The State Of Karnataka vs N.T. Anjinappa

This appeal is preferred by the State of Karnataka, represented by the Lokayukta Police, assailing the judgment of acquittal dated 30.07.2018, passed by the learned Principal District and Sessions Judge and Special Judge, Ballari (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Special Court’), in Special Case No.89/2014, whereby the respondent-accused was acquitted of the offences punishable under Section 7 and Section 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (for short, ‘the P.C. Act’).

The case of the prosecution is as under: The complainant lodged a complaint before the Lokayukta Police by alleging that, he owned a house situated in Buda Layout, Ballari City, and had obtained a water connection to his house from the City Municipal Council, Ballari. On 02.02.2013, the water connection to his house was disconnected.

After the appearance of the accused, the charge was framed. The accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. In order to establish its case, the prosecution examined PW.1 to 10 and produced documents as Ex.P1 to P49, along with material objects MO.1 to 10.

After completion of the prosecution evidence, the statement of the accused under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short, ‘Cr.P.C.’), was recorded, wherein the accused denied all the incriminating circumstances appearing against him. In support of his defence, the accused examined two witnesses as DW.1 and DW.2.

The Special Court, after hearing both the parties, proceeded pass the impugned judgment dated 30.07.2018, by acquitting the accused for the offences alleged against him.

Being aggrieved by the judgment of acquittal, the State has preferred the present appeal, on following grounds.

After filing of the appeal, notice was issued to the respondent-accused. The respondent appeared and contested the appeal.

Heard Sri Anil Kale, the learned counsel appearing for the appellant-Lokayukta and Sri Neelendra D. Gunde, learned counsel for the respondent-accused.

The learned counsel for the appellant-Lokayukta has relied upon the following judgment in support of his case:

Neeraj Dutta vs. State (Government of NCT of Delhi), (2023) 4 SCC 731.

The learned counsel for the respondent-accused has relied upon the following judgment in support of his case:

P.Somaraju vs. State of Andhra Pradesh, (2025 SCC Online SC 2291);

Perused the trial Court records and the impugned judgment.

The following point arises for consideration:

Whether the impugned judgment of acquittal passed by the Special Court suffers from any illegality, perversity or material irregularity warranting interference by this Court?

Learned counsel for the appellant argued that, though in the present case, the complainant, who was examined as PW2, has turned hostile to the prosecution case, the accused cannot be acquitted solely on that ground. He further argued that the learned Special Judge ought to have considered the evidence of the shadow witness, who was examined as PW1, as well as the evidence of the Investigating Officer. However, without properly appreciating their evidence, the learned Special Judge, solely on the ground that the complainant had turned hostile, proceeded to acquit the accused, which is erroneous.

Further, learned counsel argued that, as per the reported judgment in the case of Neeraj Dutta vs. State (Government of NCT of Delhi), reported in (2023) 4 SCC 731, wherein it is held that:

Relying upon the ratio laid down in the said judgment, learned counsel for the appellant argued that, in the present case, though the complainant, PW2, has turned hostile, the Special Court ought to have considered the evidence of the other witnesses, whose evidence is creditworthy and corroborated by the evidence of the shadow witness and the Investigating Officer. Therefore, learned counsel for the appellant argued that the Special Court has committed an error in acquitting the accused.

Learned counsel for the respondent/accused argued that, though it is true that, on the basis of the principles of law laid down in the judgment relied upon by the appellant, i.e., in Neeraj Dutta (supra), if the complainant turns hostile, the Court, after considering the creditworthiness of the other witnesses, may proceed to convict the accused, in the present case, the evidence of the other witnesses is also not creditworthy and, therefore, the learned Special Judge has rightly acquitted the accused.

Further, learned counsel argued that the well-settled principles governing interference with an order of acquittal by the Appellate Court have been laid down in the judgment reported in P. Somaraju v. State of Andhra Pradesh, 2025 SCC OnLine SC 2291, wherein it has been held that, if two reasonable conclusions are possible on the basis of the evidence on record, the Appellate Court should not disturb the finding of acquittal recorded by the Trial Court.

Learned counsel further argued that, in the present case, though the independent shadow witness, PW1, has deposed in favour of the prosecution, insofar as the recovery of the tainted currency notes of ₹3,000/- is concerned, nowhere in the evidence is it disclosed that the complainant had given the said sum of ₹3,000/-. On the contrary, it is stated that the Investigating Officer himself had given the said amount of ₹3,000/-.

