2025 INSC 492 1

NON-REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 773 OF 2013

STATE OF KARNATAKA ……. APPELLANT (S)

VERSUS

NAGESH …….RESPONDENT(S)

J U D G M E N T

PRASANNA B. VARALE, J.

1. The present criminal appeal arises out of a judgement and

order dated 09.03.2012 passed by High Court of Karnataka,

Circuit Bench at Dharwad in Crl. Appeal No. 1290/2006. By the

impugned judgment and order, the conviction rendered by the trial

court to undergo R.I. for one year and pay fine of Rs. 500/-, and

2

in default of payment of fine, to further undergo S.I. for one month

under Section 7 of the P.C. Act, 1988 and to undergo R.I. for one

year and pay fine of Rs. 500/-, and in default of payment of fine,

to further undergo S.I. for one month, for the offences under

Section 13(1)(d) r/w S.13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act,

1988 (hereinafter, ‘P.C. Act’) was reversed and an acquittal order

was passed by the High Court.

BRIEF FACTS

2. The factual matrix of the case is that on 24.01.1995, the

complainant gave an application to the tahsildar, Belgaum

requesting change of mutation entries in the Revenue Records in

respect of certain agricultural lands which had fallen to his share

in partition between himself and his brothers. After some time,

complainant met the accused who was working as Village

Accountant in Kadoli and enquired about his application. The

accused informed that he had not received his application.

Allegedly, the accused asked the complainant to file another

application. Accordingly, on 03.04.1995, he submitted a new

application (Ex.P.18). At that time, allegedly, the accused asked for

Rs.2,000/- as bribe for attending his work. Since, his inability to

pay Rs.2,000/- was expressed, they initially agreed for Rs.

3

1,500/-. Further, when he was unable to pay Rs.1,500/- at once,

it was agreed that Rs. 1000/- would be paid immediately and

balance Rs.500/- would be paid after the competition of work. He

told the Respondent-Accused that he would come back in 4 days

with the money. PW.1 was not willing to pay the bribe as demanded

by the accused. Subsequently, P.W.1/Complainant filed

Complaint (Ex.P.1) before the Lokayukta, DSP, Belgaum on

07.04.1995. FIR in Crime No.6/1995 was registered and steps

were taken to lay a trap.

3. As a prelude to the trap, Entrustment Mahazar (Pre-trap

Panchnama) was drawn as per Ex.P.3. 10 notes of Rs.100/-

denomination smeared in Phenolphthalein powder was given to

P.W.1/Complainant and he was accompanied by P.W.2. All of

them went to the office of the Respondent/Accused at about 12.30

PM. P.W.1 and 2 went inside while others were waiting outside.

They asked Respondent- Accused if he had brought the money.

P.W.1/Complainant replied in affirmative. But the Respondent/

Accused demanded Rs.500/-. The same was given and was

accepted by the Respondent/ Accused with his left hand and kept

the same in his pants pocket. Other notes were retained by P.W.1.

Thereafter, P.W.1 signalled and others came inside. Left hand

4

fingers of the Respondent/Accused were washed in Sodium

Carbonate Solution and the same turned pink. On the right hand,

there was no change in colour. The number on the currency notes

were tallied with the Entrustment Mahazar.

4. Charge sheet was filed against the accused for offences

punishable under Section 7, 13(1)(d) read with S.13(2) of the P.C.

Act. Special Case (PC) No.97/1996 was registered.

5. The Trial Court vide its judgement and order dated

14.06.2006 convicted the accused to undergo R.I. for one year and

pay fine of Rs. 500/-, and in default of payment of fine, to further

undergo S.I. for one month under Section 7 of the P.C. Act, 1988

and to undergo R.I. for one year and pay fine of Rs. 500/-, and in

default of payment of fine, to further undergo S.I. for one month,

for the offence under 13(1)(d) r/w S.13(2) of the P.C. Act.

