IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, AT DHARWAD DATED THIS THE 19^TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V.SRISHANANDA CRIMINAL APPEAL No.100401 OF 2019 (A)

BETWEEN:

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY INSPECTOR OF POLICE, KARNATAKA LOKAYUKTA, BAGALKOTE.

…APPELLANT (BY SRI. ANIL KALE, ADVOCATE)

AND:

ASHOK S/O BALAPPA NAIK AGED- 58 YEARS, OCC- DEPUTY TASHILDAR, REVENUE OFFICE, KALADAGI.

…RESPONDENT (BY SRI. B.C. JNANAYYASWAMI, ADVOCATE)

THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL IS FILED U/S 378 (4) OF CR.P.C.

Digitally signed by PRAYING TO CALL FOR RECORDS IN RESPECT OF SPECIAL CASE CHANDRASHEKAR LAXMAN K Lo A c T a T t I io M n A : N H I igh Court of Karnataka, NO.4/2012 PASSED BY THE PRINCIPAL DISTRICT AND Dharwad Bench SESSIONS JUDGE, BAGALKOT AND SET ASIDE THE IMPUGNED JUDGMENT AND ORDER DATED 16.03.2019 MADE IN SPECIAL CASE NO.4/2012 PASSED BY THE PRINCIPAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BAGALKOT, AND FURTHER CONVICT THE ACCUSED FOR THE OFFENCE PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTION 7, 13(1)(D) R/W SECTION 13(2) OF PREVENTION OF CORRUPTION ACT, 1988, AND ETC.,.

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

ORAL JUDGMENT

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

Heard Sri Anil Kale, learned counsel for the appellant and Sri B.C.Jnanayyaswami, learned counsel for the respondent.

2. Lokayuktha, Bagalkot, is the appellant challenging the acquittal of the respondent in Special Case No.4/2012 by the Judgment dated 16.03.2019.

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

Upon the written complaint lodged by the complainant by name Ningappa Laxmappa Kuri, Bagalkote, contending that in respect of the pending work with the respondent, he approached him who demanded illegal gratification in a sum of Rs.10,000/- in order to show official favour.

4. Based on the said complaint, Bagalkot Lokayuktha Police registered a complaint and secured two independent government servants as pancha witnesses for the intended raid, explained to them the contents of the complaint. After obtaining the bait money comprising 20 currency notes of Rs.500/- denomination, noted the serial numbers of the currency notes in a separate paper and smeared the phenolphthalein powder on those notes and demonstrated the chemical reaction of phenolphthalein powder with the sodium carbonate solution and drafted experimental mahazar. Thereafter, complainant and one of the panch witnesses were directed to approach the accused and on demand made by the accused to hand over the bait money to the hands of the accused and signal the rest of the raid party members including the co-pancha by washing his face with the kerchief.

5. Accordingly, the complainant and the shadow witness proceeded to the place of the accused, while the rest of the raid party members waited outside the office of the accused at their designated positions. Soon after they received the pre-designated signal, they entered the office of the accused and, on enquiry, seized the currency notes which were kept in his pant pocket after securing an alternate pant. Thereafter, trap mahazar was drafted.

Investigation continued and charge sheet came to be filed.

6. After securing the presence of the accused, charges were framed for the aforesaid offences. Since the accused pleaded not guilty, the prosecution proceeded to examine eight witnesses, PW1 to PW8, to prove its case. The witnesses included the complainant, shadow witness, co-pancha, official superior, investigation agency personnel, and chemical examiner.

7. The prosecution also placed on record 38 documentary evidence, which were exhibited and marked as Exs.P1 to P38, and 10 material objects, marked as MOs.1 to 10.

8. On conclusion of recording the evidence, the statement of the accused, as contemplated under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short, ‘the Cr.P.C’), was recorded, wherein the accused denied all incriminating circumstances.

9. Thereafter, the trial judge heard t