facts on record clearly reveals that there is
defect in the investigation and the investigation was
not conducted as per procedure. The evidence on
record also reveals that Ex.P-16 which the
prosecution claims to be the report of PW.11 reveals
that it is not a report and it appears to be statement
of PW.11 only. Said Ex.P-16 and evidence on PW.11
also reveals that PW.11 is not certain regarding the
voice or the audio which he heard and he has clearly
stated that he cannot identify the other voice which
he heard in the instrument on the said date. The
evidence of the prosecution witnesses clearly reveals
that even after treating PW.1, PW.3, PW.5 as hostile
witnesses and even after they were cross-examined
on behalf of the prosecution, nothing favourable to
the case of the prosecution, to prove the above said
ingredients under Section 7 and 13 of Prevention of
69
Spl.C.C. No. 480/2016
Corruption Act was elicited through them.
74. In view of the aforesaid discussions made and
considering the materials on record this court has
already came to the conclusion that Prosecution
failed to prove that, the accused has committed an
offence punishable under Section 7 of Prevention of
Corruption Act and therefore ultimately what
remains is the burden upon the prosecution to show
that how the tainted currency notes found in the
table drawer of the accused. The link which the
prosecution now tried to establish cannot be
connected because at the first instance the
prosecution has failed to prove beyond reasonable
doubt that there is demand and acceptance from the
accused and also the prosecution has failed to prove
that there was pending work of the complainant with
the accused and no such circumstantial evidence is
placed before the Court which makes the Court to
accept the said theory of the prosecution in this
regard.
75. As stated above the essential ingredients of
70
Spl.C.C. No. 480/2016
Section 13 (1) (d) of Prevention of Corruption Act are
that there must be an element of dishonest or
fraudulent, misappropriation or otherwise
converting any property for his own use or if any
public servant intentionally enriched himself illicitly
during the period of his office. In the instant case,
none of the above said requirements or the
essentials were proved by the prosecution.
Therefore, taking into consideration the available
evidence on record there is no ambiguity to hold the
view that prosecution has miserably failed to prove
the allegation of misconduct as alleged against the
accused. Accordingly, the Court proceed to answer
Point No.3 in the NEGATIVE.
76. POINT No.4: The corruption by public servants
has become a gigantic problem. The corruption
has spread everywhere. No facet of public activity
has been left unaffected by the stink of corruption. It
has deep and pervasive impact on the functioning of
the entire country. Large scale corruption retards
the nation building activity and everyone has to
71
Spl.C.C. No. 480/2016
suffer on that count. There is need for ensuring
honesty, integrity in public life.
77. However in a case of this nature, when the
prosecution has alleged commission of offence by
the public servant punishable under Section 7 and
13 (1) (d) of Prevention of Corruption Act, prima-
facie, quite obviously, the initial burden is upon the
prosecution to prove the guilt of the accused beyond
all reasonable doubt. It is settled law that Triple-
Test-in bribery trap cases under the Prevention of
Corruption Act-1988 mandates that the prosecution
is required to prove (i) verified prior demand for the
bribe, (ii) the presence of independent shadow
witness throughout the trap (iii) scientific
phenolphthalein test. The proof of demand is the
foundational fact. Without credible, un-contradicted
proof of a prior demand, the legal presumption of a
bribe cannot be drawn against the accused and a
mere fact of recovery of tainted money is insufficient
for conviction. In this case, even the reason for delay
in approaching the police is also not clearly
72
Spl.C.C. No. 480/2016
explained and none of the witnesses have clearly
deposed about affixing of MO.15 seal to the seized
articles. Further, it is settled law that if at all two
views are possible then the view which is in favour of
the accused has to be considered and benefit of
doubt shall be given to the accused.
78. During the course of argument the learned
Public Prosecutor has relied upon the judgment of
the Hon’ble Apex Court in Criminal Appeal
No.1669/2009 [Neeraj Dutta vs State] and
submitted that if the direct evidence is not available
then circumstantial evidence can be considered by
the Court and on the basis of circumstantial
evidence also the accused can be convicted. On
careful perusal of the observations made and the
principles laid down in the above decision relied
upon by the prosecution, it reveals that the Hon’ble
Apex Court holds that proving 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 to establish the guilt of the accused
73
Spl.C.C. No. 480/2016
public servant under Section 7 and 13 (1) (d) of the
Act. It is further held that to bring home the guilt of
the accused, prosecution has to first prove the
demand of illegal gratification and 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. It is also held that proof of demand and
acceptance of illegal gratification can also be proved
by circumstantial evidence in the absence of direct
oral and documentary evidence. The above said
decision relied upon by the prosecution also reveals
that the offer by bribe giver and demand by the
public servant has to be proved by prosecution as a
fact in issue. In other-words mere acceptance or
receipt of illegal gratification without anything more
would not make it an offence under Section 7 or
Section 13 (1) (d) of the Act.
