- 1 -

HC-KAR

NC: 2026:KHC:504

CRL.RP No. 1272 of 2025

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

DATED THIS THE 6

TH

DAY OF JANUARY, 2026

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI V HOSMANI

CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO. 1272 OF 2025

BETWEEN:

MANJUNATHA

S/O.LATE PAPABHOVI

AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS,

PDO, KULUVANAHALLI GRAMA

BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT

PANCHAYATH,

NELAMANGALA TALUK

R/AT 1086, SHANTI NIVAS,

MUDDINAPALYA,

NAGARABHAVI,

BENGALURU-560 072.

…PETITIONER

[BY SRI RAMAKRISHNA A.V., ADVOCATE (PH)]

AND:

STATE BY ACB POLICE,

NOW STATE BY LOKAYUKTA POLICE

REPT. BY SPECIAL PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,

M.S.BUILDING,

BENGALURU - 560 001.

…RESPONDENT

[BY SRI B.S.PRASAD, ADVOCATE (PH)]

THIS CRL.RP IS FILED U/S.397 R/W 401 CR.P.C., PRAY ING TO

TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 09.04.2025 PASSED BY I X

ADDL.DIST. AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BENGALURU RURAL DIST RICT,

BENGALURU IN SPL.CASE NO.565/2023 AS PER ANNEXURE-A

CONSEQUENTLY ALLOW THE APPLICATION FILED U/S 227 OF CRPC

AS PER ANNEXURE B AND DISCHARGE THE PETITIONER FROM THE

CHARGE SHEETED OFFENCE P/U/S 7(a) OF PREVENTION OF

CORRUPTION (AMENDMENT) ACT 2018.

THIS PETITION IS HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED FOR

ORDERS ON 20.11.2025, THIS DAY, THE COURT, PRONOUNC ED THE

FOLLOWING:

- 2 -

HC-KAR

NC: 2026:KHC:504

CRL.RP No. 1272 of 2025

CAV ORDER

Challenging order dated 09.04.2025 passed by IX Ad dl.

District and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru Rural Distri ct,

Bengaluru, in SPL.C.no.565/2023, rejecting applicat ion for

discharge, this revision petition is filed.

2.

Sri AV Ramakrishna, learned counsel for petitioner

(accused) submitted, prosecution was initiated agai nst

petitioner - accused for offences punishable under Section 7(a)

read with Section 13(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 2018

('POCA', for short) after registration of Crime no.12/2019

registered on 22.10.2019 by Anti-Corruption Bureau,

Bengaluru, ('ACB', for short). It was submitted, same was on a

complaint dated 22.10.2019 filed by one Raju BH, alleging that

all required documents for transfer of E-khata of s ite

no.171/719 situated at Kuluvanahalli, measuring 30 X 40

Sq.fts. to his sister's name after death of her husband, were

submitted, but there was no action. And when compla inant

along with his brother L.K. Arasu met accused - Pan chayat

Development Officer of Kuluvanahalli, ( ‘PDO’, for short),

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI V HOSMANI

- 3 -

HC-KAR

NC: 2026:KHC:504

CRL.RP No. 1272 of 2025

accused demanded Rs.1 Lakh for registration of E-khata, which

he later reduced to Rs.80,000/- of which Rs.40,000/- was to be

paid at time of Survey sketch and Rs.40,000/- on re gistration

of E-khata. It was alleged, said conversation was recorded by

L.K. Arasu on his Samsung Galaxy A6 mobile phone an d

accused reiterated demand in telephonic conversation with L.K.

Arasu on 17.10.2019, which was also recorded. Unwil ling to

pay bribe, recorded conversation was transferred onto a CD at

computer centre and complaint lodged, which was registered as

Crime no.12/2019. And on 23.10.2019, accused was tr apped

with bribe amount of Rs.40,000/- in his Car, in pre sence of

complainant and two witnesses. Thereafter investiga tion was

completed and Charge-sheet filed.

3.

