Read Time: 09 minutes

Synopsis

The Supreme Court, in its judgment dated April 16, 2025, allowed appeal filed by the Karnataka government against the 2012 High Court judgement which had set aside conviction and sentence of one year rigorous imprisonment on a government servant under the Prevention of Corruption Act for seeking bribe to alter revenue records.

The Top Court opined that the High Court ought to have seen that there were some minor discrepancies and they were not of such a nature so as to discard the other version of the witnesses, particularly PW1, the complainant, a rustic villager and PW2, the shadow witness, which are truthful and reliable.  

A bench of Justices Bela M Trivedi and Prasanna B Varale said the 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 Trial Judge on erroneous grounds. 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," the bench said.

The bench cited C K Damodaran Nair Vs Government of India (1997), wherein this court 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.  

"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," the bench added.

The Court noted the High Court gave 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.        

Brief Background

Respondent-accused Nagesh was held guilty and sentenced to one year jail term by the trial court in 2006. An FIR was registered against him on April 7, 1995 on a complaint that he demanded a bribe of Rs 1500 for change of mutation entries in revenue records. He was thereby arrested in a trap laid by the Lokayukta police. 

The High Court, however, acquitted the accused of all the charges levelled against him, holding that the finding recorded by the Sessions Judge regarding evidence establishing the demand and acceptance of the bribe by the accused, was highly perverse.

The complainant stated before the court that on April 07, 1995 at 12.20 PM he along with a 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 approached the accused.

The High Court, however, made observations that there is no material on record to support the prosecution case and particularly version of the complainant that the accused after accepting the money i.e. Rs. 500 kept the notes in his pants pocket. It was further observed that the version of the complainant is doubtful as the complainant stated in the complaint, as well as, before the Court that he had filed an application before the Tehsildar two months prior to April 07, 1995, whereas there was an application submitted to the Tehsildar only on April 06, 1995 and as such his version that he met with the accused on April 03, 1995 is doubtful.     

The court also said the High Court gave undue weightage to some confusion about the name of PW2 and PW4 in the version of PW1 /complainant but the witnesses were subjected to testimony after 10 years and PW 2 and PW 4 had no earlier acquaintance with the 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.

"We are of the opinion 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 PC Act are proved so as to hold the accused guilty of these offences," the Top Court conclusively said. 

Case Title: State of Karnataka v. Nagesh