79. The Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of
Madhukar Bhaskarrao Joshi vs State of
Maharashtra (2000) 8 SCC 571 observed that in
74
Spl.C.C. No. 480/2016
order to draw a presumption under Section 20 of the
Act, the premise is that there was payment or
acceptance of gratification. Once the said premise
is established, the inference to be drawn is that the
said gratification was accepted as a “motive or
reward” for doing or forbearing to do any official act.
As discussed above in this case prosecution has
failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt and
the primary and basic ingredients to attract the
aforesaid offence alleged against the accused is not
established by the prosecution. Hence, the Court is
of the opinion that in the present case the
contention of the prosecution to invoke Section 20 of
the Prevention of Corruption Act is not tenable.
80. During the course of argument the learned
counsel for accused has relied upon the following
citation.
1. 2000 (3) Supreme Court 334 ( Smt.Meera vs
State of Maharastra.
In this decision the Hon’ble Apex Court held that
like any other criminal offence, the prosecution has
to prove the charge beyond reasonable doubt and
accused should be considered innocent till it is
75
Spl.C.C. No. 480/2016
established. Otherwise by proper proof of
acceptance of the illegal gratification, the vital
ingredient necessary to be established to procure a
conviction for the offences under consideration.
2. 2018 (3) KLJ – 637
(S.N.Raghumurthy vs The State by Lokayukta
Police)
In this decision, the Hon’ble High Court of
Karnataka, Bengaluru held that – Presumption
under Section 20 (1) of Prevention of Corruption Act
can be drawn only after satisfactory proof of demand
and acceptance.
3. 2023 (2) Supreme 737
(Jagtar Singh vs State of Punjab)
In the decision the Hon’ble Apex Court considering
the facts of the case before it, at para No.11 that “
The High Court has passed its Judgment on the
assumption that the money having been recovered
from the appellant, there was demand of illegal
gratification. This is not a case, where there was
circumstantial evidence to prove the demand” and
the Hon’ble Apex Court allowed the appeal and
acquitted the accused.
81. On careful perusal of the observations and
the principles laid down in the above said decisions
76
Spl.C.C. No. 480/2016relied upon by the learned counsel for accused
reveals that, without credible, un-contradicted proof
of a prior demand, the legal presumption of a bribe
cannot be drawn against the accused and the proof
of demand is the foundational fact and mere
recovery of tainted currency notes from the
possession of accused or merely relying upon FSL
report, the accused cannot be convicted unless,
demand and acceptance of illegal gratification by the
accused is proved by prosecution beyond reasonable
doubt and all those aspects cannot be assumed and
presumed.
82. It is also settled law that only on the basis of
FSL report it cannot be said that the accused has
received bribe amount. Relating to the present case
in hand, it is seen that in view of the fact that the
complainant himself had disowned what he stated in
his initial complaint, there being no proof from the
other witnesses to evidence the fact the accused has
demanded illegal gratification, the court holds that
the case of the prosecution fails and the prosecution
77
Spl.C.C. No. 480/2016failed to prove the allegation made against the
accused beyond reasonable doubt. The evidence on
record in this case reveals that PW.1, PW.2 and
PW.5 turned hostile to the case of the prosecution
and their evidence reveals that the very foundation
of the prosecution case is shaken to great extent.
The evidence on record reveals that no such demand
made by the accused and acceptance of illegal
gratification by accused was proved and under such
circumstances there is no ambiguity to hold the view
that prosecution has miserably failed to prove its
case beyond reasonable doubt.
83. When the accused was examined under section
313 of Cr.P.C. the accused has filed statement under
Section 313 (5) of Cr.P.C. and put forwarded his
defence and also furnished the copy of the
recommendation made by the Hon’ble
Upalokayuktha in respect of Departmental Enquiry
conducted against this accused. As mentioned above
accused in this case when filed Crl.R.P.No.889/2024
before Hon’ble High Court of Karnataka, Bengaluru,
78
Spl.C.C. No. 480/2016the Hon’ble High Court of Karnataka, Bengaluru in
its judgment at para No.30 clearly observed that the
fact that accused is exonerated in a domestic
enquiry does not automatically entitle him to seek
his discharge from the case of this nature. Further,
it is well settled law that the standard of proof in
department proceeding is lower than that of criminal
prosecution. It is equally well settled principle that
the Inquiry or criminal case have to be decided only
on the basis of evidence adduced therein. The
truthfulness of evidence in the criminal case can be
judged only after evidence adduced therein and
criminal case cannot be rejected on the basis of
evidence recorded in the departmental proceedings
or the report of the enquiry based on those evidence.
