C DEVARAJAPPA vs STATE OF KARNATAKA BY
- Court
- Karnataka High Court
- 1 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:56278
CRL.A No. 482 of 2014
CNR: KAHC010249662014
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
TH
DATED THIS THE 07 DAY OF OCTOBER, 2026
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S RACHAIAH
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 482 OF 2014 (C)
BETWEEN:
C. DEVARAJAPPA,
S/O. LATE MARULASIDDAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS,
NOW WORKING AS
EXECUTIVE OFFICER,
TALUK PANCHAYATHI OFFICE,
TARIKERE,
CHIKMAGALUR DISTRICT,
R/O. GANGANAHALLI VILLAGE,
Digitally
signed by
SUSHMA
LAKSHMI
B S
Location:
High Court
of
Karnataka
KADUR TALUK,
CHIKMAGALUR DISTRICT – 577 548.
…APPELLANT
(BY SRI. P.P. HEGDE, SENIOR COUNSEL FOR
SRI. H. M. UMESH, ADVOCATE)
AND:
STATE OF KARNATAKA
BY LOKAYUKTA POLICE,
- 2 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:56278
CRL.A No. 482 of 2014
CNR: KAHC010249662014
CHIKMAGALUR.
REPRESENTED BY
SPECIAL PROSECUTOR
LOKAYUKTA POLICE,
BANGALORE – 560 001.
…RESPONDENT
(BY SRI. VENKATESH S. ARBATTI, SPL. PP)
----
THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL IS FILED U/S.374(2) OF THE
CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE BY THE ADVOCATE FOR THE
APPELLANT/ACCUSED NO.1 PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE
ORDER DATED:10.06.2014, PASSED BY THE PRL. SESSIONS
AND SPL. JUDGE AT CHIKMAGALUR, IN SPL.C.(CORRUPTION)
NO.45/2012, CONVICTING THE APPELLANT /ACCUSED No.1
FOR THE OFFENCE PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTIONS 7 AND
13(1)(d) R/W SEC.13(2) OF THE PREVENTION OF CORRUPTION
ACT, 1988.
THIS APPEAL HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED ON
10.09.2026, COMING ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT OF
JUDGMENT, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:-
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S RACHAIAH
- 3 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:56278
CRL.A No. 482 of 2014
CNR: KAHC010249662014
CAV JUDGMENT
1. This Criminal Appeal is filed by the appellant – accused
No.1, being aggrieved by the judgment of conviction and
order on sentence dated 10.06.2014 in Special Case
(Corruption) No.45/2012 passed by the Principal Sessions
and Special Judge at Chikmagalur, for the offences
punishable under Sections 7, 13(1)(d) r/w 13(2) of the
’
Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (for short, ‘PC Act ).
2. The ranks of the parties henceforth will be considered as
per their rankings before the Trial Court.
Factual matrix of the case:
3. The case of the prosecution is that a complaint was filed
against the accused Nos.1 and 2 stating that during
March and April 2011, under the National Rural
Employment Guaranteed Scheme (for short, “NAREGA”),
the complainant and his family members and other
villagers of S. Basavanahalli village had worked for laying
stone slabs around the temple, by name, Sri
Antharaghattamma temple, situated at S. Basavanahalli
village. A sum of Rs.31,750/- was to be paid to the
- 4 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:56278
CRL.A No. 482 of 2014
CNR: KAHC010249662014
workers as wages. The complainant and his family
members were supposed to be paid Rs.2,626/- each as
their wages. The villagers who worked under the said
Scheme had authorized the complainant to collect their
wages. Therefore, on 23.03.2011 at about 11.00 a.m.,
the complainant approached the accused No.2 -
A.R.Manjunath and asked him to sanction the amount
which is required to be paid to the workers. The accused
No.2, being a P.D.O. of Somanahalli Village Panchayath,
was working as the In-charge P.D.O. of Singatagere
Village Panchayath, within whose jurisdiction
S.Basavanahalli village comes. Accused No.2 instructed
the complainant to get the counter signature of accused
No.1, who was working as the Executive Officer of Kadur
Taluk Panchayath.
