- 1 -

CRL.A No. 200249 of 2021

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,

KALABURAGI BENCH

DATED THIS THE 9^TH DAY OF JUNE, 2023

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.200249 OF 2021 (374-)

BETWEEN:

1.

JAGANNATH @ JAGAPPA

S/O BASAPPA POOJARI,

AGE: 36 YEARS,

OCC: PDO, PANCHAYAT MEENKERA,

TQ. HUMNABAD, DIST. BIDAR,

R/O. HASARAGUNDAGI,

TQ. CHINCHOLLI, DIST. KALABURAGI.

…APPELLANT

(BY SRI. AVINASH A. UPLAONKAR, ADVOCATE)

AND:

1.

STATE OF KARNATAKA,

THROUGH LOKAYUKTA POLICE STATION, BIDAR,

NOW REPRESENTED BY

SPECIAL PUBLIC PROSECUTOR (LOKAYUKTA),

HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,

KALABURAGI BENCH, KALABURAGI.

…RESPONDENT

(BY SRI. SUBHASH MALLAPUR, SPL.P.P)

THIS CRL.A. IS FILED U/S.374 (2) OF CR.P.C BY THE

ADVOCATE FOR APPELLANT/ACCUSED, PRAYING TO SET

ASIDE THE ORDER OF CONVICTION DATED 09.12.2021 AND

Digitally signed

by LUCYGRACE

Location: HIGH

COURT OF

KARNATAKA

- 2 -

CRL.A No. 200249 of 2021

13.12.2021 PASSED BY THE SPECIAL JUDGE AND PRINCIPAL

DIST. AND SESSIONS JUDGE AT BIDAR, IN SPL.CASE.(PC

ACT) No.19/2013 CONVICTING THE APPELLANT/ACCUSED

FOR THE OFFENCES P/U/SEC. 7, 13(1)d), OF PREVENTION OF

CORRUPTION ACT, 1988 PUNISHABLE U/SEC. 13(2) OF THE

SAID ACT.

THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR DICTATION JUDGMENT,

THIS DAY, THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

JUDGMENT

1.

This appeal under Section 374(2) of Cr.P.C. is filed

challenging the judgment of conviction dated 09.12.2021,

convicting the appellant-accused for the offences under

Sections 7 and 13(1)(d), punishable under Section 13(2) of the

Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and the order of sentence

dated

13.12.2021,

sentencing

the

appellant-accused

to

undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of three years and

to pay a fine of Rs.50,000/- for the aforesaid offence.

2.

The brief facts of the case are that, the accused

when

working

as

Panchayat

Development

Officer

had

demanded gratification amount of Rs.2,000/- for releasing the

subsidy cheque of Rs.13,000/- under MGNREG Scheme during

the year 2010-2011 sanctioned in the name of father of the

complainant. The complainant, who was not desirous of paying

gratification amount, lodged the First Information Report before

the respondent-Lokayukta. The respondent-Lokayukta prepared

the entrust panchanama and laid the trap. In pursuance of the

same, the accused was caught accepting a sum of Rs.2,000/-

red-handed. Thereafter, after completing the investigation,

charge sheet was laid for the aforesaid offences.

- 3 -

CRL.A No. 200249 of 2021

3.

The prosecution to prove its case, examined PW.1

to PW.8 and exhibited the documents at Exs.P1 to P48 and

marked the material objects at MO.1 to MO.13. The accused

did not choose to lead defence evidence.

4.

The learned Sessions Judge, after appreciating the

evidence on record, passed the impugned judgment of

conviction and the order of sentence. Being aggrieved by the

same, this appeal is filed.

5.

Learned counsel for the appellant-accused would

submit that, the evidence on record clearly establishes that

there was no demand or acceptance of gratification amount by

the appellant herein and in the absence of the same, which is a

sine qua non to constitute the aforesaid offence, the impugned

judgment of conviction and order of sentence is not sustainable

in law. He further submits that, the confession statement of the

accused recorded as per Ex.P26 clearly indicates that the

complainant had returned the hand loan amount of Rs.2,000/-

to the accused and the same is reiterated by the PW.2 in his

evidence. Hence, in the absence of any evidence that there was

demand or acceptance by the accused, the impugned judgment

is not sustainable in law.

6.

Learned Additional Special Public Prosecutor for the

respondent-Lokayukta

would

submit

that

though

PW.2-

complainant a