Further, learned counsel argued that the complainant does not know the Kannada language, whereas the complaint is in the Kannada language. Further, the complaint is not in the handwriting of the complainant and the Investigating Officer himself got the complaint typed. Therefore, it was argued that the complaint is a concocted document.

Further, learned counsel argued that, though the accused admitted that he had received the said tainted currency notes and that the same were recovered from his shirt pocket, he explained that he had received the amount towards the repair work undertaken by him for the complainant. Therefore, learned counsel argued that the prosecution has failed to prove the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt and, hence, the learned Special Judge has rightly acquitted the accused.

After hearing the arguments of both sides, at this stage, for better appreciation of the evidence on record, it is necessary to summarize the particulars of the witnesses examined by the prosecution and the evidence deposed by them.

PW1-Aarogyaswami, who is a mahazar witness, deposed that, on 19.02.2013, the Lokayukta Police called him and introduced him to the complainant, Manjunath Reddy, and informed him about the demand for bribe made by the accused. Six currency notes of ₹500/- denomination were produced by the complainant, and the numbers of the currency notes were noted and marked as Ex.P1. Phenolphthalein powder was smeared on the currency notes and sodium carbonate solution was prepared as per MO2. The hand wash of pancha No.1 was also conducted as per MO3.

PW1 further deposed that the Lokayukta Inspector explained the chemical reaction and that the currency notes were placed in the shirt pocket of pancha No.1. The pre-trap panchanama was prepared, photographs were taken, and a voice recorder was handed over. Thereafter, they proceeded on a motorcycle and, near the petrol bunk situated in Ahvambhavi area, at about 4:30 p.m., the complainant called the accused over the phone. The accused came in front of the petrol bunk and demanded money from the complainant. The complainant paid the money and gave a signal to the Lokayukta Police. Thereafter, the Lokayukta Police came and apprehended the accused, and the tainted currency notes were seized from him. After the formalities, the hand wash of the accused was conducted by dipping his hands in sodium carbonate solution, which turned pink in colour, and his shirt was also seized. After the voice recorder was produced, it was found that the conversation was in Telugu language and contained a demand for money of ₹2,500/- to ₹3,000/-. Thereafter, the conversation in Telugu was translated into Kannada. After completion of all the formalities, the case was registered against the accused. Thus, PW1 has deposed regarding the alleged trap and recovery of the tainted currency notes from the accused.

PW2-Manjunath Reddy is the complainant. As per the prosecution version, the complainant approached the Lokayukta Police and informed them about the demand for bribe made by the accused, and accordingly, all the formalities, including the pre-trap and post-trap mahazars, were completed. However, the complainant turned hostile and deposed that the accused had asked him to supply materials with regard to pipeline repair work and further informed him that, if the materials supplied by him were included in the tender, the complainant would repay the said amount. Therefore, the complainant deposed that the amount of ₹3,000/- paid by him to the accused was not a bribe amount, but was an amount payable to the accused towards the repair work. Thus, PW2 turned hostile to the prosecution version.

PW3 is a Wallman in the Corporation, who deposed regarding the repair work of the pipeline. PW4-Venkatesh, who is a Helper in the Corporation, deposed that he was summoned by the Lokayukta Police to the police station, where the voice recorder was played, and he identified the voice of the accused. PW5-S. Rajendra, Junior Engineer, deposed that the accused was working as a Work Inspector in the KUWS and DB. He further deposed that the Lokayukta Police informed him that the accused had demanded and received ₹3,000/- from the complainant, and he also identified the voice of the accused. PW6-D.R. Ramadas, Executive Engineer, deposed that, pursuant to the request of the Lokayukta Police, he went to the Lokayukta Office and came to know that the accused had demanded and received ₹3,000/- from the complainant. PW7-Ramesh Eshwar Naik, Police Inspector, deposed regarding the collection of call details relating to mobile Nos. 9448992481 and 9901900777, as per Exs.P38 and P39.

PW8-Duryodhan, Chemical Examiner of the FSL, deposed regarding the examination of the articles. PW9-Amlan Aditya Biswas, the then Deputy Commissioner, who was the Administrator of the City Municipal Corporation, Ballari, during the relevant period, deposed that he received information from the Lokayukta Police regarding the arrest of the accused. PW10-Ramesh J., Police Inspector, deposed regarding receipt of the complaint and, after completion of the investigation, including the pre-trap and post-trap mahazars, filed the charge sheet.