Hence the contention of the accused that he
exonerated in departmental enquiry itself is not a
ground for discharge or acquittal of the accused.
84. The overall analysis of evidenced on record
reveals that the witness to the incident and witness
to the investigation also not supported the case of
79
Spl.C.C. No. 480/2016prosecution. In view of the aforesaid discussion on
point No.1 to 3, this court is of the opinion that
prosecution in this case has miserably failed to
prove the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable
doubt and hence the accused is entitled for an order
of acquittal.
In view of the aforesaid findings on point Nos.1
to 3, the Court proceed to pass the following:
ORDER
Acting under Sec.235 (1) of the
Cr.P.C., the accused is hereby
acquitted for the offence punishable
under Section 7, 13 (1) (d) r/w Section
13 (2) of Prevention of Corruption Act,
1988.
In the result, the bail bond and
surety bond of the accused shall stand
in force for a period of 6 months as
contemplated under Section 437-A of
Cr.P.C.
M.O.1 C.D. M.O.8, 11 to 14 C.D.
are ordered to be preserved along with
other exhibits of this file.
80
Spl.C.C. No. 480/2016
Further, M.O.2 an amount of
Rs.30,000/- is to be confiscated to the
State after expiry of the appeal period.
Further, M.O.3 to 7 and M.O. 9,
10, being worthless are ordered to be
destroyed after expiry of the appeal
period.
Further, M.O.15 seal is ordered
to be returned to the Karnataka
Lokayuktha police after expiry of
appeal period.
(Dictated to the Stenographer Grade-I, transcript thereof
and then corrected, signed and pronounced by me in the
open Court on this the 21ST DAY OF JULY 2026).
PRAKASH Digitally signed by PRAKASH
NAYAK
NAYAK Date: 2026.07.21 15:58:50
+0530
(PRAKASH NAYAK),
LXXVII ADDL. CITY CIVIL & SESSIONS
JUDGE & LOKAYUKTHA SPECIAL JUDGE,
BENGALURU CITY.
ANNEXURE
LIST OF WITNESSES EXAMINED FOR PROSECUTION:
PW.1 K.M.Dinesh PW.2 Arun Kumar PW.3 Vinay.S. PW.4 Sridhar.B.R. PW.5 Yogesh.B. 81 Spl.C.C. No. 480/2016 PW.6 Dr.Basavaraj Govinagidada PW.7 C.Srividya PW.8 M.Ramakrishna PW.9 H.C.Sriramegowda PW.10 T.V.Raju PW.11 M.V.Chandrashekar DOCUMENTS EXHIBITED ON BEHALF OF THE PROSECUTION: Ex.P.1 Certified copy of Electrical Licence of PW.1 Ex.P.2 Certified copy of address proof of PW.1 Ex.P.3 First Information Statement Ex.P.3(a) Signature of PW.1 Ex.P.3(b) Signature of PW.1 Ex.P.4 Pre trap panchanama Ex.P.4(a) Signature of PW.1 Ex.P.4(b) Signature of PW.2 Ex.P.4(c) Signature of PW.5 Ex.P.4(d) Signature of PW.10 Ex.P.5 Trap mahazar Ex.P.5(a) Signature of PW.1 Ex.P.5(b) Signature of PW.2 Ex.P.5(c) Signature of PW.5 Ex.P.5(d) Signature of PW.10 Ex.P.6 Seized documents belonging to C.W.4 Ex.P.7 Seized documents belonging to CW.5 Ex.P.8 Certificate under Section 65(B) of Indian Evidence Act issued by PW.1 Ex.P.8(a) Ex.P.9 Requisition given by complainant to the police Ex.P.9(a) Signature of PW.1 82 Spl.C.C. No. 480/2016 Ex.P.10 Statement of complainant recorded under Section 164 of Cr.P.C. Ex.P.10(a) Signature of Pw.1 Ex.P.11 Transcription of conversation recorded in Mo.1 C.D. Ex.P.11(a) Signature of PW.2 Ex.P.11(b) Signature of PW.10 Ex.P.12 Panchanama pertains to Model voice Ex.P.12(a) Signature of PW.2 Ex.P.12(b) Signature of PW.5 Ex.P.12(c) Signature of PW.10 Ex.P.12(d) Signature of accused Ex.P.13 Transcription of Conversation recorded in voice recorder on 07-02-2015 Ex.P.13 (a) Signature of PW.2 Ex.P.13 (b) Signature of PW.5 Ex.P. 14 List showing Serial number of currency notes Ex.P.14(a) Signature of P.W.2 Ex.P.14(b) Signature of PW.5 Ex.P.14(c) Signature of PW.10 Ex.P.15 Transcription of conversation took place at the time of trap. Ex.P.15(a) Signature of PW.2 Ex.P.15 (b) Signature of PW.5 Ex.P.15 (c) Signature of PW.10 Ex.P.16 Certificate of Identification of voice of accused issued by PW.1 Ex.P16 (a) Signature of PW.2 Ex.P.16(b) Signature of PW.5 Ex.P.16(c) Signature of PW.10 Ex.P.16(d) Signature of witness Ex.P.17 Defence statement of accused Ex.P.17(a) Signature of PW.2 Ex.P.17(b) Signature of PW.5 Ex.P.17(c) Signature of PW.10 83 Spl.C.C. No. 480/2016 Ex.P.17(d) Signature of PW.11 Ex.P.18 Acknowledgment issued by PW.5 Ex.P.18(a) Signature of PW.5 Ex.P.19 Sketch showing the spot of incident Ex.P.19(a) Signature of PW.5 Ex.P.19(b) Signature of PW.10 Ex.P.20 Acknowledgment issued by P.W.5 Ex.P.20(a) Signature of PW.5 Ex.P.21 Portion of Statement of PW.5 Ex.P.22 Requisition of Lokayukta police dated 25.02.2015 Ex.P.22(a) Signature of PW.6 Ex.P.22(b) Signature of PW.10 Ex.P.23 Sample Seal Ex.P.23(a) Signature of PW.6 Ex.P.23(b) Signature of PW.10 Ex.P.24 Chemical Examination Report Ex.P.24(a) Signature of PW.6 Ex.P.24(b) Signature of PW.10 Ex.P.25 FSL Report Ex.P.25(a) Signature of PW.7 Ex.P.25(b) Signature of PW.10 Ex.P.26 Sample Seal of FSL Ex.P.26(a) Signature of PW.7 Ex.P.27 Spot sketch Ex.P.28 Letter written by PW.8 to I.O.dated 02.03.2015 Ex.P.28(a) Signature of PW.10 Ex.P.29 Service Register Extract pertaining to Accused Ex.P.30 Sanction order Ex.P.30 (a) Signature of PW.8 Ex.P.31 Document relating to work distribution Ex.P.31(a) Signature of PW.10 Ex.P.32 First Information Report 84 Spl.C.C. No. 480/2016 Ex.P.32(a) Signature of PW.1 Ex.P.33 Certified copy of Attendance Register Ex.P.34 Certified copy of money paid receipt, dated 22-01-2015 Ex.P.35 Paper showing the sample seal Ex.P.35(a) Signature of PW.10 Ex.P.36 Certificate issued by PW.10 under Section 65(B) of Indian Evidence Act Ex.P.36(a) Signature of PW.10 Ex.P.37 Letter of Executive Engineer dated 26-02-2015 Ex.P.37(a) Signature of PW.10 Ex.P.38 Requisition of I.O. dated 31-3-2015 Ex.P.38(a) Signature of PW.10 Ex.P.39 Requisition of I.O. Ex.P.39(a) Signature of PW.10 Ex.P.40 Memorandum of ADGP, KLA dated 29-09- 2016 Ex.P.40(a) Signature of PW.10
LIST OF MATERIAL OBJECTS MARKED FOR
PROSECUTION:
MO.1 C.D. given by the complainant
MO.2 Rs.30,000/- cash
MO.3 to 7 Articles 1, 2, 5, 6, 7
MO.8 CD consisting Video graph of mahazar
MO.9 Cover along with pure cotton (Artical-9)
MO.10 Cover along with cotton cleaning the
drawer (Article-10)
MO.11 CD consisting Conversation took place at
the time of trap
MO.12 CD consisting Videograph taken at the time
of trap.
MO.13 Article No.1 CD
MO.14 Article No.2 CD
85
Spl.C.C. No. 480/2016
MO.15 Metal seal containing 'V' Alphabet
LIST OF WITNESSES EXAMINED FOR ACCUSED:
-NIL-
LIST OF DOCUMENTS MARKED FOR ACCUSED:
Ex.D-1 Copy of Trade licence certificate issued by
BBMP in favour of Sri.Vinay.S.
Ex.D-2 Industrial Licence copy issued by
BBMP infavour of S.Vinay.
Ex.D-3 Copy of Industrial Licence issued to
Sri. B.R.Sridhar by BBMP
Ex.D-4 Copy of Trade licence certificate issued by
BBMP infavour of Sri.B.R.Shridar.
(PRAKASH NAYAK),
LXXVII ADDL. CITY CIVIL & SESSIONS
JUDGE & LOKAYUKTHA SPECIAL JUDGE,
BENGALURU CITY.