4. On 01.04.2011 at about 11.00 a.m., the complainant
went to the office of the accused No.1 and requested him
to put his signature on the application in order to get the
wages sanctioned from the accused No.2. The accused
No.1 allegedly demanded an amount of Rs.4,000/- and
- 5 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:56278
CRL.A No. 482 of 2014
CNR: KAHC010249662014
told the complainant that he would affix his signature on
payment of illegal gratification of Rs.4,000/-. Therefore,
on 07.04.2011, he approached the Lokayukta Inspector
and narrated the incident. In the meantime, the said
Inspector handed over the voice recorder and told him to
get the conversation recorded and also instructed him to
bring the recorded conversation. On 11.04.2011, at
about 05.45 p.m., the complainant went to the office of
the Executive Officer at Kadur and met accused No.1 and
thereafter, a complaint came to be registered against
both accused Nos.1 and 2. On registering the said
complaint, the respondent No.1 – Lokayukta Police
conducted an entrustment panchanama and went to the
office of the Executive Officer - accused No.1 and
thereafter, they completed the formalities of trap
panchanama. After conducting the investigation,
submitted the chargesheet.
5. To prove the case of the prosecution, the prosecution has
examined 18 witnesses as PWs.1 to 18 and got marked
35 documents as Exs.P1 to P35 and also got identified
- 6 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:56278
CRL.A No. 482 of 2014
CNR: KAHC010249662014
M.Os.1 to 13. The Trial Court, after appreciating both
oral and documentary evidence on record, convicted the
accused No.1 for the aforesaid offences.
6. Heard Sri P.P. Hegde, learned Senior Counsel for Sri H.M.
Umesh, learned counsel for the appellant and Sri
Venkatesh S Arbatti and Sri Bahubali A Dhanwade,
learned Special Public Prosecutors for respondent –
Lokayukta.
7. The submission of the learned Senior Counsel for the
appellant is that the judgment of conviction and order on
sentence passed by the Trial Court is erroneous,
improper, contrary to the law and facts. Therefore, the
same is liable to be set aside.
8. It is further submitted that the Trial Court has committed
error in appreciating the evidence of P.W.1, wherein there
are a number of inconsistencies in the evidence of P.W.1
and there is no nexus between the appellant and the
alleged crime. However, the Trial Court has failed to take
note of the said aspect. Even P.W.1 did not mention in
- 7 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:56278
CRL.A No. 482 of 2014
CNR: KAHC010249662014
his evidence that the accused No.1 had demanded a bribe
amount from him.
9. It is further submitted that P.W.2 - shadow witness not
supported the case of the prosecution. When the demand
and acceptance are not proved by the prosecution,
presumption ought not to have been drawn. However,
the Trial Court ignored the procedure prescribed under
law, consequently, the impugned judgment is passed,
which is liable to be set aside. Making such submissions,
learned Senior Counsel for the appellant prays to allow
the appeal.
10. Per contra, learned Special Public Prosecutor for
respondent – Lokayukta vehemently submitted that the
Trial Court has rightly rendered the conviction. Even
though P.W.1 has turned hostile and not supported the
case of the prosecution, the surrounding circumstances
had to be considered while arriving at a conclusion.
P.W.1 has admitted that he made payment of Rs.4,000/-
to accused No.1. The said portion of his evidence can be
- 8 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:56278
CRL.A No. 482 of 2014
CNR: KAHC010249662014
considered as relevant and the portion of the evidence of
the hostile witness which supports the case has rightly
been taken into consideration by the Trial Court while
appreciating the evidence, which is proper and
appropriate.
11. It is further submitted that the facts of the case would
indicate that the work was pending with both accused
Nos.1 and 2. The accused No.1 had to affix his signature
on the sanction order to render the said order effective.
The evidence of P.W.1 has been corroborated by P.W.2 on
the fact of demand and acceptance of illegal gratification.
