The High Court
Case Details
1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 4TH DAY OF MARCH, 2025 BEFORE THE HON’BLE Mr. JUSTICE SHIVASHANKAR AMARANNAVAR CRIMINAL APPEAL No.1828/2019 … Appellant BETWEEN : State of Karnataka Represented by Police Inspector Karnataka Lokayuktha Bengaluru – 560 001. (By Sri Venkatesh S Arabatti, Advocate) AND : 1. Sri C J Prabhakar Son of Sri Jogi Gowda Aged about 34 years Sub Registrar Rajarajeshwarinagara – 560 098. Resident of No.8, 18th ‘A’ Cross Arogya Nilaya, Hebbala, Kempapura Bengaluru – 560 024. 2. Sri G Chandrappa @ Chandregowda Son of Sri Javaregowda Aged about 51 years Digitally signed by ASHPAK KASHIMSA MALAGALADINNI Location: High Court of Karnataka, Dharwad Bench, Dharwad 2 Thimmasandra Village Lalaghatta Post, Channapattana Taluk Ramanagara District – 562 159. 3. Sri Nataraj Son of Sri Narasimhaiah Aged about 40 years Second Division Assistant Office of the Sub Registrar Rajarajeshwarinagara Bengaluru - 560 098. Resident of No.347/1, 2nd Main Jagajyothinagara Layout, Mariyappanapalya Bengaluru – 560 021. … Respondents (By Sri P P Hegde, Senior Counsel for Sri Sangamesh R B, Advocate for R1 V/o dtd. 27.02.2025, appeal against R2 abated. Sri K R Srinivasa, Advocate for R3) This Appeal is filed under Section378(1) and (3) Cr.P.C praying to grant leave to file the appeal against the judgment and order of acquittal by the judgment dated 09.02.20218 passed by the court of the LXXVII Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, (PCA) Bengaluru in Spl. C.C.No.134/2011 and etc., This Criminal appeal having been heard and reserved for Judgment, this day, Shivashankar Amarannavar J, delivered the following; 3 JUDGMENT 1. This appeal is filed by the Karnataka Lokayukta Police, Bengaluru challenging the judgment of acquittal dated 09.02.2018 passed in Spl.C.No.134/2011 by the LXXVIII Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge and Special Judge(PCA), Bengaluru, whereunder respondents have been acquitted for offences punishable under Sections 7, 8, 13(1)(d) read with 13 (2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as “P.C. Act” for brevity) and Sections 201 and 120-B of Indian Penal Code (hereinafter referred to as “IPC” for brevity). 2. The brief facts of prosecution case are as under: The complainant – K.M. Manjunath (P.W.1) has given a complaint on 30.12.2010 before the Lokayukta 4 Police stating that he is working as Registration Assistant with an advocate in Sri Vinayaka Enterprises and is assisting parties in registering documents and on 23.12.2010, Rafiq Ahmed came to him and has informed that a sale deed of property purchased by his father-in-law –Chand Pasha is to be registered and on the same day, the sale deed was registered in the office of Sub-Registrar, Raja Rajeshwarinagara, Bengaluru. At that time, accused No.1 who was the Sub-Registrar, called the complainant and asked him to pay Rs.30,000/-. The complainant informed Rafiq Ahmed about the demand by accused No.1, but Rafiq Ahmed was not ready to give the amount. Accused No.1 asked complainant to somehow arrange the amount and told that if amount is not paid, he knows what to do when he again brings documents for registration in future. Thereafter, on 27.12.2010, when 5 the complainant met accused No.1, he again demanded amount and complainant by promising to pay the amount, took the sale deed and gave it to Rafiq Ahmed. Thereafter, accused No.1 contacted complainant over phone and demanded the bribe amount. Again on 29.12.2010, accused No.1 called complainant and demanded bribe and conversation has been recorded and on the same day evening accused No.2 – Chandrappa who is a private person assisting in the office of the Sub-Registrar has called the complainant and asked him to pay amount and this conversation is also recorded. With these averments, the complainant has given complaint to the Lokayukta Police Inspector along with C.D. containing recorded conversation and after registering complaint in Crime
Legal Reasoning
No.70/2010, the Lokayuktha Police have sent FIR to the Court. Lokayukta Police by securing two panchas 6 conducted pre-trap proceedings and on the same day made arrangements to trap the accused. The trap was laid, trap procedure has been followed and trap mahazar was drawn. After completion of investigation and after obtaining sanction to prosecute accused Nos.1 and 3 from the competent authority, charge sheet has been filed against accused Nos.1 to 3 for offences punishable under Sections 7, 8, 13(1)(d) read with 13 (2) of the P.C. Act and Sections 201 and 120 – B of IPC. 3. The trial Court took cognizance against accused persons for aforesaid offences. The trial Court has framed charges for the aforesaid offences. In order to prove charges, the prosecution has examined eleven witnesses as P.W.1 to P.W.11, got marked documents as Ex.P.1 to Ex.P. 35 and material objects as M.O. 1 to M.O. 24. Ex.D1 and Ex.D2 are two photos got marked 7 by defence. The statements of accused persons have been recorded under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. Accused No.1 has given his statement in writing and produced documents at the time of recording his statement under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. The learned Special Judge after hearing arguments on both sides has formulated points for consideration and acquitted respondents – accused Nos.1 to 3 by the impugned judgment. The said judgment has been challenged by the Karnataka Lokayukta Police, Bengaluru in this appeal. 4. Heard learned counsel for the appellant, learned Senior Counsel for respondent No.1 and
Legal Reasoning
learned counsel for respondent No.3. Respondent No.2 –accused No.2 who was private person has been reported to be dead and the appeal against him came to be dismissed as abated. 8 5. Learned counsel for the appellant would
Decision
contend that the impugned order is opposed to law and is contrary to the material evidence on record. Learned trial Judge has erred in coming to the conclusion that since the sale deed was already given to P.W.1, there was no work pending with accused No.1. The learned Judge has failed to appreciate that if the illegal gratification is relatable to any official work, pending or otherwise the offence is attracted. On that point he placed reliance on the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Sita Soren Vs Union of India1. The learned trial Judge has erred in coming to the conclusion that the demand for the bribe amount has not been proved by the prosecution on ground that the mobile number stated in the complaint –Ex.P1 does not belong to accused No.1. Learned trial Court has erred 1 Reported in (2024) 5 SCC 629 9 in rejecting transcriptions (Ex.P12 and Ex.P.13) of C.D. on the ground that same are not sent for expert opinion and the source of recording C.D. itself is not properly explained and established. He further contended that learned trial Judge has erred in relying on the judgment of Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Anwar P.V. Vs P.K Basheer and Others2, delivered on 18.09.2014 which has been rendered after filing the charge sheet in this case. As on the date of submission of the charge sheet, the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of State (N.C.T of Delhi) Vs Navjot Sandhu3was applicable. The learned trial Court has failed to appreciate that though demand of bribe amount is proved by evidence of P.W.1, there is no evidence of demand of bribe by accused Nos.1 and 2 on 27.12.2010 and 29.12.2010 by phone which is hair