6. On appreciation of evidence in record, the High Court vide its

judgement dated 09.03.2012, acquitted the appellant accused of

all the charges levelled against him. Special Case (PC) No.97/1996

was set aside as the court was of the opinion that the finding

recorded by the learned Sessions Judge regarding evidence of

PWs.1 and 2 establishing the demand and acceptance of the bribe

by the accused, is highly perverse.

5

7. Aggrieved by the said judgement of the High Court, the

appellant is before us.

CONTENTIONS

8. The Learned Counsel for the State of Karnataka vehemently

submitted that the reasons given by the trial court, while passing

the judgment of conviction are on the basis of evidence on record

and without giving scope for contrary view and are not liable for

setting aside, only on the basis of minor contradictions pointed out

by the Appellate Court and which will not go to the root of the case.

It was submitted that only one stray sentence in the evidence of

PW.1 to the effect that right hand wash has not shown any change

of colour and thereby doubting the evidence of PW.1 is not proper.

The Learned Counsel for the appellant also submitted that the

importance of Sections 20 of the P.C. Act is not properly

appreciated. It was also submitted that the bribe money of M.O.2

recovered from the possession of the accused under trap mahazar

Ex.P.2, clearly proves that the accused had accepted the bribe -

money and though he had stated in Ex.P.8 that the money was

forcibly kept in his pocket, but the same was denied by the

complainant and shadow witness and the presumption has been

raised as contemplated under Section 20 of the P.C. Act. Learned

6

Counsel for the state further submitted that the Ex.P.2 trap

mahazar clearly discloses numbers of currency notes recovered

from the possession of the accused and also number of currency

notes of Rs. 500/- which remained with the complainant was

separately mentioned and it was also mentioned that the said

money was returned to the complainant. Hence, the impugned

judgment is liable to be set aside.

9. Per contra, Learned counsel for the accused argued that the

Complainant in this case had suppressed material facts in his

complaint and has not been very truthful about the incidents that

have taken place. It was also submitted that the two statements

of PW1 and PW2 are completely different from one another which

not only indicates the suspicious nature of the complaint, but also

shows that the complaint is false. Learned Counsel for the accused

submitted that there is no acceptable evidence to substantiate the

claim of PW 1 that he filed an application to the accused on

03.04.1995, where according to the complainant, the demand for

bribe money was made and hence, the complaint submitted by the

Complainant has no firm standing and is based on extremely

flimsy evidence. The High Court on appreciation of evidence

allowing the Criminal Appeal No. 1290/2006 and thereby,

7

acquitting the accused is legal and correct in doing so and the

appeal of the appellant needs to be set aside.

ANALYSIS

10. Heard Learned Counsel for the appellant as well as Ld.

Counsel for the respondent. We have also perused relevant

documents on record and the judgment passed by the High Court.

11. The High Court vide its judgement dated. 09.03.12 acquitted

the respondent-accused while observing as under:

“7. …Ex.P18 is a copy of the application filed by

PW.1 to the Tahsildar. In any case, he could not

have met the accused on 03.04.1995 in this

regard. Therefore, there is serious doubt about

the alleged demand made by the accused for

the bribe on 03.04.1995 or on any subsequent

dates. Therefore, in the absence of any such

evidence and in the light of the fact that the

application to the Tahsildar was filed only on

06.04.1995, the whole case of the complainant

in this regard is highly unbelievable and it is

highly unsafe to place utmost confidence on this

part of the evidence of PW.1….

8. …it is highly unnatural that the accused

would ask for only Rs.500/- as against

Rs.1000/-…

9. …Thus, according to the evidence of PW.1,

accused had not handled the marked currency

notes by his right hand. However, according to

PW.2, the accused handed over the marked

currency notes by both the hands and when the

8

fingers of both hands were washed separately

in sodium carbonate solution, the solution

turned into pink colour indicating handling of

marked currency notes by both hands.