It was submitted, as charge-sheet was filed without

basis, accused filed application for discharge under Section 227

of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, ( ‘CrPC’, for short). In

application, it was contended complainant and L.K. Arasu were

inimical to accused and filed false complaint. Complainant had

not disclosed name of computer centre where recordi ng of

conversation was transferred onto CD and complaint was silent

- 4 -

HC-KAR

NC: 2026:KHC:504

CRL.RP No. 1272 of 2025

of handing over of CD to Police. It was also contended, accused

was only issuing authority of E-khata and it was Ex ecutive

Officer, who was approving authority indicating entire allegation

of demand of bribe was an afterthought and false. It was also

contended omission by prosecution to disclose proce ss of

transfer of recorded conversation onto CD, investig ation of

technician who carried out such transfer as well as delay of

three years to disclose said particulars were violative of Section

45 of Evidence Act, casting them under grave doubt.

4.

Apart from above, it was also contended that

accused had given sufficient and proper reply stating that on

23.10.2019, when he was at Gorguntepalya for calcul ation of

tax and he was busy with calculation, complainant a nd L.K.

Arasu entered his Car. And when he was in conversat ion with

someone on his mobile phone, they kept something on

dashboard which was not preceded with any demand. B esides,

transfer of E-khata was already completed and there was no

pendency of any work to support demand. It was furt her

contended, there was seizure of 20 currency notes o f

Rs.2,000/- denomination each, which were sealed after drawing

- 5 -

HC-KAR

NC: 2026:KHC:504

CRL.RP No. 1272 of 2025

mahazar. Strangely, on 30.10.2019 Investigating Off icer filed

application for rectification of serial numbers of 3 currency

notes mentioned in pre-trap mahazar, trap mahazar a nd PF

no.20/2019 insofar as Article no.4 by considering s erial

numbers mentioned in Column no.4 in table contained in

application instead of those mentioned in Column no.3.

5.

It was submitted, said request not only cast entire

prosecution on grave doubt, but was also attempt to fill-up

lacuna, impermissible in law. It was alleged L.K. Arasu was not

concerned with complainant or Smt.Lakshmidevi and w as a

Politician/Contractor, who had enmity with accused. It was

submitted, only reason assigned by Special Court for rejection

of application was that accused was got red-handed and bribe

amount recovered from him, that Investigating Offic er along

with charge-sheet had produced pre-trap mahazar, tr ap

mahazar, conversation containing demand for bribe a nd

explanation given by accused, along with charge-she et,

veracity of which could be decided only in trial an d that

prosecution had established prima-facie case against accused.

It was submitted, mere making observations would no t meet

- 6 -

HC-KAR

NC: 2026:KHC:504

CRL.RP No. 1272 of 2025

requirements of law as Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of State

through Central Bureau of Investigation v. Dr.Anup

Kumar Srivastava, reported in 2017 (15) SCC 560 , had held

a duty was cast on Courts while framing of charge to apply its

mind to evidence placed before it and consider poss ibility of

discharging accused. Reliance was also placed on de cision in

Yogesh Alias Sachin Jagadish Joshi v. State of

Maharashtra, reported in (2008) 10 SCC 394 , for

proposition that phrase ‘not sufficient ground for proceeding

against accused’, would enable discharge of accused even in

cases where two views are possible and prosecution material

gave rise to only suspicion against accused for hav ing

committed offence as against grave suspicion which would

necessitate trial.

6.

It was submitted, to sustain prosecution for offence

under Section 7(a) read with Section 13(2) of POCA,

prosecution would required to establish demand as w ell as

receipt of bribe. Demand was sought to be establish ed based

on CD containing recording of conversation between

complainant and accused but, without mentioning particulars of

- 7 -

HC-KAR

NC: 2026:KHC:504

CRL.RP No. 1272 of 2025

recording of conversation. Secondly, there was no m aterial to

substantiate acceptance as even according to prosec ution,

money was kept in a cover on dashboard of Car and t hirdly,

filing of application for rectification of serial numbers of

currency notes in pre-trap and trap mahazars after their

seizure and production in Court in sealed cover, in addition to

rejection of application of discharge on bare reaso ning that

there was prima-facie material without application of mind to

prosecution material, as being contrary to law. On above

grounds, sought for allowing revision.

7.

