STATE BY LOKAYUKTHA POLICE MANDYA vs JAMEEL AHAMAD

- 1 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:59992
CRL.A No. 351 of 2014


CNR: KAHC010192792014




IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU


TH
DATED THIS THE 28 DAY OF OCTOBER, 2026

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G BASAVARAJA

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 351 OF 2014 (A)

BETWEEN:

1. STATE BY LOKAYUKTHA POLICE MANDYA
REP/BY SPL. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
FOR LOKAYUKTA, HIGH COURT BENCH,
BANGALORE - 560001.
…APPELLANT
(BY SRI. VENKATESH S ARBATTI, SPL PP.,)






AND:

1. JAMEEL AHAMAD
S/O LATE GULAM AHAMAD
AGE: MAJOR,
SENIOR MOTOR VEHICLE INSPECTOR,
RTO OFFICE, BELGAUM,
DEPUTATION TO ARTO OFFICE,
NAGAMANGALA, DIST: MANDYA-570401.
…RESPONDENT
(BY SRI. T I ABDULLA.,ADVOCATE)

CRL.A. FILED U/S.378(4) CR.P.C BY THE SPL.P.P. FOR
THE STATE PRAYING THAT THIS HON'BLE COURT MAY BE
PLEASED TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED:22.8.13 PASSED
BY THE PRL. SPECIAL JUDGE, MANDYA IN SPL.CASE
NO.40/2009 - ACQUITTING THE RESPONDENT/ACCUSED FOR
THE OFFENCE P/U/S 7 OF THE PREVENTION OF CORRUPTION
ACT 1988 AND U/S 13(2) OF THE PREVENTION OF
CORRUPTION ACT 1988.

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







Digitally signed by
LAKSHMINARAYAN N
Location: High Court
of Karnataka

- 2 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:59992
CRL.A No. 351 of 2014


CNR: KAHC010192792014



CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G BASAVARAJA

ORAL JUDGMENT


1. The Lokayukta has preferred this appeal against the
judgment of acquittal dated 22.08.2013 passed in
Spl.C.No.40/2009 by the Principal Special Judge, Mandya
(for short, ‘the trial Court’).


2. For the sake of convenience, the parties herein are
referred to as per their status before the trial Court.


3. Brief facts leading to this appeal are that, the
Inspector of Police, Karnataka Lokayukta, Mandya District,
Mandya laid charge sheet against the accused for the
offence under Sections 7 and 13(2) of the Prevention of
Corruption Act, 1988. It is alleged by the prosecution that,
the accused being the Senior Inspector of Motor Vehicles
in the office of Assistant Regional Transport Office,
Belgaum, on deputation to ARTO Nagamangala, had
Rs.
demanded an amount of 4,500/- to give valuation
report of the vehicle, on 08.01.2008 between 2.00 pm and

- 3 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:59992
CRL.A No. 351 of 2014


CNR: KAHC010192792014



2.30 pm, had informed CW1 to put the bribe amount on
table and same was seized under Trap Mahazar. Thus, the
accused has committed the offence punishable under
Sections 7, 13(1)(d) and 13(2) of the Prevention of
Corruption Act, 1988.


4. After filing the charge sheet, case was registered in
Spl.C.No.40/2009. Accused appeared before the Trial
Court and enlarged on bail. Having heard the arguments
on both sides, the trial Court framed the charges against
the accused for the commission of alleged offences. Same
was read over and explained to the accused. Having
understood the same, accused pleaded not guilty and
claimed to be tried.


5. To prove the case of the prosecution, 7 witnesses
were examined as PWs.1 to 7; 25 documents were marked
as Exs.P1 to P25 and 8 material objects were marked as
Mos.1 to 8. On closure of prosecution side evidence,
statement under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. was recorded.

- 4 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:59992
CRL.A No. 351 of 2014


CNR: KAHC010192792014



Accused has totally denied the evidence of prosecution
witnesses and he has not adduced any oral evidence.
However, 14 documents were marked as Exs.D1 to D14
during the course of cross-examination of PWs.1 and 4.


6. Having heard the arguments on both sides, the trial
Court has acquitted the accused. Being aggrieved by the
judgment of acquittal, the Karnataka Lokayukta has
preferred this appeal.


7. The learned counsel for the appellant, Sri. Venkatesh
Arabatti, would submit that the impugned judgment and
order of acquittal passed by the trial Court in Special Case
No.40/2009 is not sustainable in law and facts and is liable
to be set aside. The trial Court has failed to appreciate the
case of the prosecution with established ingredients in
proof of charges levelled against the accused. The trial
Court has grossly erred in acquitting the respondent only
on the ground that his hand washed with Sodium
Carbonate Solution did not show any chemical change, but

- 5 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:59992
CRL.A No. 351 of 2014


CNR: KAHC010192792014



ought to have appreciated the fact that accused had
directed the complainant to keep the bribe amount in front
of the table only on demand by the respondent. PW1 has
kept the amount on the table. The trial Court has failed to
appreciate the fact that PW2-shadow witness has fully
supported the case of the prosecution. The learned Special
Judge should have convicted the respondent on the
ground that complainant version is corroborated with
unimpeachable and independent evidence on record. The
trial Court has not properly appreciated the evidence on
record in the light of human probabilities and same has
resulted in miscarriage of justice. On all these grounds, it
is sought for allowing the appeal.


