IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 21^ST DAY OF JANUARY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 2693 OF 2013 (C)

BETWEEN:

LATE D. MUNIYAPPA S/O. HANUMANTHAPPA, SINCE DECEASED BY HIS LRS., SMT. NIVEDITHA, W/O. D. MUNIYAPPA, AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS, OCC: HOUSE WORK, DOOR NO.149, WARD NO.2, DASARKERI, SIDIGINMOL, BALLARI.

(CAUSE TITLE AMENDED AS PER VIDE ORDER DATED 03.03.2022)

… APPELLANT (BY SRI. ASHOK R. KALYANASHETTY, ADVOCATE)

AND:

THE KANRATAKA LOKAYUKTA, BY ITS LOKAYUKTA POLICE, BALLARI, M.S. BUILDING, BENGALURU-560 001, THROUGH STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, A.G. OFFICE, HIGH COURT PREMISES, Digitally signed by B K DHARWAD-01.

MAHENDRAKUMAR … RESPONDENT Location: HIGH COURT OF (BY SRI. ANIL KALE, SPL. PP)

KARNATAKA THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL IS FILED U/S 374(2) OF CR.P.C.

PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT OF CONVICTION AND ORDER OF SENTENCE DATED 28/31.05.2013 PASSED BY THE PRL. DISTRICT & SESSIONS JUDGE AND SPL. JUDGE, BELLARY, IN SPECIAL CASE NO.57/1998 AND ACQUIT HIM OF ALL THE CHARGES IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY.

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

CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR

ORAL JUDGMENT

The deceased appellant was convicted for offences punishable under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d), read with Section 13(2)

of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.

2. The prosecution’s case is that the accused, who was serving as a Sub-Inspector of Police at Hospete Rural Police Station, while discharging his duties as a public servant on 19.01.1998, demanded an illegal gratification of Rs.2,000/- from C.W.1, the complainant, who was working as a Police Constable. The complainant had approached the accused seeking his assistance in forwarding a representation in the form of an appeal memorandum to the Superintendent of Police, Ballari, requesting a modification of certain service-related matters. The accused allegedly demanded Rs.2,000/- as a bribe in exchange for making a favorable recommendation.

3. Out of the demanded amount, the complainant initially paid Rs.1,500/- to the accused. However, when the accused insisted that the complainant pay the remaining balance of Rs.500/-, the complainant, unwilling to make any further payment, approached the Lokayukta Police and lodged a complaint. Based on the complaint, the Lokayukta Police registered an FIR against the accused for the aforementioned offences and arranged a trap to catch him in the act of accepting the illegal gratification. During the trap, the accused was allegedly caught receiving Rs.500/- from the complainant. Following standard procedure, the accused’s hands were dipped into a chemical solution, which subsequently turned pink, confirming the presence of tainted money.

4. To prove its case, the prosecution examined eight witnesses (P.Ws.1 to 8), produced documentary evidence marked as Exs.P.1 to P.23, and exhibited material objects labeled as M.O.Nos.1 to 10.

5. After considering the evidence on record, the trial court observed:

6. The prosecution has established the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubt” and accordingly passed the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence.

7. Sri Ashok R. Kalyanshetty, learned counsel representing the legal representatives of the deceased appellant, argued that the alleged tainted money received by the accused from P.W.3 was not a bribe but rather a repayment of a loan borrowed by P.W.6. He contended that the accused had provided a satisfactory explanation for receiving the money, but the trial court failed to properly consider this defense and erroneously convicted the accused.

8. Furthermore, he submitted that the testimony of P.W.4, the shadow witness, failed to establish beyond reasonable doubt that the accused had demanded the gratification amount from the complainant at the time of the trap.

9. In response, the learned counsel for the respondent, Lokayukta, argued that the testimony of P.W.3 (th