On other hand, Sri B.S. Prasad, learned counsel for

respondent – State opposed petition. It was submitted, charge

against accused was demand and receipt of illegal gratification

supported by written complaint along with CD of con versation

between complainant and accused substantiating dema nd of

illegal gratification and corroborated by pre-trap and trap

mahazars as well as FSL Report that voice in CD mat ched that

of accused. It was submitted, trap mahazar recorded recovery

of marked currency notes from dashboard of Car belo nging to

accused. It was submitted, at time of consideration of

- 8 -

HC-KAR

NC: 2026:KHC:504

CRL.RP No. 1272 of 2025

application for discharge, Special Court was not re quired to

decide on quality of evidence, but only to examine existence of

prima-facie case to sustain prosecution. It was submitted, at

this stage, accused cannot take advantage of application filed

for rectification of charge-sheet as appropriate st age to

consider legality of explanation are need for rectification would

arise only after trial.

8. To buttress contention about non-pendency of work

for which alleged demand was made, learned counsel relied on

ratio in State of Karnataka v. Chandrasha, reported in

2024:INSC:928

. On above grounds, sought for dismissal of

revision petition.

9.

Heard learned counsel, perused impugned order,

Charge Sheet and appended documents made available by

learned counsel for parties.

10.

This revision petition is by accused challenging

order rejecting application for discharge. At outset, it would be

appropriate to refer to decisions laying down law r egarding

- 9 -

HC-KAR

NC: 2026:KHC:504

CRL.RP No. 1272 of 2025

consideration fo application for discharge and scop e for

interference by Revisional Court against said orders.

11. Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of State of

T.N. v. N. Suresh Rajan reported in 2014 (11) SCC 709

held:

“29. … At this stage, probative value of the materials

has to be gone into and the court is not expected

to go deep into the matter and hold that the

materials would not warrant a conviction. In our

opinion, what needs to be considered is whether

there is a ground for presuming that the offence

has been committed and not whether a ground for

convicting the accused has been made out. To put

it differently, if the court thinks that the

accused might have committed the offence

on the basis of the materials on record on its

probative value, it can frame the charge ;

though for conviction, the court has to come to the

conclusion that the accused has committed the

offence. The law does not permit a mini trial at

this stage.”

(Emphasis supplied)

12.

In CBI v. Aryan Singh reported in 2023 SCC

OnLine SC 379 also it is held:

“10. As per the cardinal principle of law, at the stage

of

discharge and/or quashing of the criminal

proceedings, while exercising the powers under

Section 482 Cr. P.C., the Court is not required to

conduct the mini trial.

At the stage of

discharge and/or while exercising

the powers under Section 482 Cr. P.C., the Court

has a very limited jurisdiction and is required to

- 10 -

HC-KAR

NC: 2026:KHC:504

CRL.RP No. 1272 of 2025

consider “whether any sufficient material is

available to proceed further against the

accused for which the accused is required to

be tried or not”.

(Emphasis supplied)

13.

In State of Gujarat v. Dilipsinh Kishorsinh Rao ,

reported in (2023) 17 SCC 688 , it is held:

“7. It is trite law that application of judicial mind

being necessary to determine whether a case has

been made out by the prosecution for proceeding

with trial and it would not be necessary to dwell

into the pros and cons of the matter by examining

the defence of the accused when an application for

discharge is filed. At that stage, the trial Judge has

to merely examine the evidence placed by the

prosecution in order to determine whether or not

the grounds are sufficient to proceed against the

accused on basis of charge-sheet material. The

nature of the evidence recorded or collected by

the investigating agency or the documents

produced in which prima facie it reveals that there

are suspicious circumstances against the accused,

so as to frame a charge would suffice and such

material would be taken into account for the

purposes of framing the charge. If there is no

sufficient ground for proceeding against the

accused necessarily, the accused would be

discharged, but if the court is of the opinion, after

such consideration of the material there are

grounds for presuming that the accused has

committed the offence which is triable, then

necessarily charge has to be framed.

8. At the time of framing of the charge and taking

cognizance the accused has no right to produce

any material and call upon the court to examine

the same. No provision in the Code grants any

right to the accused to file any material or

document at the stage of framing of charge. The

trial court has to apply its judicial mind to the

- 11 -

HC-KAR

NC: 2026:KHC:504

CRL.RP No. 1272 of 2025

facts of the case as may be necessary to

determine whether a case has been made out by

the prosecution for trial on the basis of charge-

sheet material only.