According to PW.2, the police seized the pant

and marked with the help of a ball point pen on

the right side pant pocket of the accused

indicating that the money had been kept in the

right pocket of the pant. P.W-2 has also not

stated whether or not the inner lining of the pant

pocket was washed. Thus there is no

consistency in the evidence of PWs. 1 and 2 with

regard to handling of marked currency notes by

the accused and as to in which side of the

pocket of the pant the marked currency notes

had been kept...

..This creates great amount of doubt as to the

acceptance of the marked currency notes by the

accused.

…However, the witness again stated that PW-1

told him about the accused keeping the currency

notes in the left side pant pocket... Therefore,

the possibility of the currency notes which were

in possession of PW.1 having been seized

cannot be ruled out. In any case the evidence of

PWs.1 and 2 with regard to the acceptance of

bribe by the accused is not consistent and

cogent and their testimony in this regard is

highly unrealiable. ..Therefore, I am of the

considered opinion that the finding recorded by

the learned Sessions Judge that evidence of

PWs.1 and 2 establishes the demand and

acceptance of the bribe by the accused, is highly

perverse...

10. …In the case on hand, the oral evidence on

record does not satisfactorily establish either

the demand or acceptance of bribe by the

9

accused. Therefore, Section 20 of the Act has no

application to the facts of the case.”

12. At the outset, we are of the opinion that the learned Trial

Court, on appreciation of the evidence got before it by the

prosecution, arrived at just and proper conclusion that the

prosecution proved its case against the accused beyond reasonable

doubt and accordingly awarded the sentence and conviction to the

accused. We are of the opinion further that the High Court

committed serious error in setting aside the well-reasoned

judgment passed by the learned Trial Judge on erroneous grounds.

13. Dealing with a charge under Section 7 of the P.C. Act, this

Court in the case of C.K. Damodaran Nair v. Government of

India

1 has observed that the prosecution is required to prove that:

(i) The accused was a public servant at the material time;

(ii) The accused accepted or obtained a gratification other

than legal remuneration; and

(iii) The gratification was for illegal purpose.

1

(1997) 9 SCC 477

10

Applying these legal principles to the facts at hand, we are of

the opinion that these ingredients have clearly been established by

the prosecution in the present case.

14. The High Court gave an undue importance to the minor

discrepancies and failed to appreciate the trust-worthy evidence in

the form of ocular testimony of the witnesses as well as the

documentary evidence. PW1/Complainant in his testimony before

the court gave a detailed account establishing the basic and

important facts such as the demand and acceptance of bribe by

the accused. PW1 makes a reference to his first application

seeking the entry in the revenue records. The said application was

secured in the process of investigation and in the part of the

documentary evidence namely Ex. P22. This application was

submitted to the office of Tehsildar as there was no action on the

said application. When PW1/complainant met with the accused,

the accused responded to the complainant initially by stating that

he had not received the application, then the application – Ex. P18

was submitted. The accused then asked for the bribe amount and

with this demand the accused stated that if PW1 complainant pays

the amount of bribe, he will do the needful. For this obligation the

accused made a demand for Rs. 1500/- and when the PW1

11

complainant expressed his inability to pay an amount of Rs.

1500/-, the accused stated that he should pay at least Rs. 500/-.

As the complainant was not willing to pay the bribe amount he

approached a Lokayukt Police. It may not be necessary to refer to

the facts again in detail as reference is already made to these facts

in earlier part of this judgment. Perusal of the testimony of PW1,

shows that though there is a little departure in his testimony

prompting the Special Public Prosecutor to declare the witness as

hostile but in our opinion, the limited part of the version of this

witness in respect of the date of submitting the application this

minor departure is not sufficient to discard the other detailed and

reliable version of the witness in so far as the demand and

acceptance of the accused is concerned. PW1 stated before the

court that on 07.04.1995 at 12.20 PM he along with PW 2 (Shadow

Witness) approached the accused. He further stated in clear words

about the demand as well as acceptance of the bribe amount of Rs.

