H N RUDRESH vs A E JANARADHAN
- Court
- Karnataka High Court
- 1 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:42835
CRL.A No. 87 of 2012
CNR: KAHC010115892012
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
TH
DATED THIS THE 10 DAY OF AUGUST, 2026
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S RACHAIAH
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 87 OF 2012 (A)
BETWEEN:
H N RUDRESH
AGED 53 YEARS S/O NIRAVANAPPA
R/AT JAYANAGARA BADAVANE
CHICKMAGALUR
…APPELLANT
(BY SRI. K N SUBBA REDDY., ADVOCATE, ALONG WITH
SMT.SHIREESHA S., ADVOCATE)
AND:
Digitally
signed by
SUSHMA
LAKSHMI
B S
Location:
High Court
of
Karnataka
1. A E JANARADHAN
S/O ERAPPA
AGED 51 YEARS, SECRETARY
V ASTHRA GRAMA
PANCHAYATH VASTHARE
CHIKMAGALUR TQ.
2. B M SURESH S/O MULLAIAH
AGED 41 YEARS
- 2 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:42835
CRL.A No. 87 of 2012
CNR: KAHC010115892012
MEMBER OF GRAMA PANCHAYAATH
VASTHRE VILLAGE
PANCHAYATH
R/O BACHIGANAHALLI
3. STATE OF KARNATAKA BY
LOKAYUKTHA POLICE CHIKMGALUR
…RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. I S PRAMOD CHANDRA, ADVOCATE FOR R1;
SRI.N.R.RAVIKUMAR, ADVOCATE FOR R2;
SRI.B.B.PATIL, ADVOCATE FOR R3)
----
THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 372
CR.P.C PRAYING TO SETASIDE THE ORDER DATED 28.2.2011
PASSED IN SPECIAL CASE(CORRUPT.)NO. 49/2008 BY THE
PRL. SESSIONS JUDGE AND SPECIAL JUDGE, CHIKMAGALUR -
ACQUITTING THE RESPONDENT/ACCUSED NO.1 FOR THE
OFFENCE P/U/S.7,13(1)(d) READ WITH SECTION 13(2) OF
PREVENTION OF CORRUPTION ACT, 1988 AND
RESPONDENT/ACCUSED NO.2 FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/S 8 R/W
13(2) OF P.C.ACT, 1988.
- 3 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:42835
CRL.A No. 87 of 2012
CNR: KAHC010115892012
THIS APPEAL, COMING ON CLARIFICATION, THIS DAY,
JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S RACHAIAH
ORAL JUDGMENT
1. This criminal appeal has been filed by the appellant
who is the de-facto complainant being aggrieved by the
judgment of acquittal passed by the Trial Court vide order
dated 28.02.2011 passed in Spl.C.No.49/2008 on the file of the
Principal Sessions Judge and Special Judge, Chikkamagaluru.
2. The ranks of the parties will be considered
henceforth as per the rankings of the Trial Court.
Factual matrix of the case:
3. The case of the prosecution is that the accused
No.1, is the Secretary at the Village Panchayat, Vasthare,
Chikkamagaluru and accused No.2 is a Member of the same
Village Panchayat. PW-1 filed an application through post on
29.11.2006 under the Right to Information Act. On 03.03.2007,
at about 12:00 noon, when P.W.-1 approached the case
worker/accused No.1 along with his wife, Rathnamma, accused
- 4 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:42835
CRL.A No. 87 of 2012
CNR: KAHC010115892012
No.1 allegedly demanded Rs.10,000/- to prepare the
documents. He provided his savings bank account number,
asked PW-1 to deposit Rs.2,000/- and further instructed him to
produce the receipt about the said deposit.
4. On 26.04.2007, at about 10:00 a.m., when PW-1
met accused No.1 on the road and inquired about the
documents, the accused stated that the documents were ready,
but it would be handed over only if the remaining illegal
gratification is paid. Being annoyed by the demand for illegal
gratification, the complainant lodged a complaint before the
respondent – Police. The respondent – Police registered a case
and gave him a voice recorder for the purpose of recording the
conversation for confirmation. Thereafter, entrusted
panchanama was drawn and post-trap panchanama had also
been drawn, the amount was recovered, the investigation was
completed and submitted the charge-sheet.
5. To prove the case of the prosecution, the
prosecution examined 08 witnesses as PW-1 to PW-8 and got
marked 24 documents as Ex-P.1 to P.24 and identified 13
- 5 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:42835
CRL.A No. 87 of 2012
CNR: KAHC010115892012
material objects as MO-1 to MO-13. On the other hand defense
got marked 05 documents as Ex-D1 to D5.
6. Heard learned counsel for the respective parties.
7. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that
the judgment of acquittal passed by the Trial Court is erroneous
and improper. The Trial Court has failed to appreciate the
evidence on record, resulting in passing the impugned
judgment. In fact, the evidence of PW-1/complainant and
PW-2/shadow witness is consistent regarding the demand and
acceptance of illegal gratification. However, the Trial Court has
failed to raise the presumption, consequently, the impugned
judgment is passed.