9. If the accused is able to demonstrate from the

charge-sheet material at the stage of framing the

charge which might drastically affect the very

sustainability of the case, it is unfair to suggest

that such material should not be considered or

ignored by the court at that stage. The main

intention of granting a chance to the accused of

making submissions as envisaged under Section

227CrPC is to assist the court to determine

whether it is required to proceed to conduct the

trial. Nothing in the Code limits the ambit of such

hearing, to oral hearing and oral arguments only

and therefore, the trial court can consider the

material produced by the accused before the IO.

10. It is settled principle of law that at the stage of

considering an application for discharge the court

must proceed on an assumption that the material

which has been brought on record by the

prosecution is true and evaluate said material in

order to determine whether the facts emerging

from the material taken on its face value, disclose

the existence of the ingredients necessary of the

offence alleged.

11. This Court in State of T.N. v. N. Suresh

Rajan [State of T.N. v. N. Suresh Rajan, (2014) 11

SCC 709: (2014) 3 SCC (Cri) 529: (2014) 2 SCC

(L&S) 721] adverting to the earlier propositions of

law laid down on this subject has held: (SCC pp.

721-22, para 29)

“29. We have bestowed our consideration

to the rival submissions and the

submissions made by Mr Ranjit Kumar

commend us. True it is that at the time of

consideration of the applications for

discharge, the court cannot act as a

mouthpiece of the prosecution or act as a

post office and may sift evidence in order

- 12 -

HC-KAR

NC: 2026:KHC:504

CRL.RP No. 1272 of 2025

to find out whether or not the allegations

made are groundless so as to pass an

order of discharge. It is trite that at the

stage of consideration of an application for

discharge, the court has to proceed with

an assumption that the materials brought

on record by the prosecution are true and

evaluate the said materials and documents

with a view to find out whether the facts

emerging therefrom taken at their face

value disclose the existence of all the

ingredients constituting the alleged

offence. At this stage, probative value of

the materials has to be gone into and the

court is not expected to go deep into the

matter and hold that the materials would

not warrant a conviction. In our opinion,

what needs to be considered is whether

there is a ground for presuming that the

offence has been committed and not

whether a ground for convicting the

accused has been made out. To put it

differently, if the court thinks that the

accused might have committed the offence

on the basis of the materials on record on

its probative value, it can frame the

charge; though for conviction, the court

has to come to the conclusion that the

accused has committed the offence. The

law does not permit a mini trial at this

stage.”

12. The defence of the accused is not to be looked into

at the stage when the accused seeks to be

discharged. The expression “the record of the

case” used in Section 227CrPC is to be understood

as the documents and articles, if any, produced by

the prosecution. The Code does not give any right

to the accused to produce any document at the

stage of framing of the charge. The submission of

the accused is to be confined to the material

produced by the investigating agency.

13. The primary consideration at the stage of framing

of charge is the test of existence of a prima facie

- 13 -

HC-KAR

NC: 2026:KHC:504

CRL.RP No. 1272 of 2025

case, and at this stage, the probative value of

materials on record need not be gone into. This

Court by referring to its earlier decisions in State

of Maharashtra v. Som Nath Thapa [State of

Maharashtra v. Som Nath Thapa, (1996) 4 SCC

659: 1996 SCC (Cri) 820] and State of

M.P. v. Mohanlal Soni [State of M.P. v. Mohanlal

Soni, (2000) 6 SCC 338: 2000 SCC (Cri) 1110]

has held the nature of evaluation to be made by

the court at the stage of framing of the charge is

to test the existence of prima facie case. It is also

held at the stage of framing of charge, the court

has to form a presumptive opinion to the

existence of factual ingredients constituting the

offence alleged and it is not expected to go deep

into probative value of the material on record and

to check whether the material on record would

certainly lead to conviction at the conclusion of

trial.

14. The power and jurisdiction of the Higher Court

under Section 397CrPC which vests the court with

the power to call for and examine records of an

inferior court is for the purposes of satisfying itself

as to the legality and regularities of any

proceeding or order made in a case. The object of

this provision is to set right a patent defect or an

error of jurisdiction or law or the perversity which

has crept in such proceedings.