The amount has been recovered from accused No.1. The
prosecution has proved the case beyond reasonable doubt
in respect of pendency of work, demand and acceptance,
recovery and also the report from the FSL. Having
considered all these aspects, the Trial Court has rightly
recorded the conviction, which is proper and appropriate.
Hence, the conviction needs to be confirmed. Making
such submissions, learned Special Public Prosecutor for
the respondent - Lokayukta prays to dismiss the appeal.
- 9 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:56278
CRL.A No. 482 of 2014
CNR: KAHC010249662014
12. Having heard learned counsel for the respective parties
and on perusal of the findings of the Trial Court, it is
necessary to re-appreciate the evidence, both oral and
documentary, on record.
13. Before adverting to the merits of the case, it is necessary
to advert the proposition of law in respect of Sections 7
and 13(1)(d) of the PC Act, as held by the Hon'ble
State of Uttar Pradesh v.
Supreme Court in the case of
1
A.K. Gaba Etc
, which reads as under:
15. In Mukhtiar Singh (Since Deceased) through
LRs v. State of Punjab (2017) 8 SCC 136 , this Court
held that:
14. In P. Satyanarayana Murthy [ P.
Satyanarayana Murthy v. State of A.P. ,
(2015) 10 SCC 152 : (2016) 1 SCC (Cri)
11], this Court took note of its verdict in B.
Jayaraj v. State of A.P. [ B. Jayaraj v. State
of A.P. , (2014) 13 SCC 55 : (2014) 5 SCC
(Cri) 543] underlining that mere
possession and recovery of currency
notes from an accused without proof
1
2026 SCC OnLine SC 967
- 10 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:56278
CRL.A No. 482 of 2014
CNR: KAHC010249662014
of demand would not establish an
offence under Section 7 as well as
d i ii
Sections 13(1)( )( ) and ( ) of the
Act. It was recounted as well that in
the absence of any proof of demand
for illegal gratification, the use of
corrupt or illegal means or abuse of
position as a public servant to obtain
any valuable thing or pecuniary
advantage cannot be held to be
proved. Not only the proof of demand
thus was held to be an indispensable
essentiality and an inflexible statutory
mandate for an offence under Sections
7 and 13 of the Act, it was held as well
qua Section 20 of the Act, that any
presumption thereunder would arise
only on such proof of demand. This
Court thus in P. Satyanarayana Murthy [ P.
Satyanarayana Murthy v. State of A.P. ,
(2015) 10 SCC 152 : (2016) 1 SCC (Cri)
11] on a survey of its earlier decisions on
the pre-requisites of Sections 7 and 13 and
the proof thereof summed up its
conclusions as hereunder: (SCC p. 159,
para 23)
“23. The proof of demand of illegal
gratification, thus, is the gravamen
of the offence under Sections 7 and
13(1)(d)(i) and (ii) of the Act and in
- 11 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:56278
CRL.A No. 482 of 2014
CNR: KAHC010249662014
absence thereof, unmistakably the
charge therefor, would fail. Mere
acceptance of any amount allegedly
by way of illegal gratification or
recovery thereof, dehors the proof
of demand, ipso facto, would thus
not be sufficient to bring home the
charge under these two sections of
the Act. As a corollary, failure of the
prosecution to prove the demand
for illegal gratification would be fatal
and mere recovery of the amount
from the person accused of the
offence under Sections 7 or 13 of
the Act would not entail his
conviction thereunder.”
(emphasis supplied)
14. On going through the dictum of the Hon'ble Supreme
Court stated supra , it makes it clear that, to attract the
ingredients of Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) of the PC Act,
demand and acceptance of illegal gratification by the
accused has to be proved by the prosecution beyond
reasonable doubt. Once it is proved, no doubt, the
presumption under Section 20 of the PC Act comes into
effect. The said presumption is rebuttable in nature. The
accused has to explain under what circumstances the
amount has been recovered from him. If such
- 12 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:56278
CRL.A No. 482 of 2014
CNR: KAHC010249662014
explanation is not forthcoming, the presumption cannot
be rebutted.
