SRI YATHEESHA C C vs THE STATE OF KARNATAKA

- 1 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:57295
WP No. 4379 of 2025


CNR: KAHC010086642025




IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

TH
DATED THIS THE 12 DAY OF OCTOBER, 2026


BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V SRISHANANDA

WRIT PETITION No.4379 OF 2025 (GM-RES)

BETWEEN:

SRI YATHEESHA C C
S/O CHENNAPPA C A
AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS
WORKING AS BEAT FORESTER
MADIKERI RANGE, MADIKERI DIVISION
KODAGU - 571 201
…PETITIONER
(BY SRI. SATISH K, ADVOCATE)








AND:

1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
LOKAYUKTHA POLICE
REPRESENTED BY ITS INSPECTOR OF POLICE,
MADIKERI, KODAGU DISTRICT
KODAGU - 571 201

2. SRI A C CHANDRAPPA
S/O LATE A M CHINNAPPA
AGED ABOUT 67 YEARS
RESIDING AT MANGALA DEVI NAGAR,
MADIKERI TOWN,
KODAGU DISTRICT – 571 201
…RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI LETHIF B, ADVOCATE FOR R1;




Digitally signed
by R
MANJUNATHA
Location: HIGH
COURT OF
KARNATAKA

R2 -SERVED)

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226
AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA R/W SECTION 482

- 2 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:57295
WP No. 4379 of 2025


CNR: KAHC010086642025


CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE PRAYING TO CALL FOR
RECORDS AND QUASH THE IMPUGNED CHARGE SHEET DATED
31.08.2021 FOR THE OFFENCE PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTION
7(a) OF THE PREVENTION OF CORRUPTION ACT, 1988 FILED
BY THE ANTI-CORRUPTION BUREAU, KODAGU DISTRICT (NOW
TRANSFERRED TO R-1 KARNATAKA LOKAYUKTHA POLICE,
KODAGU DISTRICT) (ANNEXURE-F) AND ALL PROCEEDINGS
PURSUANT THERETO, PENDING ON THE FILE OF THE
PRINCIPAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE COURT, KODAGU
DISTRICT, MADIKERI IN SPECIAL CASE NO.49/2021
(ANNEXURE-G) IN SO FAR AS THE PETITIONER IS CONCERNED
AND ETC.,
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING
IN ‘B’ GROUP, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS
UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V SRISHANANDA

ORAL ORDER

Heard Sri Satish K. learned counsel for the
petitioner/accused No.1 and Sri B.Lethif, learned counsel for
respondent No.1. Respondent No.2 absent.

2. Petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of
India r/w Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha
Sanhita, 2023 with the following prayer:
“Issue writ or order quashing the impugned Charge
Sheet dated 31.08.2021 for theoffence punishable
under Section 7(a) of the Prevention of Corruption
Act, 1988, filed by the Anti Corruption Bureau,
Kodagu District (now transferred to respondent No.1-

- 3 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:57295
WP No. 4379 of 2025


CNR: KAHC010086642025


Karnataka Lokayuktha Police, Kodagu District)
(Annexure-F) and all proceedings pursuant thereto,
pending on the file of the Hon’ble Principal District
and Sessions Judge Court, Kodagu District, Madikeri
in Special Case No.49/2021 (Annexure-G), insofar as
the petitioner is concerned, in the interest of justice
and equity”.


3. Petitioner has been charge sheeted for the offence
punishable under Section 7(a) of the Prevention of Corruption
Act, 1988. The work the second respondent was pending with
the petitioner. To show favour by misusing the official power,
petitioner demanded ₹20,000/- as illegal gratification from the
second respondent.


4. Contents of entrustment mahazar would reveal the
conversation that has taken place between the second
respondent and the petitioner in regard to demand of illegal
gratification.


5. Lokayukta police after registering the case, after
thorough investigation filed the charge sheet.

- 4 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:57295
WP No. 4379 of 2025


CNR: KAHC010086642025



6. Learned Trial Judge has taken cognizance of the offence
alleged against the petitioner and proceeded with the criminal
case.