500/- with a rider that the complainant would pay the balance

bribe amount of Rs. 1000/- after the work is over. Then he stated

about giving the signal to raiding party and the raiding party

approaching the accused.

12

15. It is also noteworthy that, Ex. 22 dated 24.01.1995 is a joint

application filed by PW1 and his brother to effect mutation in the

revenue records as per their partition deed (vatani patra). This

application is in Marathi language, which is part of the record that

the learned Trial Judge as well as PW4 was well-conversant with

Marathi and incidentally one of us are also conversant and can

read and write in Marathi language. We have also perused the said

Ex. 22.

16. The Trial Court appreciated the evidence of PW1 in great

detail. However, the High Court observed that there are

discrepancies in the evidence of PW 1 and evidence of PW 1 shows

that on washing by phenolphthalein, only one hand i.e. right-hand

fingers of the accused, the colour got changed to pink colour. The

High Court made observations that there is no material on record

to support the prosecution case and particularly version of PW 1

that the accused after accepting the money i.e. Rs. 500/- kept the

notes in his pant pocket. Now, these observations of the High

Court are not in consonance with the evidence which is well

appreciated by the Trial Court. The learned Trial Judge while

appreciating the evidence, particularly oral evidence, makes a

detailed reference to the oral testimony of PW 2 who is the Shadow

13

Witness. As per the version of PW 2 the accused accepted the bribe

of Rs. 500/-, counted the bribe amount and then kept the money

in his pant pockets. PW2 stated before the court “the police

washed both the hand fingers of accused in washing soda solution

of white colour, and thereafter it changed to kempu gulabi colour

and it was seized separately in 2 bottles. He further stated before

the Court that the police also seized the accused pant and marked

the right pocket by ball pen”. This witness was subjected to

detailed cross – examination and the witness stood firm, thus, the

High Court totally ignored the version of PW 2 (Shadow Witness)

and erroneously observed that the prosecution failed to establish

the demand in so far as the prosecution failed to show that colour

of the solution from both the hands did not change and further the

accused kept the bribe amount in his pant pockets.

17. The High Court observed that the version of PW 1 is doubtful

as PW1 stated in the complaint, as well as, before the Court that

he had filed an application before the Tehsildar two months prior

to 07.04.1995, whereas there was an application submitted to the

Tehsildar only on 06.04.1995 and as such the version of PW1 that

he met with the accused on 03.04.1995 is doubtful. Now, on

perusal of the record clearly shows that even before the application

14

dated 06.04.1995, an earlier application (Ex 22) was already

submitted by PW1 and the same was collected during the course

of investigation and the Investigating Officer in his testimony

stated about collecting this application in course of investigation.

18. Another very important factum which missed the attention of

the High Court is that the incident took place in the year 1995, the

trial got delayed and after span of 10 years the witnesses were

subjected to their ocular testimony before the Court. PW 1 was

examined on 24.03.2005, PW 2 was examined on 22.08.2005 and

the other witnesses were examined in the year 2006. In view of

this fact, it can safely be said that the long span would certainly

result in some minor discrepancies in the version of the witness

particularly PW1 who is the rustic villager. The High Court ought

to have seen that these were some minor discrepancies and they

were not of such a nature so as to discard the other version of the

witnesses, particularly PW1 and PW2, which are truthful and

reliable.

19. The learned Trial Judge rightly made observation by

referring to this fact in the following words:

“The court is of the view that the trap is dated 07.04.1995

and PW1 is examined before the court on 24.03.2005 i.e.

almost after 10 years. Hence, possibility of lapse of

15

memory regarding the names of panchas and the date of

trap cannot be ruled out”.