15. It would be apposite to refer to the judgment o f

this Court in Amit Kapoor v. Ramesh

Chander [Amit Kapoor v. Ramesh Chander, (2012)

9 SCC 460 : (2012) 4 SCC (Civ) 687 : (2013) 1

SCC (Cri) 986], where scope of Section 397 has

been considered and succinctly explained as under

: (SCC p. 475, paras 12-13)

“12. Section 397 of the Code vests the

court with the power to call for and

examine the records of an inferior court for

the purposes of satisfying itself as to the

legality and regularity of any proceedings

or order made in a case. The object of this

provision is to set right a patent defect or

- 14 -

HC-KAR

NC: 2026:KHC:504

CRL.RP No. 1272 of 2025

an error of jurisdiction or law. There has to

be a well-founded error and it may not be

appropriate for the court to scrutinise the

orders, which upon the face of it bears a

token of careful consideration and appear

to be in accordance with law. If one looks

into the various judgments of this Court, it

emerges that the revisional jurisdiction can

be invoked where the decisions under

challenge are grossly erroneous, there is

no compliance with the provisions of law,

the finding recorded is based on no

evidence, material evidence is ignored or

judicial discretion is exercised arbitrarily or

perversely. These are not exhaustive

classes, but are merely indicative. Each

case would have to be determined on its

own merits.

13. Another well-accepted norm is that the

revisional jurisdiction of the higher court is

a very limited one and cannot be exercised

in a routine manner. One of the inbuilt

restrictions is that it should not be against

an interim or interlocutory order. The

Court has to keep in mind that the exercise

of revisional jurisdiction itself should not

lead to injustice ex facie. Where the Court

is dealing with the question as to whether

the charge has been framed properly and

in accordance with law in a given case, it

may be reluctant to interfere in exercise of

its revisional jurisdiction unless the case

substantially falls within the categories

aforestated. Even framing of charge is a

much advanced stage in the proceedings

under CrPC.”

16. This Court in the aforesaid judgment in Amit

Kapoor case [Amit Kapoor v. Ramesh Chander,

(2012) 9 SCC 460 : (2012) 4 SCC (Civ) 687 :

(2013) 1 SCC (Cri) 986] has also laid down

principles to be considered for exercise of

jurisdiction under Section 397 particularly in the

context of prayer for quashing of charge framed

- 15 -

HC-KAR

NC: 2026:KHC:504

CRL.RP No. 1272 of 2025

under Section 228CrPC is sought for as under :

(Amit Kapoor case [Amit Kapoor v. Ramesh

Chander, (2012) 9 SCC 460 : (2012) 4 SCC (Civ)

687 : (2013) 1 SCC (Cri) 986] , SCC pp. 482-83,

para 27)

“27. Having discussed the scope of

jurisdiction under these two provisions i.e.

Section 397 and Section 482 of the Code

and the fine line of jurisdictional

distinction, now it will be appropriate for us

to enlist the principles with reference to

which the courts should exercise such

jurisdiction. However, it is not only difficult

but is inherently impossible to state with

precision such principles. At best and upon

objective analysis of various judgments of

this Court, we are able to cull out some of

the principles to be considered for proper

exercise of jurisdiction, particularly, with

regard to quashing of charge either in

exercise of jurisdiction under Section 397

or Section 482 of the Code or together, as

the case may be:

27.1. Though there are no limits of the

powers of the Court under Section 482 of

the Code but the more the power, the

more due care and caution is to be

exercised in invoking these powers. The

power of quashing criminal proceedings,

particularly, the charge framed in terms of

Section 228 of the Code should be

exercised very sparingly and with

circumspection and that too in the rarest

of rare cases.

27.2. The Court should apply the test as to

whether the uncontroverted allegations as

made from the record of the case and the

documents submitted therewith prima

facie establish the offence or not. If the

allegations are so patently absurd and

inherently improbable that no prudent

person can ever reach such a conclusion

- 16 -

HC-KAR

NC: 2026:KHC:504

CRL.RP No. 1272 of 2025

and where the basic ingredients of a

criminal offence are not satisfied then the

Court may interfere.

27.3. The High Court should not unduly

interfere. No meticulous examination of

the evidence is needed for considering

whether the case would end in conviction

or not at the stage of framing of charge or

quashing of charge.