7. Order taking cognizance and summoning the petitioner is
called in question in this petition on the following grounds:

The impugned Charge Sheet dated 31/08/2021 and all
further proceedings pending before the Trial Court in
Special Case No.49/2021 is wholly illegal and contrary
to law. The allegation in the departmental enquiry
initiated against the Petitioner vide Articles of Charge
dated 05/11/2022 and the allegation in the criminal
case are one and the same. The Assistant Conservator
of Forests who is the enquiry officer has conducted the
enquiry and has submitted the enquiry report on
22/09/2023 holding that the charge levelled against the
Petitioner is not proved. The Deputy Conservator of
Forests who is the disciplinary Authority has accepted
the said enquiry report and exonerated the Petitioner
from the charge in the departmental enquiry vide order
dated 21/12/2023. The charge which could not be
proved in the departmental enquiry in the touchstone of
preponderance of probability cannot be proved in the
criminal case also, where the strict proof of evidence is
applied and the charge is to be proved beyond
reasonable doubt. Therefore, in view of law laid down by
the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of P. S. RAJYA v.
STATE OF BIHAR reported in 1996 (9) SCC 1,

- 5 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:57295
WP No. 4379 of 2025


CNR: KAHC010086642025


RADHESHYAM KEJRIWAL v. STATE OF WEST BENGAL
reported in 2011 (3) SCC 581, LOKESH KUMAR JAIN v.
STATE OF RAJASTHAN reported in 2013 (11) SCC 130,
ASHOO SURENDRANATH TIWARI V. THE DEPUTY
SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, EOW, CBI AND ANOTHER
reported in 2020 (9) SCC 636 [Para 8 to 15], VITTAL
KUMAR AND ANOTHER v. STATE OF KARNATAKA AND
OTHERS passed in Criminal Petition No.4858/2016
decided on 02/11/2018. [Para 41, 42 and 43] and Sri.
A. L. JAYARAMU v. STATE OF KARNATAKA AND OTHERS
passed in Writ Petition No.19700/2018 decided on
27/07/2021 [Para 11,12 and 13] B. K. KISHOR KUMAR
v. STATE OF KARNATAKA AND ANOTHER in Criminal
Petition No.4791/2020 decided on 05/03/2022,
JAGADISH NAIK V. STATE BY LOKAYUKTHA POLICE in
Writ Petition No.43411/2019 decided on 26/09/20225,
K. SHIVARAME GOWDA v. STATE OF KARNATAKA in
Criminal Petition No.4911/2012 decided on 23/01/2023,
Sri. H. S. ARAVINDA AND OTHERS v. STATE BY
CENTRAL CRIME BRANCH in Writ Petition No.
5386/2022 decided on 01/06/2023, AJAY HILORI v.
STATE OF KARNATAKA AND ANOTHER in Writ Petition
No.8553/2021 decided on 28/07/2023, Sri. KOTRESH H.
v. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA AND ANOTHER in
Criminal Petition No.5793/2023 decided on 06/10/2023
and Sri. D. NAGARAJA v. THE STATE BY LOKAYUKTHA
POLICE in Writ Petition No.22955/2023 decided on
21/11/2023, the criminal proceedings launched against
the Petitioner is an abuse of process of law. The
documents which are marked during the course of

- 6 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:57295
WP No. 4379 of 2025


CNR: KAHC010086642025


enquiry are also same as compared to that of the
criminal case. Such being the case, when the
disciplinary authority has failed to prove the charge in
the departmental enquiry, the charge cannot be proved
beyond reasonable doubt in the criminal proceedings.
Therefore, it would be a sheer waste of precious judicial
time. Therefore, the impugned Charge Sheet dated
31/08/2021 filed by the Respondent No.1 and impugned
proceedings in Special Case No.49/2021 pending on the
file of the Hon'ble Principal District and Sessions Judge
Court, Kodagu District Madikeri and further proceedings
are liable to be set at naught.