20. PW2 gave a detailed account in his examination in chief and

also in his cross examination he re-affirmed that the accused

accepted the money, counted it and kept it in his pocket. The

trouser of the accused was seized and another trouser was

provided to the accused by police. PW 4 also supported the version

of PW 1 and PW2, particularly about the trap. It may also be noted

that though the aspect of grant of sanction was not seriously taken

up by the appellant before the High Court nor did the High Court

refer to the same, but the Trial Court dealt in detail with the fact

of sanction also by making reference to the oral evidence and the

documentary evidence and arrived at the conclusion that there

was a proper sanction in the matter supporting the case of

prosecution.

21. The other oral testimonies namely testimony of PW3, PW 4,

PW 5 and PW 6 also support the case of prosecution. The High

Court gave undue weightage to some confusion about the name of

PW2 and PW4 in the version of PW1 /complainant but as stated

above, the witnesses were subjected to testimony after 10 years

and PW 2 and PW 4 had no earlier acquaintance with the

16

complainant, as such some confusion in names of witness is

possible and thus, it is not sufficient to discard the version of PW

1 on this minor discrepancy alone.

22. It may not be necessary for us to refer to the version of other

witnesses in detail. Suffice to say that the Trial Court appreciated

this evidence in detail and accepted the same as the reliable

evidence in support of the prosecution by assigning the just and

cogent reasons.

23. Considering all these aspects, we are of the opinion that that

the prosecution proved its case against the accused beyond the

reasonable doubt and the charges against the accused namely

under Section 7,13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of P.C. Act are

proved so as to hold the accused guilty of these offences.

24. On the contrary, the High Court committed the serious error

in setting aside the judgment of the Trial Court. Needless to state

that in this situation the appeal needs to be allowed. In so far as,

the sentence awarded the accused is concerned the learned Senior

Counsel Mr. Nuli appearing for the respondent-accused attempt to

submit before this Court that as the incident is of the year 1995

and by passage of time now the accused in his advanced age, this

court may consider reducing the quantum of sentence. Somewhat

17

similar submission was made before the Trial Court that some

leniency be shown to the accused while awarding sentence and the

learned Trial judge in Para. 67 and 68 dealt with this aspect of

sentence in following words:

“67) In this case, the accused is convicted for the offence

under Sec. 7 and Sec. 13(1) (d) read with Sec. 13 (2) of

P.C.Act 1988. As per Sec 7 of the P.C. Act, the punishment

provided is imprisonment which shall be not less than six

months but which may extend to five years, and shall

also be liable to fine. Further, Section 13 (2) of said Act

provides that any public servant who commits criminal is

conduct shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term

which shall be not less than one year but which may

extend to seven years, and shall also be liable to fine.

68) So, considering the facts and circumstances of the

case in hand, I feel that if the accused is sentenced to

undergo R.l. for one year pay fine of Rs. 500/-, and in

default of payment of fine to further undergo S.l. for one

month, for the offence under Sec. 7 of the P.C. Act, it will

meet the ends of justice. Likewise, if the accused is

sentenced to undergo R.l for one year and pay fine of Rs.

500/-,and in default of payment of fine to further undergo

S.l. for one month, for the offence under Sec. 13(1) (d) r/w

Sec 13(2) of the P.C.Act, 1988, it will meet the ends of

justice.”

25. The record indicates that the respondent- accused enjoyed a

liberty during the trial as he was on bail and post the judgment of

the Trial Court as also during the pendency of the appeal before

the High court, he was enjoying the liberty by way of bail. As

such, we are unable to show any kind of indulgence on the aspect

18

of the quantum of sentence and accordingly, the conviction and

sentence recorded by the Trial Court is upheld. Resultantly, the

accused is to surrender before the Trial Court within two weeks

from today.

26. Consequently, this appeal is allowed and disposed of in terms

of the aforesaid observations.

27. Pending application(s), if any, shall also be disposed of

accordingly.

...............................J.

[BELA M. TRIVEDI]

….............................J.

[PRASANNA B. VARALE]

NEW DELHI;

APRIL 16, 2025.