***

27.9. Another very significant caution that

the courts have to observe is that it cannot

examine the facts, evidence and materials

on record to determine whether there is

sufficient material on the basis of which

the case would end in a conviction; the

court is concerned primarily with the

allegations taken as a whole whether they

will constitute an offence and, if so, is it an

abuse of the process of court leading to

injustice.

***

27.13. Quashing of a charge is an

exception to the rule of continuous

prosecution. Where the offence is even

broadly satisfied, the Court should be more

inclined to permit continuation of

prosecution rather than its quashing at

that initial stage. The Court is not expected

to marshal the records with a view to

decide admissibility and reliability of the

documents or records but is an opinion

formed prima facie.”

14. Accused herein is charged with offences punishable

under Section 7 (a) read with Section 13 (2) of PoCA. Hon'ble

- 17 -

HC-KAR

NC: 2026:KHC:504

CRL.RP No. 1272 of 2025

Supreme Court in case of N. Vijayakumar v. State of T.N.,

reported in (2021) 3 SCC 687, held:

“26. It is equally well settled that mere recovery by

itself cannot prove the charge of the prosecution

against the accused. Reference can be made to

the judgments of this Court in C.M. Girish

Babu v. CBI [C.M. Girish Babu v. CBI, (2009) 3

SCC 779 : (2009) 2 SCC (Cri) 1] and in B.

Jayaraj v. State of A.P. [B. Jayaraj v. State of

A.P., (2014) 13 SCC 55 : (2014) 5 SCC (Cri) 543]

In the aforesaid judgments of this Court while

considering the case under Sections 7, 13(1)(d)(i)

and (ii) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988

it is reiterated that to prove the charge, it has to

be proved beyond reasonable doubt that the

accused voluntarily accepted money knowing it to

be bribe. Absence of proof of demand for illegal

gratification and mere possession or recovery of

currency notes is not sufficient to constitute such

offence. In the said judgments it is also held that

even the presumption under Section 20 of the Act

can be drawn only after demand for and

acceptance of illegal gratification is proved. It is

also fairly well settled that initial presumption of

innocence in the criminal jurisprudence gets

doubled by acquittal recorded by the trial court.

27. The relevant paras 7, 8 and 9 of the judgment in B.

Jayaraj [B. Jayaraj v. State of A.P., (2014) 13 SCC

55 : (2014) 5 SCC (Cri) 543] read as under : (SCC

pp. 58-59)

“7. Insofar as the offence under Section 7

is concerned, it is a settled position in law

that demand of illegal gratification is sine

qua non to constitute the said offence and

mere recovery of currency notes cannot

constitute the offence under Section 7

unless it is proved beyond all reasonable

doubt that the accused voluntarily

accepted the money knowing it to be a

bribe. The above position has been

succinctly laid down in several judgments

of this Court. By way of illustration,

- 18 -

HC-KAR

NC: 2026:KHC:504

CRL.RP No. 1272 of 2025

reference may be made to the decision

in C.M. Sharma v. State of A.P. [C.M.

Sharma v. State of A.P., (2010) 15 SCC 1:

(2013) 2 SCC (Cri) 89] and C.M. Girish

Babu v. CBI [C.M. Girish Babu v. CBI,

(2009) 3 SCC 779: (2009) 2 SCC (Cri) 1].

8. In the present case, the complainant did

not support the prosecution case insofar as

demand by the accused is concerned. The

prosecution has not examined any other

witness, present at the time when the

money was allegedly handed over to the

accused by the complainant, to prove that

the same was pursuant to any demand

made by the accused. When the

complainant himself had disowned what he

had stated in the initial complaint (Ext. P-

11) before LW 9, and there is no other

evidence to prove that the accused had

made any demand, the evidence of PW 1

and the contents of Ext. P-11 cannot be

relied upon to come to the conclusion that

the above material furnishes proof of the

demand allegedly made by the accused.

We are, therefore, inclined to hold that the

learned trial court as well as the High

Court was not correct in holding the

demand alleged to be made by the

accused as proved. The only other material

available is the recovery of the tainted

currency notes from the possession of the

accused. In fact such possession is

admitted by the accused himself. Mere

possession and recovery of the currency

notes from the accused without proof of

demand will not bring home the offence

under Section 7. The above also will be

conclusive insofar as the offence under

Sections 13(1)(d)(i) and (ii) is concerned

as 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

- 19 -

HC-KAR

NC: 2026:KHC:504

CRL.RP No. 1272 of 2025

or pecuniary advantage cannot be held to

be established.

