IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

DATED THIS THE 3^RD DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2025

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S RACHAIAH CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.686 OF 2013 (A)

BETWEEN:

STATE BY LOKAYUKTA POLICE

HASSAN. … APPELLANT

(BY SRI. B.S. PRASAD, ADV.)

AND:

H.S. KENGE GOWDA S/O SOMBE GOWDA,

AGE. 49 YEARS,

BILL COLLECTOR,

ATTAVARA HOSALLY GRAMA PANCHAYAT,

DODDA HOBLI, HASSAN TALUK HASSAN.

…RESPONDENT

(BY SRI. ABHISHEK R.D. ADV.)

Digitally signed

b A y Y U SA B MREEN THIS CRL.A. IS FILED UNDER SECTION 378(1) AND (3)

DESHNUR

Location: HIGH CR.P.C. PRAYING TO GRANT LEAVE TO APPEAL AGAINST THE

COURT OF

KARNATAKA,

DHARWAD JUDGMENT AND ORDER OF ACQUITTAL DATED 26.05.2012

BENCH

PASSED BY THE PRL.S.J. AND SPL JUDGE, HASSAN IN SPL. CASE NO.7/2009 – ACQUITTING THE RESPONDENT/ACCUSED FOR THE OFFENCE PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTIONS 7, 13(1)(d) READ WITH SECTION 13(2) OF THE PREVENTION OF

CORRUPTION ACT, 1988.

THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL HAVING BEEN HEARD AND

RESERVED ON 03.07.2025 AND COMING ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT OF JUDGMENT, THE COURT DELIVERED THE

FOLLOWING:

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S RACHAIAH

CAV JUDGMENT

1. The appellant/Lokayuktha herein preferred this appeal seeking to set aside the judgment of conviction dated 26.05.2012 passed in Special Case No.7/2009 by the Principal Sessions Judge and Special Judge at Hassan, wherein he has been acquitted for the offences punishable under Sections 7, 13(1)(d) r/w 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act,1988 (for short ‘P.C Act’).

2. The rank of the parties in the Trial Court, henceforth will be considered as per their rankings in the Court for convenience.

Factual matrix of the case:

3. The case of the prosecution is that, the complainant –

Shivanna S/o Sannaravegowda, resident of Bommenahalli lodges a complaint that Nagamma was his wife. She was allotted a house under the scheme, namely, Janatha Housing Scheme. To obtain that benefit, the documents were required to be given to the Secretary of the Gram Panchayath. Kengegowda/ accused was working as a bill collector at Attavara Hosalli Gram Panchayath. The Panchayath was supposed to prepare a mortgage deed and the accused was get it to be prepared. On 14.11.2007, at about 12.00 in the afternoon, the complainant on behalf of his wife approached the accused and requested to complete the mortgage deed. The accused demanded Rs.1,500/- to prepare the documents and forward the same to the Secretary of the Gram Panchayath. The complainant being unhappy about the demand made by the accused, approached Lokayuktha police. The Lokayuktha police registered a case and conducted trap mahazar. After investigating the case, submitted the charge sheet.

4. To prove the case of the prosecution, the prosecution examined 7 witnesses as PWs.1 to 7 and got marked 36 documents as Exs.P1 to P36 and also identified 10 material objects as M.O.1 to M.O.10. The Trial Court after appreciating the oral and documentary evidence on record, acquitted the accused for the offences stated supra. Hence, this appeal.

5. Heard Sri.B.S.Prasad, learned Special Prosecutor for the appellant-Lokayuktha and Sri.Abhishek R.D, learned counsel for the respondent.

6. It is the submission of learned Special Prosecutor for the appellant – Lokayukta that the judgment of conviction passed by the Trial Court is erroneous, illegal and the same is liable to be set aside.

7. It is further submitted that merely because the complainant died and he has not led any evidence, it would not vitiate the entire proceedings. The Trial Court ought to have considered the shadow witnesses, panch witnesses and independent witness, namely, PW.3 who is none other than the wife of the complainant.

8. It is further submitted that the evidence of PW.3 would indicate that the work was pending with the respondent and he had demanded the amount of Rs.1,500/-. It was paid and the said amount was recovered from the respondent. When the case is proved by the prosecution beyond reasonable doubt, the Trial Court failed to take note of the said fact and opined that the amount was given