Page 1

JUDGMENT

Reportable

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 373 OF 2013

(Arising out of S.L.P. (Crl.) No. 3962 of 2012)

K.S. Panduranga

... Appellant

Versus

State of Karnataka

... Respondent

J U D G M E N T

Dipak Misra, J.

Leave granted.

2.

The appellant was convicted for the offences

punishable under Sections 7, 13(1)(d) read with

Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act,

1988 (for short “the Act”) by the learned Special

Judge, Bangalore, and sentenced to undergo one

year rigorous imprisonment and to pay a fine of

Rs.10,000/-, in default, to suffer a further rigorous

imprisonment for two months on the first score and

Page 2

JUDGMENT

four years rigorous imprisonment and to pay a fine of

Rs.15,000/- and on failure to pay fine to suffer further

rigorous imprisonment for three months on the

second count, with the stipulation that both the

sentences shall be concurrent.

3.

In appeal, the High Court of Karnataka by the

impugned judgment, confirmed the conviction, but

reduced the sentence to two years’ rigorous

imprisonment from four years as far as the

imposition of sentence for the offence under Section

13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of the Act is

concerned and maintained the sentence in respect of

the offence under Section 7 of the Act.

4.

The accusations which led to the trial of the accused-

appellant are that H.R. Prakash, PW-1, the owner of

Prakash Transport, was having a contract for the

transport of transformers belonging to Karnataka

Vidyuth Karkhane (KAVIKA), Bangalore, and the said

agreement was for the period 15.9.2000 to

14.9.2001.

Under the said agreement, the

transporter was required to transport transformers

2

Page 3

JUDGMENT

from Bangalore to various places all over Karnataka.

Despite the agreement for transportation, three

months prior to the lodgment of the complaint, the

transport operator did not get adequate transport

work.

The appellant, who was working as

Superintendent of KAVIKA, Bangalore, was incharge

of the dispatch department and, therefore, PW-1

approached him. At that juncture, a demand of

Rs.10,000/- was made as illegal gratification to give

him more transport loads. The accused-appellant

categorically told PW-1 that unless the amount was

paid, no load could be allotted to his company.

Eventually, a bargain was struck for payment of

Rs.5,000/- to get the load. As PW-1 was not

interested in giving the bribe amount to the accused,

he approached the Lokayukta and lodged a

complaint as per Exht. P-1 which was registered as

Criminal Case No. 9 of 2001. The investigating

agency of Lokayukta, after completing the

formalities, got a trap conducted. During the trap, a

sum of Rs.5,000/- was recovered from the custody of

3

Page 4

JUDGMENT

the accused. After completion of all the formalities,

sanction order was obtained from the competent

authority and charge sheet was placed before the

competent court for the offences punishable under

Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of

the Act.

5.

The accused persons pleaded innocence and took the

plea of false implication.

6.

The prosecution, in order to substantiate the

allegations against the accused, examined PWs 1 to

6 and marked the documents, Exhts. P-1 to P-12, and

brought on record MOs-1 to 12. The defence, in

order to establish its stand, examined a singular

witness, DW-1.

7.

The learned trial Judge posed three questions,

namely, (i) whether the sanction order obtained to

prosecute the accused was valid and proper; (ii)

whether the prosecution had been able to prove that

the accused had demanded and accepted the illegal

gratification of Rs.5,000/- as a motive o