State of Karnataka v. Nagesh - Taxpublishers.in

SUBSCRIBE FOR FULL CONTENT


The Tax Publishers 2025 TaxPub(CL) 878 (SC) IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA BELA M. TRIVEDI And PRASANNA B. VARALE, JJ. State of Karnataka v. Nagesh Criminal Appeal No. 773 of 2013 16 April, 2025 Appellant by: V. N. Raghupathy, AOR Raghavendra M. Kulkarni, Adv Respondent by: Anand Sanjay M Nuli, Sr. Adv. (Not Present ) M/S. Nuli & Nuli, AOR Mr. Dharam Singh, Adv JUDGMENT *Prasanna B. Varale, J.* The present criminal appeal arises out of a judgement and order dated 9-3-2012 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 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) read with section 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 24-1-1995, 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 3-4-1995, 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. 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 7-4-1995. 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 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. SUBSCRIBE FOR FULL CONTENT

The Tax Publishers 2025 TaxPub(CL) 878 (SC)

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

BELA M. TRIVEDI And PRASANNA B. VARALE, JJ.

State of Karnataka v. Nagesh

Criminal Appeal No. 773 of 2013

16 April, 2025

Appellant by: V. N. Raghupathy, AOR Raghavendra M. Kulkarni, Adv

Respondent by: Anand Sanjay M Nuli, Sr. Adv. (Not Present ) M/S. Nuli & Nuli, AOR Mr. Dharam Singh, Adv

JUDGMENT

Prasanna B. Varale, J.

The present criminal appeal arises out of a judgement and order dated 9-3-2012 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 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) read with section 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 24-1-1995, 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 3-4-1995, 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. 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 7-4-1995. 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 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.