IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,AT DHARWAD DATED THIS THE 4^TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V.SRISHANANDA CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 100082 OF 2015 (C)

BETWEEN:

SURESH S/O SURYANARAYAN KARADE, AGE:56 YEARS, OCC: VILLAGE ACCOUNTANT OF HIREMUNAVALLI, R/O: SAUNDATTI, DIST: BELAGAVI …APPELLANT (BY SRI. A.M. GUNDAWADE, ADVOCATE)

AND:

STATE OF KARNATAKA, BY SPECIAL PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH, AT: DHARWAD.

THROUGH LOKAYUKTA PI, ELAGAVI.

…RESPONDENT CHANDRASHEKAR (BY SRI. SANTOSH B. MALAGOUDAR, ADVOCATE)

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

SEEKING TO ALLOW THE APPEAL AND TO PASS JUDGMENT OF Digitally signed by ACQUITTAL BY SETTING ASIDE THE JUDGMENT OF CONVICTION AND CHANDRASHEKAR LAXMAN KATTIMANI ORDER OF SENTENCE PASSED BY THE IV-ADDL. DIST. & SESSIONS &

Date: 2026.02.13 SPL. JUDGE (PCA), BELAGAVI, IN SPL. CASE NO.19/2013 FOR THE ALLEGED OFFENCES PUNISHABLE U/S 7, 13(1)(D) R/W 13(2) OF PREVENTION OF CORRUPTION ACT, 1988.

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

ORAL JUDGMENT

(PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V.SRISHANANDA)

1. Heard Sri.A.M.Gundawade, learned counsel appearing for the appellant and Sri.Santosh B. Malagoudar, learned counsel appearing for respondent-Lokayukta.

2. The accused, who suffered an order of conviction in Special Case No. 19/2013 for the offences punishable under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, is the appellant.

3. Facts in the nutshell which are utmost necessary for disposal of the present appeal are as under:

4. Upon the complaint lodged by Sri.Prasanna Kumar Manohar Kulkarni, the Lokayukta Police registered a case in Crime No.9/2011.

5. The gist of the complaint averments would reveal that in respect of land bearing Sy.No.148/5, situated at Chikkamanvali Village, Khanapura Taluka, Belagavi District, there was a sale by the complainant in favour of Sri.Manjunatha Agsar on 11.04.2011 through a registered sale deed. For transfer of revenue entries, an application was filed and at that juncture, the appellant, being the Village Accountant, is said to have demanded ₹1,500/- as illegal gratification.

6. Based on the complaint averments, the Lokayuktha Inspector. Belagavi, secured two Government Servants to act as panchas for the intended raid. The contents of the complaint were read over to them and the chemical reaction of phenolphthalein powder with colourless sodium carbonate solution was demonstrated and procured the bait money of ₹1,500/- comprising of two currency notes of ₹500/- denomination and 5 currency notes of ₹ 100/- denomination and serial numbers of those notes were separately written on a paper and then incorporated into the experimental mahazar.

7. The complainant and the shadow witness, who was one of the panchas were instructed to go to the office of the accused and on demand, to hand over the tainted currency notes to the accused and the shadow witness was directed to closely observe the activities that would take place at the time of demand of the money by the accused and payment thereof and acceptance thereof.

8. All of them left for Khanapur from Belgavi at about

12 noon and reached Khanapur at around 01.40 p.m. As per the directions issued to the complainant and the shadow witness, both of them went to the office of the accused and on demand, the complainant is said to have handed over the tainted currency, which the accused took and kept in his shirt pocket. Thereafter, the pre-designated signal was given to the head of the raid party.

9. Immediately, the remaining members of the raid party entered inside the office of the accused and enquired with him about the tainted currency. The accused said to have taken out the same from his shirt pocket and handed it over and also gave a written reply vide Ex.P14. An alternate shirt was procured to accused and the shirt worn by the accused was also seized. The hand wash of the accused wa