It is categorically contended that although the Trap
Mahazar states that the Pancha Witnesses have seen
the Petitioner accepting the alleged bait amount from
the Respondent No. 2, the Petitioner has categorically
given a statement that he was not caught red handed
and that deliberately, the alleged money is handed over
to the Petitioner forcefully. Further, in the departmental
enquiry also, the enquiry officer has given a finding that
there is no evidence to prove that the Petitioner was
caught red handed. Such being the case, the Petitioner
further contends that there is absolutely no demand or
acceptance of the illegal gratification on the part of the
Petitioner and the provisions of Prevention of Corruption
(Amendment) Act, 2018 are not at all attracted. The
issue involved in the present case is squarely covered
by the decision rendered by this Hon'ble Court in
NITYANAND G. HITTALMAKKI AND ANOTHER v. STATE

- 7 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:57295
WP No. 4379 of 2025


CNR: KAHC010086642025


BY LOKAYUKTHA POLICE (Criminal Petition
No.16079/2012 dated 19/07/2016) (Para 5). This
Hon'ble Court considered the rival contentions of both
the parties and held that when no cash is found with the
officers, excess money found outside the Check Post
cannot be treated as illegal gratification, especially when
there is no complaint of demand and acceptance of
illegal gratification. Similar principle is reiterated in the
case of ABDUL WAJID v. THE STATE BY LOKAYUKTHA
POLICE(Criminal Petition No.15127/2013 - Judgment
dated 19/07/2016) (Para 5); NAGASHETTY v. THE
KARNATAKA LOKAYUKTHA (Criminal Petition No.
7611/2010 - Judgement dated 23/12/2010) (Para 13,
14 and 15). Similar raid had taken place at Humnabad
Check Post and proceedings were called in question
before this Hon'ble Court in Writ Petition No. 17212 -
17213 / 2017 which was rejected. Against rejection of
such Petition aggrieved persons had approached the
Hon'ble Apex Court in THIPPESWAMY C. AND ANOTHER
v. LOKAYUKTHA POLICE, (Criminal Appeal No.391-
392/2022 dated 09/03/2022) and the Hon'ble Apex
Court has held that, in the absence of demand and
acceptance of the illegal gratification it is preposterous
to charge the officers with offence under the Prevention
of Corruption Act for undeclared amount and money
found with the private person. This Hon'ble Court has
reiterated that unless there is demand or acceptance of
illegal gratification, the prosecution cannot proceed in
the matter in CRIMINAL PETITON NO.11547/2022 dated
24/05/2023 (MAHESH P. S. v. STATE OF KARNATAKA

- 8 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:57295
WP No. 4379 of 2025


CNR: KAHC010086642025


AND ANOTHER. Therefore, the instant case is fully
covered by the decision referred supra and proceedings
against the Petitioner is liable to be set at naught.


A cogent reading of the impugned Charge Sheet would
make it clear that none of the ingredients of Section 7 of
the Prevention of Corruption, 1988 are attracted to the
facts and circumstances of the present case. Section
7(a) of Prevention of Corruption Act is amended which
runs as under:
Section 7: Offence relating to public servant being
bribed: Any public servant who-
(a) Obtains or accepts or attempts to obtain from any
Person, an undue advantage, with the intention to
perform or cause performance of public duty
improperly or dishonestly or to forbear or cause
forbearance to perform such duty either by
himself or by another public servant
(b) XXXX
(c) XXXX
Shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term
which shall not be less than three years but which
may extend to seven years and shall also be liable to
fine.
A bare reading of the above provisions is very
clear that in order to attract the above offence, there
shall be demand or attempt to demand and
acceptance of illegal gratification or any attempts
thereof. In the instant case, the impugned Charge
Sheet do not make out any offence as far as the

- 9 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:57295
WP No. 4379 of 2025


CNR: KAHC010086642025


Petitioner is concerned. Therefore, the proceedings
against the Petitioner are liable to be quashed.