8. It is further submitted that the wife of PW-1 worked
for 14 years as a Bill Collector in Vasthare Grama Panchayat
and she was subsequently removed from the service. Hence,
she has to raise the dispute before the Labour Court, the
documents were required, to produce before the Court. Hence,
he applied for those documents, however, accused No.1
demanded Rs.10,000/-. Initially, Rs.2,000/- was deposited on
- 6 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:42835
CRL.A No. 87 of 2012
CNR: KAHC010115892012
05.03.2007 to the bank account and the remaining balance of
Rs.8,000/- had to be mobilized. However, PW-1 was not willing
to pay the said illegal gratification and decided to lodge a
complaint. Accordingly, PW-1 has lodged a complaint, the trap
was successful. The FSL report would indicate that the hand
wash of the accused has turned pink colour. The official work
was pending with the accused and the amount was recovered
from accused No.2. The numbers on the recovered currency
notes tallied with the number mentioned in the entrusted
panchanama. Such being the case, rendering the acquittal even
though, the prosecution proved the case beyond a reasonable
doubt appears to be erroneous and improper. Therefore, the
acquittal order is liable to be set aside and the accused ought
to be convicted to render justice. Making such submissions
learned Senior counsel prays to allow the appeal.
Per Contra
9. , learned counsel for respondent Nos.1
and 2 vehemently justified the judgment of acquittal passed by
the Trial Court and submitted that the prosecution has failed to
prove the demand and acceptance of illegal gratification in
connection with the alleged pending work. In fact, no work was
- 7 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:42835
CRL.A No. 87 of 2012
CNR: KAHC010115892012
pending with accused No.1 as on the date of alleged trap in the
said office. The Trial Court rightly appreciated the evidence on
record and passed an order of acquittal, which is appropriate
and proper. Hence, interference with the said findings is
unwarranted. By making such submissions learned counsel for
respondents to pray to dismiss the appeal.
10. Similarly, learned High Court Government Pleader
for respondent No.3 adopted the arguments advanced by
learned counsel for respondent Nos.1 and 2 and prays to
dismiss the appeal.
11. Having heard learned counsel for the respective
parties and on perusal of the findings of the Trial Court in
rendering the acquittal, it is necessary at this stage to
re-appreciate the evidence of all the witnesses.
12. P.W.-1 is stated to be the complainant stated in his
evidence that he has been doing a petty business in
Chikkamagaluru for the last ten years. PW-4 is his wife, she
worked as a Bill Collector at Vasthare Grama Panchayat for 14
years and was removed from service in 2007. Documents
- 8 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:42835
CRL.A No. 87 of 2012
CNR: KAHC010115892012
relating to her service were to be produced before the Labour
Court. Therefore, he applied for those documents through post
on 29.11.2006. After receiving the application by post, accused
No.1 mailed some blank papers to the complainant. When the
complainant personally met the accused No.1 along with his
wife and inquired about the application, accused No.1 allegedly
demanded Rs.10,000/- to prepare and handover the
documents.
13. According to PW-1, he handed over the remaining
amount of Rs.8,000/- to accused No.2 on the instructions of
accused No.1. He admitted that several complaints had been
filed against him and his wife by different individuals, and that
he, in turn, had also filed numerous cases against others.
14. PW-2, is the shadow witness and he has stated that
he accompanied the complainant to the office of accused No.1.
He was asked to stay near the door of the office. Further he
stated that he attempted to listen the conversation between the
complainant and accused No.1. However, he stated that he
could not hear the conversation properly, and further stated
- 9 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:42835
CRL.A No. 87 of 2012
CNR: KAHC010115892012
that he did not see that an amount of Rs.8,000/- was paid to
accused No.2.
15. On going through the evidence of these two
witnesses PW-1 even though stated that accused No.1
demanded amount of Rs.10,000/- to handover the documents
relating to his wife’s official work who had been removed from
service. It is evident that PW-1 developed a grudge against
accused No.1 and others. PW-1 was frequently tangling with
the panchayat officials after removal of his wife. PW-2, being a
shadow witness has not support the case in respect of demand
of illegal gratification. Thus, the prosecution failed to prove
both the demand and acceptance of illegal gratification.
However, the recovery of the amount from accused No.2 was
established through independent witnesses and the serial
numbers of the currency notes tallied with those recorded in
the pre-trap panchanama or entrustment panchanama.
Therefore, the acquittal order passed by the Trial Court appears
to be proper and appropriate. Discussing the evidence of the
remaining witnesses under such circumstances in my
- 10 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:42835
CRL.A No. 87 of 2012
CNR: KAHC010115892012
considered view is not essential and therefore it is
unwarranted.
16. In the light of the observations made above, I
proceed to pass the following:
ORDER
dismissed
This Criminal Appeal stands .
Sd/-
(S RACHAIAH)
JUDGE
NM/-