The Special Court, on considering the aforesaid evidence and since the complainant himself had turned hostile to the prosecution version, disbelieved the evidence of the other witnesses, including the shadow witness examined as PW1, and consequently acquitted the accused.

The argument of learned counsel for the appellant is that, though PW2, the complainant, turned hostile to the prosecution version by stating that the tainted currency notes were given by him to the accused towards the expenses incurred by the accused in connection with the repair work of the pipeline, the shadow witness, PW1, deposed that the complainant had earlier informed the Lokayukta Police that the accused had demanded a bribe and, accordingly, the pre-trap mahazar was conducted in the presence of the complainant himself. The numbers of the currency notes were also noted on a white sheet, which is marked as Ex.P1.

It is further argued that, during the pre-trap mahazar, photographs were taken as per Exs.P2 to P11, including photographs relating to the handing over of the voice recorder to the complainant. The entrustment of the amount to the pancha witness was also recorded under the mahazar as per Ex.P12. PW1 identified his signature on Ex.P12, and the trap mahazar was conducted as per Ex.P13.

Further, the conversation was reduced into writing as per Ex.P14, wherein there was a clear demand by the accused, insisting that the complainant pay the bribe amount. The explanation letter given by the accused to the Lokayukta Police is marked as Ex.P15. During the trap proceedings, photographs were also taken as per Exs.P16 to P28.

Further, the site photographs, i.e., the place where the pipeline repair work was to be conducted, were taken as per Exs.P29 and P30. A mahazar was also drawn at the said site as per Ex.P31. Further, PW1 identified the voice of the accused, and at that time, a mahazar was drawn as per Ex.P32. The complainant returned the voice recorder to the Lokayukta Police along with the complaint, which is marked as Ex.P33.

On the basis of Ex.P33, the case was registered against the accused under the provisions of the Prevention of Corruption Act, and the further statement of the complainant was recorded on 20.02.2013 as per Ex.P34. The mobile conversation was reduced into writing as per Ex.P37. The call detail records are marked as Ex.P38, and the Chemical Examiner's report is marked as Ex.P40.

Learned counsel for the appellant argued that PW1, the shadow witness, deposed regarding the pre-trap and post-trap mahazars and that all the necessary documents were produced by the prosecution. PW1 and the Investigating Officer have spoken regarding those documents and, though they were cross-examined by the accused, no contrary evidence was elicited from them. The Special Court, without properly appreciating the evidence of PW1 and PW10, erroneously acquitted the accused.

It is further argued that, taking into consideration the evidence of PW1 and PW10, the accused ought to have been convicted. It is also argued that PW2, being the complainant, deliberately did not support the case of the prosecution and that the prosecution had filed an application against PW2 seeking action against him under Section 344 of the Cr.P.C.

The voice recorder was identified by PW1 and the other witnesses examined by the prosecution, who were working in the same department as the accused. Therefore, according to the learned counsel, they clearly identified the voice of the accused, who demanded the bribe from the complainant. The call details, as per Ex.P38, collected by the Investigating Officer, and the chemical analysis report disclose that the accused had received the bribe amount. According to learned counsel, this evidence itself is sufficient to convict the accused. However, the Special Court, without properly appreciating the evidence on record, erroneously acquitted the accused.

Per contra, learned counsel for the accused/respondent argued that the complainant, PW2, does not know the Kannada language. The complaint, Ex.P33, is in the Kannada language, and during the course of his cross-examination, PW2 stated that the accused had not demanded any bribe amount and had only accepted the amount towards the repair of the water pipeline. When the complainant, PW2, approached the Lokayukta Police only with regard to the repair of the water pipeline and sought immediate action, the Lokayukta Inspector told him to lodge a complaint, and the Lokayukta Inspector himself gave him ₹3,000/-. Further, he signed the complaint which had already been typed by the Lokayukta Police.

Learned counsel for the respondent/accused further argued that, as per Ex.P14, i.e., the conversation between the accused and the complainant recorded during the trap, the conversation was in the Telugu language. Further, as per Ex.P37, the telephone conversation was reduced into writing in the Telugu language. Therefore, it is contended that PW1, who is alleged to be a pancha witness, does not know the Telugu language and, consequently, could not have known the contents of Exs.P14 and P37, which contain the conversation between the accused and the complainant.

It is further argued that PW1, who is the shadow witness, has deposed regarding the voice recorder, which contained the alleged demand for money by the accused and which was in the Telugu language. During his cross-examination, PW1 admitted that he does not know the Telugu language.