It is further contended that demand and acceptance are
the major canons in order to establish the commission
of an offence under the Prevention of Corruption
(Amendment) Act, 2018. The aforesaid principles have
been examined by the Hon'ble Apex Court in K.
SHANTHAMMA v. STATE OF TELANGANA (Para 10, 11
and 20) reported in 2022 (4) SCC 574, N.
VIJAYAKUMAR V. STATE OF TAMIL NADU reported in
2021 (3) SCC 687 (Para 27), STATE v, Sri. ANUP
KUMAR SRIVASTAVA reported in 2017 SCC Online SC
866, V. SEJAPPA v. STATE reported in 2016 (12) SCC
150, P. SATYANARAYANA MURTHY v. STATE OF A.P
reported in 2015 (10) SCC 152 and M.R. PURUSHOTTAM
v. STATE OF KARNATAKA reported in 2015 (3) SCC 247.
The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of NEERAJ DUTTA v.
STATE (GOVT. OF N.C.T. OF DELHI) in CRIMINAL
APPEAL NO.1669/2009 DATED 17/03/2023 has held
that pendency of work is a criteria to book a case under
the provisions of Prevention of Corruption Act followed
by demand and acceptance. It is reiterated by the
Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of SOUDARAJAN v. THE
STATE BY INSPECTOR OF POLICE VIGILANCE,
DINDIGUL in Criminal Appeal No.1592/2022 dated
17/04/2023. Therefore, in the instant criminal
prosecution launched against the Petitioner is not in
conformity with the law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex
Court. Recently, the Hon'ble Apex Court in MIR

- 10 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:57295
WP No. 4379 of 2025


CNR: KAHC010086642025


MUSTAFA ALI HASMI V. STATE OF ANDRA PRADESH in
SLP (CrI) No.1091/2022 dated 10/07/2024 held that
proof of demand and acceptance should be established
beyond reasonable doubt. Therefore, demand and
acceptance are sine qua non in order to attract the
offence under Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption
Act, 1988. Recently, this Hon'ble Court in the case of
Sri. BEERALINGA V. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA AND
ANOTHER in WRIT PETITION No.105067/2023 dated
07/06/2024 has reiterated the said principle and held
that an act alleged under Section 7 of the Act should
have the ingredients of demand and acceptance and it is
for the performance of a public duty or forbearance
from performance. Therefore, demand and acceptance
should be for the purpose of performance of some public
duty. For such performance, there should be work
pending at the hands of the public servant against
whom Section 7 of the Act is alleged. Therefore, in the
absence of the ingredients of the said offence, the
proceedings against the Petitioner would amount to
abuse of process of law.


It is further contended that there is absolutely no
demand or acceptance of illegal gratification by the
Petitioner herein and therefore no offence under the
provisions of the Prevention of Corruption (Amendment)
Act, 2018 can be attracted. The Hon'ble Apex Court in
C. SUKUMARAN v. STATE OF KERALA reported in (2015)
11 SCC 314 has held that the demand of illegal
gratification by the accused is sine qua non for

- 11 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:57295
WP No. 4379 of 2025


CNR: KAHC010086642025


constituting an offence under the provisions of the
Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. Further, in
K.S.PANDURANGA v. STATE OF KARNATAKA reported in
(2013) 3 SCC 721, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held
that it is well settled law that demand and acceptance of
the amount as illegal gratification is sine qua non for
constitution of an offence under the Prevention of
Corruption Act, 1988 and it is obligatory on the part of
the prosecution to prove that there was an illegal offer
of bribe and acceptance thereof. The aforesaid principles
have been reiterated by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in
KRISHNAN CHANDER V. STATE OF DELHI reported in
(2016) 3 SCC 108. Demand and acceptance are the
major canons in order to establish the commission of an
offence under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.
Therefore, the impugned proceedings against the
Petitioner are wholly illegal and the same are liable to
be quashed.