8. The learned counsel for the respondent would submit
that, the trial Court has properly appreciated the evidence
on record in accordance with law and facts. Absolutely,
there are no grounds to interfere with the impugned

- 6 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:59992
CRL.A No. 351 of 2014


CNR: KAHC010192792014



judgment of acquittal and accordingly, sought for dismissal
of the appeal.


9. Having heard the arguments on both sides and on
perusal of the materials placed before this Court, the
following points would arise for my consideration:
(1) Whether the Trial Court is justified in acquitting
the accused of the alleged offence?
(2) What order?

10. My answer to the above points are as under:
Point No.1 in the affirmative.
Point No.2 as per final order.
Reasons regarding Point No.1:

11. I have examined the materials before this Court. It is
the case of the prosecution that as per Ex.P1-complaint,
on 05.01.2008, for valuation of two vehicles, the accused
has demanded for bribe amount of Rs.2,500/- for one
vehicle and the same was scaled down to Rs.4,500/- for
both vehicles. PW1-complainant, Ramesha has also
deposed the same in his evidence and this witness has not

- 7 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:59992
CRL.A No. 351 of 2014


CNR: KAHC010192792014



fully supported to the case of the prosecution. He was
treated as hostile witness with the permission of the Court.


12. During the course of cross-examination, it was
suggested that, PW1 has given further statement to the
Investigating Officer as to the date of demand of bribe as
07.01.2008 instead of 05.01.2008. Same was specifically
denied. It is an admitted fact that the accused assumed
the charge on 07.01.2008. Same is also stated by the
accused. The accused has filed the written statement in
this regard same is not disputed by the prosecution. Since
the accused was not the Senior Inspector of Motor
Vehicles in the office of Assistant Regional Transport
Office, Nagamangala, the question of demanding the
amount as alleged by the prosecution on 05.01.2008, does
not arise.


13. With regard to the acceptance of the bribe amount is
concerned, admittedly the accused has not touched the
bribe amount. It is the case of the prosecution that PW1

- 8 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:59992
CRL.A No. 351 of 2014


CNR: KAHC010192792014



has kept the amount on table as per the direction of the
accused. Thereafter, same was seized by the IO, in the
presence of panchas and conducted mahazar. Both hands
of the accused were dipped in Sodium Carbonate Solution.
The solution did not change its colour. The Lokayukta
Inspector asked accused about the money. Then the
accused showed it which was in a corner of the table. Then
the Lokayukta seized that amount. PW1 has stated in his
examination-in-chief that the fingers of the accused dipped
in the solution did turn into pink. Then this witness was
treated as a hostile witness. PW2, the shadow witness has
deposed that, when PW1 kept the bribe amount on table,
as directed by the accused, he later took it and kept it in
his pocket, and thereafter, the Lokayukta Inspector
himself got that money produced by the accused. This
shadow witness also partly treated as hostile witness.
Viewed from any angle, the evidence of PWs.1 and 2 are
not consistent to the case of the prosecution. Accordingly,

- 9 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:59992
CRL.A No. 351 of 2014


CNR: KAHC010192792014



the prosecution has failed to prove the acceptance of the
bribe amount by the accused.


14. With regard to the Sanction Order passed by the
concerned Sanctioning Authority, the prosecution has
produced Ex.P20. In Ex.P20, it is stated that, both the
hands of the accused were dipped in sodium carbonate
solution and it answered positively that, it has changed its
colour. But, it is not the case of the prosecution that, when
the hands of the accused were dipped in sodium carbonate
solution, it turned into pink colour. It is the case of the
prosecution that, accused had directed PW1 to put the
bribe amount on table. The contents of Ex.P20 itself
reveals that the Sanctioning Authority has not applied its
mind before passing the Sanction Order. The trial Court
has properly observed that the Sanctioning Authority has
mechanically issued the sanction order, which is not valid.


15. On re-appreciation/re-examination/re-consideration
of the entire evidence on record, I do not find any legal or

- 10 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:59992
CRL.A No. 351 of 2014


CNR: KAHC010192792014



factual error in the impugned judgment of acquittal.
Accordingly, I answer Point No.1 in the affirmative.
Regarding Point No.2:

16. For the aforestated reasons and discussions, I
proceed to pass the following:
O R D E R
Appeal is dismissed .

Sd/-
(G BASAVARAJA)
JUDGE



DHA
List No.: 1 Sl No.: 52