9. Insofar as the presumption permissible

to be drawn under Section 20 of the Act is

concerned, such presumption can only be

in respect of the offence under Section 7

and not the offences under Sections

13(1)(d)(i) and (ii) of the Act. In any

event, it is only on proof of acceptance of

illegal gratification that presumption can

be drawn under Section 20 of the Act that

such gratification was received for doing or

forbearing to do any official act. Proof of

acceptance of illegal gratification can follow

only if there is proof of demand. As the

same is lacking in the present case the

primary facts on the basis of which the

legal presumption under Section 20 can be

drawn are wholly absent.”

The above said view taken by this Court

fully supports the case of the appellant. In

view of the contradictions noticed by us

above in the depositions of key witnesses

examined on behalf of the prosecution, we

are of the view that the demand for and

acceptance of bribe amount and cellphone

by the appellant, is not proved beyond

reasonable doubt. Having regard to such

evidence on record the acquittal recorded

by the trial court is a “possible view” as

such the judgment [State of T.N. v. N.

Vijayakumar, 2020 SCC OnLine Mad 7098]

of the High Court is fit to be set aside.

Before recording conviction under the

provisions of the Prevention of Corruption

Act, the courts have to take utmost care in

scanning the evidence. Once conviction is

recorded under the provisions of the

Prevention of Corruption Act, it casts a

social stigma on the person in the society

apart from serious consequences on the

service rendered. At the same time it is

also to be noted that whether the view

- 20 -

HC-KAR

NC: 2026:KHC:504

CRL.RP No. 1272 of 2025

taken by the trial court is a possible view

or not, there cannot be any definite

proposition and each case has to be

judged on its own merits, having regard to

evidence on record.”

15. From above, while it would be justified to contend

that prosecution would required to substantiate both demand

and acceptance to sustain charge under Section 7 (a) of POCA,

Hon'ble Supreme Court in Dilipsinh Kishorsinh Rao ’s case

(supra), reiterated that at time of consideration of application

for discharge, trial Court would require to proceed on premise

that material brought on record by prosecution is t rue and

evaluate same to determine whether facts emerging from same

when taken on face value, disclose existence of ing redients

necessary for offence alleged.

16.

Perusal of Charge-Sheet reveals, prosecution is

relying on contents of complaint, CD containing con versation

between complainant and accused containing demand f or bribe,

FSL certificate that voice in recording matches with that of

accused, complainant’s statement, statement of LK A rasu as

well as two government officials who were trap witn esses to

sustain charge of demand as well as acceptance. As observed

- 21 -

HC-KAR

NC: 2026:KHC:504

CRL.RP No. 1272 of 2025

by trial Court, said material would be prima facie supply

ingredients for sustaining prosecution for charges alleged.

Indeed, as held in N. Vijayakumar ’s case (supra), mere

recovery would not be sufficient, and it has to be established by

prosecution that accused with knowledge that said m oney was

given as bribe accepted it, but such evaluation can be done

only after conclusion of trial.

17.

And as rightly contended by learned counsel for

respondent, it is held in Chandrasha’s case (supra), non-

ppendency of work for which bribe was demanded woul d not be

a ground to escape conviction. Likewise, even application for

correction filed by prosecution would not be sufficient to scuttle

prosecution. Acceptability of explanation offered for same could

be tested only after trial. At stage of considerati on of

application for discharge, trial Court would not re quire to

conduct mini trial but sift through prosecution material and if

on probative evaluation of same, prima facie case f or

prosecution is indicated, application for discharge would not

sustain. Except, a clarification that any observations made in

impugned order or this order, would not prejudice a ny

- 22 -

HC-KAR

NC: 2026:KHC:504

CRL.RP No. 1272 of 2025

contention of accused during trial, accused herein would not be

entitled for any other relief.

18. Wherefore, with observations as above, revision

petition is dismissed as devoid of merit.

Sd/-

(RAVI V HOSMANI)

JUDGE

GRD

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 72