Therefore, it is the argument of learned counsel for the accused/respondent that, when PW1, being the shadow witness, does not know the Telugu language, the conversation recorded in the voice recorder and the transcripts marked as Exs.P14 and P37, which are in the Telugu language and were not translated into Kannada, could not have been identified or understood by PW1. The prosecution has not explained as to how PW1 could identify or speak about the said conversation. Therefore, it is the argument of learned counsel for the accused/respondent that the Trial Court has rightly appreciated the evidence of PW1 and the other witnesses and found them not trustworthy.

Further, it is argued that, soon after the trap, the accused explained his possession of the said amount of ₹3,000/- by stating that the amount had been received towards the purchase of materials required for attending to the repair work of the pipeline of the complainant's house.

In this case, the accused examined two witnesses in support of his defence. DW1 was a Wallman of the City Corporation, Ballari. He deposed that, after receiving a complaint regarding pipeline repair work, they would visit the site and, after receiving the materials from the Municipal Office, attend to the repairs. DW2, who was a cable operator, similarly deposed that, after receiving an application regarding repair of the pipeline, they would visit the spot and, after the Corporation supplied the materials, attend to the repair work. He further deposed that, in case of an emergency, they would supply materials to the Work Inspector for carrying out immediate repairs. Therefore, it is the contention of the accused that, at the request of the complainant, he supplied the materials and, towards the cost of the said materials, received the sum of ₹3,000/-.

Further, it is the argument of learned counsel for the respondent/accused that, though the complainant, PW2, stated that the accused had not demanded any bribe amount, the Investigating Officer tried to support the prosecution version by stating that the accused had demanded a bribe amount and that he himself had given an amount of ₹3,000/- to the complainant, thereby creating a story that the accused had demanded a bribe. Therefore, it is argued that the prosecution has not produced relevant evidence to prove the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt and that the Trial Court has rightly appreciated the evidence on record and acquitted the accused.

On going through the evidence of the prosecution witnesses and, as discussed in the preceding paragraphs, PW1, the shadow witness, has deposed regarding the trap. However, he does not know the Telugu language, whereas the telephonic conversation was transcribed in the Telugu language. Therefore, there is a discrepancy in his evidence. Further, it has come in the evidence of PW2, the complainant, that, at the relevant time, he had no money and that the Investigating Officer himself had given ₹3,000/- to the complainant.

It is true that, as per the judgment relied upon by learned counsel for the appellant, even if the complainant turns hostile to the prosecution version, the guilt of the accused can be established from the evidence of other witnesses, provided such evidence is corroborated by reliable evidence.

In the present case, there are irregularities and discrepancies in the investigation. First, PW1, the shadow witness, does not know the Telugu language. Further, the tainted currency notes are stated to have been provided by the Investigating Officer himself. Soon after the trap, the accused explained that he had received the amount towards the purchase of materials for carrying out the repair work of the pipeline of the complainant's house, and he gave a written explanation as per Ex.P15. On considering these circumstances and the reasons assigned by the Special Court, it is evident that the Special Court has properly appreciated the evidence on record and has come to the conclusion that the prosecution has failed to establish the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt.

Further, though the judgment relied upon by learned counsel for the respondent makes it clear that the Appellate Court undoubtedly has the power to review and re-appreciate the evidence in an appeal against acquittal under Sections 378 and 386 of the Cr.P.C., in view of the reinforced or double presumption of innocence operating in favour of the accused after acquittal, interference must be exercised with restraint. Further, it has been held that, if two reasonable views are possible on the basis of the evidence on record, the acquittal should not be disturbed.

Thus, on a perusal of the impugned judgment, it is evident that the Special Court has properly appreciated the evidence on record and has arrived at the conclusion that the prosecution has failed to prove the guilt of the accused. Therefore, no interference is warranted, as the view taken by the Trial Court is based on the material evidence on record and there is no perversity, misreading of evidence, or ignoring of material evidence resulting in a manifest miscarriage of justice. The grounds urged by the appellant are devoid of merit and are liable to be rejected. Accordingly, the point for consideration is answered.

In the result, this Court proceeds to pass the following:

The appeal is dismissed.

The impugned judgment of acquittal dated 30.07.2018, passed by the learned Principal District and Sessions Judge and Special Judge, Ballari, in Special Case No.89/2014, is confirmed.

Bail bond and surety bond executed by the accused and the surety stands discharged.

Return the Trial Court Records.