1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
KALABURAGI BENCH
DATED THIS THE 3RD DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2022
BEFORE
THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE V. SRISHANANDA
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.200104/2015
BETWEEN:
State of Karnataka
Represented by
Special Public Prosecutor (Lokayukta),
High Court of Karnataka,
Kalaburagi Bench.
… Appellant
(By Sri Subhash Mallapur, Spl.PP for Lokayukta)
AND:
Ramesh S/o Genusingh Rathod,
Age : 37 years, Occ : FDA,
District Backward Classes and
Minorities Welfare Office, Gulbarga,
R/o Quarter No.15/3, PWD Quarters,
Old Jewargi Road, Gulbarga.
… Respondent
(By Sri Avinash A.Uplaonkar and
Sri Ravi K.Anoor, Advocates)
This Criminal appeal is filed under Section 378(1)
and (3) of the Cr.P.C praying to grant leave to appeal
against the judgment and order of acquittal dated
2
07.07.2015 passed in Special Case No.577/2010 on the file
of the Principal Sessions Judge at Kalaburagi whereby
acquitting
the
accused/respondent
for
the
offence
punishable under Sections 7, 13(1)(d) and 13(2)of the
P.C.Act, 1988.
This appeal coming on for Further Hearing this day,
the Court delivered the following:
The present appeal is filed by the State/Lokayukta
challenging
judgment
passed
in
Special
Case
No.577/2010 dated 07.07.2015 on the file of Principal
District and Sessions Judge, Kalaburagi.
2.
Brief facts of the case are as under :-
One Mahesh lodged a complaint with Lokayukta
Police
on
25.02.2009
stating
that
his
cousin
Smt.Akkamahadevi has applied for Staff Nurse post and
she has been serving as Staff Nurse in Primary Health Care
Centre, Hasinapur village in Shorapur Taluk and she has to
furnish the caste certificate for the purpose of drawing
salary and she had applied the same to the District
Backward Classes and Minority Welfare Office, Kalaburagi.
3
In that regard, the complainant met one Ramesh
(accused) who in turn demanded for `2,000/- as illegal
gratification for furnishing the caste certificate. Since the
complainant was not interested in paying the same, the
discussion took place and it was reduced to
`1,000/-.
Complainant was not even interested for the said amount
and therefore, he approached the Lokayukta Police. Being
convinced about the conservation that took place between
the accused-Ramesh and the complainant, Lokayukta
Police registered a case in Crime No.2/2009 for the
offences punishable under Sections 7, 13(1)(d) read with
Section 13(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and
arranged for the trap. On the same day at about 5.15 p.m.
in the evening the accused met the complainant in Shanthi
Sagar Hotel and near the pan shop, the accused took the
illegal gratification of a sum of `1,000/- which was in the
denomination of two `500/- currency notes smeared with
phenolphthalein powder and pre-signal was given and trap
party raided on the accused and recovered the tainted
money from the custody of the accused and conducted the
4
colour test and arrested the accused and drafted a trap
mahazar. Thereafter, accused was arrested and the matter
was investigated and Lokayukta police filed charge-sheet.
3.
Presence of accused was secured before the
learned Magistrate and Charge was framed. Accused
pleaded not guilty and trial was held.
4.
In order to prove the case of the prosecution,
prosecution in all examined 13 witnesses as PWs.1 to 13
and relied on 23 documents which were exhibited and
marked as Exs.P1 to P.23. 10 material objects were also
relied on by the prosecution, which were marked as MOs.1
to 10.
5.
On conclusion of the prosecution evidence,
accused statement as contemplated under Section 313 of
Cr.P.C was recorded. Wherein the accused has denied all
the the incriminatory materials found against him and has
answered before the court that he would submit written
submissions before the court as is contemplated under
Section 313(5) of Cr.P.C. Likewise, he has furnished the
5
written submission wherein he has stated that he has not
obtained any money from the complainant-Mahesh and the
tainted money was trusted into his pant pocket by the
complainant with ulterior motive.
6.
Taking note of these aspects of the matter and
also taking note of the admissions given by PW.10 who is
actual applicant who sought for issuance of caste
certificate, the learned trial Judge acquitted the accused by
the impugned judgment.
7.
Being aggrieved by the same, the Lokayukta
has preferred the present appeal with the following
grounds :-
That, the Trial Court has without proper appreciation of the
evidence and material placed on record by the prosecution
has proceed to pass the judgment and order acquitting the
accused/respondent for the offences he has been charge
sheeted, hence the same is liable to be set aside.
That, the reasons assigned by the learned Special Judge
while passing the order of acquittal of the charged offence
are not justifiable and unsustainable in the eye of law.
That, the prosecution has examined in all 13 witnesses as
PW-1 to PW-13 and got marked Ex P-1 To P-23. All the
6
witnesses have supported the case of the prosecution.
PW-1 & 2 who are the punch witnesses have deposed
before the court regarding drawi
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.