High Court Ignored Shadow Witness's Version That Village Accountant Counted Bribe Amount & Kept It: Supreme Court Upholds Conviction In 30-Year-Old Corruption Case

The Criminal Appeal before the Apex Court was filed agaisnt the judgment of the Karnataka High Court whereby the judgment of conviction rendered by the Trial Court under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 was reversed and an acquittal order was passed by the High Court.

The Division Bench comprising Justice Bela M. Trivedi and Justice Prasanna B. Varale explained, “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 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.”

AOR V. N. Raghupathy represented the Appellant while Senior Advocate Anand Sanjay M Nuli represented the Respondent.

Factual Background

The incident dates back to the year 1995 when the complainant gave an application to the tahsildar, Belgaum, requesting a 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. The complainant- PW 1 met the accused who was working as Village Accountant in Kadoli and enquired about his application.

Allegedly, the accused asked the complainant to file another application, and when he did the same, the accused allegedly asked for Rs 2,000 as a bribe for attending to his work. Since, PW.1 was not willing to pay the bribe as demanded by the accused, he filed a Complaint before the Lokayukta, DSP, Belgaum. A trap was laid and Rs 500 was given and accepted by the Respondent/ Accused with his left hand, and the same was kept in his pants pocket. A 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 was registered.

The Trial Court convicted the accused to undergo R.I. for one year and pay fine of Rs 500 under Section 7 and to undergo R.I. for one year and pay fine of Rs. 500 for the offence under 13(1)(d) read with S.13(2) of the P.C. Act. The High Court noted that the finding of the Sessions Judge regarding evidence establishing the demand and acceptance of the bribe by the accused, was highly perverse. Aggrieved by the said judgement of the High Court, the appellant approached the Apex Court.

Reasoning

On a perusal of the facts of the case, the Bench noted that the Trial Court, on appreciation of the evidence, arrived at a just and proper conclusion that the prosecution proved its case against the accused beyond a 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”, it said.

Reference was made to the judgment in C.K. Damodaran Nair v. Government of India (1997) wherein it has been observed that the prosecution is required to prove that the accused was a public servant at the material time, he accepted or obtained a gratification other than legal remuneration; and the gratification was for illegal purpose. Applying the said principles, the Bench held that these ingredients were clearly established by the prosecution in the present case.

“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”, it said.

It was noticed that 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. However, the High Court totally ignored the version of the Shadow Witness and erroneously observed that the prosecution failed to establish the demand insofar as the prosecution failed to show that the colour of the solution from both the hands did not change and further the accused kept the bribe amount in his pant pockets

As per the Bench, another very important factum which had escaped the attention of the High Court was that the incident took place in the year 1995, the trial got delayed, and after 10 years, the witnesses were subjected to their ocular testimony before the Court. “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”, it added.

Considering the fact that the prosecution proved its case against the accused beyond reasonable doubt and the charges against the accused namely under Section 7,13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of P.C. Act were proved to hold the accused guilty of these offence, the Bench said, “...the High Court committed the serious error in setting aside the judgment of the Trial Court.”

Allowing the appeal and upholding the conviction and quantum of sentence recorded by the Trial Court, the Bench asked the accused to surrender before the Trial Court.

Cause Title: State of Karnataka v. Nagesh (Neutral Citation: 2025 INSC 492)

Appearance:

Appellnat: AOR V. N. Raghupathy, Advocate Raghavendra M. Kulkarni

Respondent: Senior Advocate Anand Sanjay M Nuli, M/S. Nuli & Nuli, AOR, Advocate Dharam Singh,

Click here to read/download Judgment