It is contended that the order of cognizance has been
taken by the Hon'ble Principal District and Sessions
Judge, Kodagu District, Madikeri on 06/09/2021.
However, time and again, this Hon'ble Court has come
down heavily on Trial Court for taking the cognizance of
the offence in a stereotypical manner, without any
application of mind. It is a format maintained by the
learned Trial Judge. In the instant case also, the same
format has been used by the Trial Court and therefore,
the order of taking cognizance in the instant case is
contrary to the law declared by this Hon'ble Court in

- 12 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:57295
WP No. 4379 of 2025


CNR: KAHC010086642025


CRIMINAL PETITION No.100290/2017(ANAND AND
OTHERS v. STATE OF KARNATAKA decided on
23/02/2017) (Paras 3 and 4), CRIMINAL PETITION
No.552/1016 (R. RANGASWAMAIAH v. THE STATE BY
LOKAYUKTHA POLICE AND ANOTHER decided on
13/08/2018) (Paras 3 and 6), CRIMINAL PETITION
No.4862/2006 (M. S. GOPALAKRISHNA NAIDU AND
OTHERS v. STATE OF KARNATAKA AND ANOTHER
decided on 21/04/2010) (Paras 6 and 9) and THE
AUTHORIZED SIGNATORY, M/S. ICICI BANK Ltd. V. THE
STATE BY REGIONAL TRANSPORT OFFICER reported in
ILR 2015 Kar 3408 (Paras 7, 9 and 11). In view of the
settled legal position, the order of the Trial Court dated
06/09/2021 and subsequent proceedings are liable to be
terminated only on the ground that there is no order of
taking cognizance by the learned Magistrate.



The criminal proceedings instituted and its continuance
by the Respondent No.1 is liable to be quashed in the
view of principle laid down by Hon'ble Supreme Court in
STATE OF HARYANA v. BHAJAN LAL reported in 1992
Supp (1) SCC 335, which case has enumerated the list
of categories of cases where power under Section 482 of
Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (Now Section 528 of the
Bharativa Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023) can be
exercised by the Court to prevent the abuse of process
of law.”

- 13 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:57295
WP No. 4379 of 2025


CNR: KAHC010086642025



8. Sri K.Satish, learned counsel for the petitioner, re-
iterating the grounds urged in the petition, would contend that
the petitioner has been exonerated in the departmental
enquiry.


9. So also, earlier to the present case, Upa Lokayukta has
filed the closure report. Despite the same, charge sheet came
to be filed by the Investigation Agency only with an intention to
wreck vengeance against the petitioner in active collusion with
the second respondent. Therefore, sought for quashing the
pending proceedings.


10. Per contra Sri B.Lethif, learned counsel for the
Lokayuktha opposes the writ grounds by placing reliance on the
judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of T.
Manjunath vs. State of Karnataka and another reported in
2025 SCC Online SC 2597 and Karnataka Lokayuktha,
Bagalkote District, Bagalkot vs. Chandrashekar and
another reported in 2026 SCC Online SC 13 and would
contend that exoneration of the delinquent in the departmental

- 14 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:57295
WP No. 4379 of 2025


CNR: KAHC010086642025


proceedings would not ipso facto efface the criminality and thus
sought for dismissal of the writ petition.


11. Having heard the arguments of both sides this Court
perused the material on record meticulously.


12. On such perusal of the material on record, the
conversation recorded by the Investigation Agency would be
sufficient enough to proceed against the petitioner for the
offence punishable under Section 7(a) of the Prevention of
Corruption Act, prima facie .


13. Further, in view of the principles of law enunciated in the
cases of Chandrasekhar and Manjunath supra , exoneration
of the petitioner in the departmental proceedings would not
ipso facto efface the criminality alleged against petitioner,
criminal case needs to be continued and should be brought to
logical end.


14. Accordingly, this Court does not find merit in any one of
the grounds.


15. Hence, the following:

- 15 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:57295
WP No. 4379 of 2025


CNR: KAHC010086642025


ORDER
(i) Petition dismissed .
(ii) All available defences are kept open to be
heard in the pending proceedings in accordance with
law.
(iii) Pending applications if any, stand consigned
to record.

Sd/-
(V SRISHANANDA)
JUDGE

kcm
List No.: 1 Sl No.: 49
CT:VRR