IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 30^TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 100154 OF 2017 (C)

BETWEEN:

DEVENDRAPPA S/O. BHARAMAPPA KARININGANNANAVARA, AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS, OCC: WAS WORKING AS C.D.P.O, CDPO OFFICE, SHIGGAON, TQ: SHIGGAON, DIST: HAVERI, NOW R/AT: SADANA BUILDING, UDAY NAGAR, KELAGERI ROAD, DHARWAD.

…APPELLANT (BY SRI. ARAVIND D.KULKARNI, ADVOCATE)

AND:

STATE OF KARNATAKA THROUGH KARNATAKA LOKAYUKTA POLICE, POLICE INSPECTOR, KARNATAKA LOKAYUKTA, POLICE WING, HAVERI, ASHPAK REP. BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, KASHIMSA MALAGALADINNI HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD.

…RESPONDENT D K M A i A g S L it H A a I l G l M y A S s L i A A g D ne IN d N by I ASHPA K (BY SRI. SANTOSH B.MALAGOUDAR, SPP)

Location: High Court of K D a a r te n : a 2 ta 0 k 2 a 5 , . D 03 h . a 2 r 4 w 1 a 2 d : 4 B 7 e : n 0 c 8 h +0530 THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 374 (2)

OF CR.P.C., SEEKING TO, SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT DATED 25.04.2017 PASSED BY THE PRL. DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE AND SPECIAL JUDGE AT HAVERI IN SPECIAL (LOK) CASE NO. 06 OF 2012 THEREBY CONVICTING AND SENTENCING THE APPELLANT FOR THE OFFENCES PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTION 7 AND 13(2) OF THE PREVENTION OF CORRUPTION ACT, CONSEQUENTLY ACQUIT THE APPELLANT HEREIN FROM THE ABOVE SAID OFFENCES.

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

CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR

ORAL JUDGMENT

1. This appeal under Section 374(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Cr.P.C.) is filed by the accused challenging the judgment of conviction and order of sentence, whereby the accused has been convicted for offences punishable under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (PC Act) and sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of one year.

2. The prosecution alleges that the accused was serving as the Child Development Project Officer (CDPO) in Shiggaon at the relevant time. The complainant and his wife, residents of Mulakeri Village, Shiggaon Taluk, had applied for the vacant post of Anganwadi Worker in their village’s Anganwadi school. The complainant approached the accused regarding his wife’s appointment, during which the accused allegedly demanded illegal gratification of ₹30,000 to show official favor. After negotiations, the bribe amount was settled at ₹25,000, out of which ₹5,000 was paid in advance, and the balance was agreed to be paid later. Eventually, the amount was further settled at ₹17,000, but before paying it, the complainant approached the Lokayukta Police.

3. The Lokayukta Police registered a case, provided the complainant with a voice recorder to record the alleged demand for the bribe, and subsequently conducted a trap on 24.06.2011. The accused was allegedly caught red-handed accepting ₹17,000 in the presence of the complainant and a shadow witness. Following this, the Investigating Officer conducted a panchanama and other trap proceedings.

4. The prosecution, to substantiate its case, examined fourteen witnesses (PW1 to PW14), exhibited documents (Ex.P1 to Ex.P77), and marked material objects (MO1 to MO16). The trial court, after framing points for consideration and appreciating the evidence on record, convicted the accused and sentenced him accordingly.

○ The learned counsel for the appellant (accused) argued that: The complainant (PW1) turned hostile, and in the absence of any corroborative material, the trial court erred in convicting the accused without evidence of demand and acceptance of gratification.

○ PW2 (Under Secretary, Department of *Women and Child Development, (Government of Karnataka) was not the competent authority to grant sanction under Section 19 of the PC Act, thereby vitiating the entire trial.

○ The trial court erroneously relied on shadow witness (PW2) to convict the accused, despite settled legal principles that a shadow witness’s evidence alone can