15. On going through the said principle enumerated above, it
is necessary to deal with the evidence of the complainant
and other witnesses.
16. The complainant has been examined as P.W.1 – B.P.
Devananda. He has stated in his evidence that he knew
both accused Nos.1 and 2, who were working as the
Executive Officer of Taluk Panchayath Office at Kadur and
the Panchayath Development Officer at Singatagere
Village Grama Panchayath, respectively. The complainant,
his mother and his wife worked under the Scheme and an
amount of Rs.2,700/- was due from the Panchayath
Office. He asked accused No.2, who was working as PDO,
for payment of the said wages; he told him that he had to
get the signature to comply with the requirement from
the Taluk Panchayath. P.W.1 further asked to get the
signature of accused No.1 as counter signature to the
bills. On 23.03.2011, he went to the office of accused
- 13 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:56278
CRL.A No. 482 of 2014
CNR: KAHC010249662014
No.1 at Kadur and asked him about the wages; however,
accused No.1 told him to look after his file and sent him
out. Again, after three days, he went to the office of
accused No.1 and asked about the file. At that time, the
said accused No.1 did not ask any gratification from him.
In the meantime, he met one Mallappa and narrated the
incident and took P.W.1 to the Inspector. There, he had
been given a voice recorder by telling that he had to take
voice recorder and again asked the accused and recorded
the conversation. Accordingly, he carried the voice
recorder on 11.04.2011 to the office of accused No.1.
However, he could not get clarity in the voice due to
overcrowding in the office.
17. On 18.04.2011, he filed a complaint at about 05.00 p.m.
Thereafter, an entrust panchanama was recorded.
According to P.W.1, he handed over Rs.4,000/- to P.W.3,
he received the same and kept it on the table of accused
No.1. Further amount was seized from Lokayukta Police
and completed the further formalities.
- 14 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:56278
CRL.A No. 482 of 2014
CNR: KAHC010249662014
18. P.W.1 has been treated as partly hostile and conducted
cross-examination by the Special Prosecutor. He turned
hostile and not supported the case despite the cross-
examination.
19. P.W.2 - Beeregowda stated that he went along with P.W.1
to the office of Taluk Panchayath. At that time, accused
No.1 was sitting in his chair. He stood near the door;
however, P.W.1 went inside the office where the accused
No.1 was sitting. Accused No.1, by making a hand signal,
demanded money. Thereafter, P.W.1 removed the
tainted currency notes from his left side shirt pocket and
handed over the same to accused No.1. Accused No.1
received the same with his right hand and thereafter kept
them into his left side shirt pocket. He further stated that
he heard the conversation of 10 minutes between P.W.1
and accused No.1 and further, he admitted that before
holding the hands of accused No.1, the police did not
wash their hands in the sodium carbonate solution. He
further admitted that on 28.01.2012, when the voice
recorder was played, in the entire conversation, there
- 15 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:56278
CRL.A No. 482 of 2014
CNR: KAHC010249662014
was no fact of demand of illegal gratification made by
accused No.1.
20. P.W.3 – Dharmalingam, who was working as S.D.A. at
Kadur Taluk Panchayath, stated in his evidence that he
was asked to furnish NAREGA bill register. Accordingly,
he produced the same, which was marked as Ex.P8.
Further, he was asked to bring one shirt for accused No.1
after accused No.1 was trapped and arrested. In the
cross-examination, he stated that the police had not
recorded his statement. He had not stated before the
police that on 24.03.2011, accused No.1 gave the file
pertaining to the NAREGA for scrutiny and he scrutinized
the same on the same day and returned it after putting
the seal of accused No.1.
21. P.W.4 stated that she was working as S.D.A. in Taluk
Panchayath, Kadur. On 19.04.2011, Lokayukta police
had visited the office and conducted a trap and she was
enquired and asked to produce the inward register.
- 16 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:56278
CRL.A No. 482 of 2014
CNR: KAHC010249662014
Accordingly, she produced the same and the same was
marked as Ex.P6.
22. P.W.5 was working as F.D.A. at Taluk Panchayath, Kadur.
He was called by his official superior and asked him to go
to the office of Lokayukta to identify the voice of accused
No.1. Accordingly, he went to the Lokayukta office on
28.01.2012 at about 10.30 a.m. There, the Investigating
Officer, C.W.2, P.W.2 were present and accused No.1 was
also present. A digital voice recorder was played by using
the laptop. He identified the voice of accused No.1.
23. P.W.6 was working as Secretary at Singatagere Grama
Panchayath. According to him, at the time when he took
the charge as per Ex.P23, there was no entry for having
mentioned that the charge had been given to him on
06.04.2011. In the cross-examination, he stated that the
NAREGA file was pending before the Taluk Panchayath
office.
- 17 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:56278
CRL.A No. 482 of 2014
CNR: KAHC010249662014
24. P.W.7 was working as a bill collector at Singatagere
Grama Panchayath. He was asked to produce the ‘To’
register. He produced the same as per Ex.P23.
25. P.W.8 was working as Assistant Engineer at PWD, Kadur.
He prepared the sketch of the scene of occurrence and
submitted the same to Lokayukta as per Ex.P25.
26. P.W.9 was working as a temporary Clerk at Singatagere
Grama Panchayath. He was asked to produce the
attendance register. He produced it as per Ex.P22.
27. P.W.13 was working as the Under Secretary, Education
Department, M.S. Building, Bengaluru, stated to be the
Disciplinary Authority for the Executive Officer of the
Education Department, and he accorded the sanction as
per Ex.P27. There is no dispute in that regard.
Therefore, it need not be dealt with.
28. P.W.14 was working as the CEO of Zilla Panchayath at
Chikmagalur. He accorded sanction to prosecute accused
- 18 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:56278
CRL.A No. 482 of 2014
CNR: KAHC010249662014
No.2 as per Ex.P28. There is no dispute in that regard.
Hence, dealing with the said order is not necessary.
29. Having gone through the evidence of all these witnesses,
P.W.1 no doubt he has turned hostile, before becoming
hostile, in his examination-in-chief, he has narrated that
he had given the amount of Rs.4,000/- to P.W.3, he kept
the same on the table of accused No.1. However, P.W.2
being a shadow witness, stated that P.W.1 handed over
the amount to accused No.1. Accused No.1 counted the
said notes and kept those notes in his shirt pocket. These
two inconsistencies appear to be material in nature.
Moreover, in the evidence of these two witnesses, P.W.1
says that an amount of Rs.4,000/- was given to accused
No.1 along with the file. He further stated that, in his
presence, no voice recorder was played and the said voice
has not been converted to CD. However, P.W.2 stated in
his evidence that, on 28.01.2012, the voice recorder was
played and he heard the said conversation. However, the
entire conversation did not contain any word of demand
for illegal gratification.
- 19 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:56278
CRL.A No. 482 of 2014
CNR: KAHC010249662014
30. On going through the evidence of PWs.1 and 2, it can be
inferred that the prosecution has failed to prove either
demand or acceptance of illegal gratification from the
complainant, which is sine qua non to attract or to
constitute an offence under Sections 7, 13(1)(d) and
13(2) of the PC Act. Therefore, the conviction rendered
against the appellant appears to be not proper. Hence, it
is liable to be set aside.
31. In the light of the observations made above, I proceed to
pass the following:
ORDER
i) The Criminal Appeal is allowed .
ii) The judgment of conviction and order on sentence
dated 10.06.2014 in Special Case (Corruption)
No.45/2012 passed by the Principal Sessions and
Special Judge at Chikmagalur, is set aside.
iii) The accused is acquitted for the offences punishable
under Sections 7, 13(1)(d) r/w 13(2) of the Prevention
of Corruption Act, 1988.
- 20 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:56278
CRL.A No. 482 of 2014
CNR: KAHC010249662014
iv) Bail bonds executed, if any, stand cancelled.
Sd/-
(S RACHAIAH)
JUDGE
Bss
List No.: 1 Sl No.: 83