LexSTATE OF LOKAYUKTHA POLICE, DAVANAGERE versus C B NAGARAJ
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
[2025] 5 S.C.R. 1037 : 2025 INSC 736 State of Lokayuktha Police, Davanagere1 v. C B Nagaraj (Criminal Appeal No. 1157 of 2015) 19 May 2025 [Pankaj Mithal and Ahsanuddin Amanullah,* JJ.] Issue for Consideration Issue arose as regards the correctness of the order passed by the High Court setting aside the order of conviction of the respondent u/ss.7, 13(1)(d), 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 for the demand of illegal gratification. Headnotes† Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 – ss.7, 13(1)(d), 13(2) – Demand of illegal gratification – Complainant-teacher applied for a validity certificate and for the grant of the same, spot inspection report had to be prepared by the respondent- officer in Taluka Panchayath – Case of the complainant that respondent demanded illegal gratification to submit the report, and the same day the respondent received illegal gratification from the complainant, and thereafter tainted currency notes recovered from the possession of the respondent – Trial court convicted and sentenced the respondent u/ss.7, 13(1)(d), 13(2) – High Court set aside order – Interference: Held: Not called for – Only the version of complainant himself can be said to have some basis with regard to the demand of bribe – Deposition of the prosecution witness being not very coherent and slightly self-contradictory, the benefit thereof has to flow to respondent – For deposition of complainant to be taken as fully reliable and made the sole basis to convict respondent, it would require greater scrutiny apropos its veracity and reliability – Till the date when respondent had conducted the physical/spot inspection, not even a whisper of there being any demand of bribe – Prosecution case itself makes it clear that respondent had informed complainant that he had already forwarded the concerned 1 Be read as ‘State by Lokayuktha Police’. * Author 1038 [2025] 5 S.C.R. Supreme Court Reports file – Thus, there was no occasion for complainant to go ahead with paying the amount after the work for which the bribe was purportedly sought, had already been done – Observation of the High Court correct that just because money changed hands it cannot be ipso facto presumed that the same was pursuant to a demand, for the law requires that for conviction under the Act, an entire chain beginning from demand, acceptance, and recovery has to be completed – When initial demand itself is suspicious, even if two other components can be held to be proved, the chain would not be complete – Testimony of complainant does not inspire confidence, his conduct sufficient to render his testimony unreliable – Thus, since factum of demand itself not been proved beyond reasonable doubt, the acquittal of respondent cannot be termed perverse or unwarranted – Impugned judgment upheld. [Paras 23-28] Case Law Cited State of Karnataka v. Chandrasha [2024] 11 SCR 1321 : 2024 SCC OnLine SC 3469; Md. Rahim Ali v. State of Assam [2024] 7 SCR 2329 : 2024 SCC OnLine SC 1695; Jay Kishan v. State of U.P. [2025] 3 SCR 65 : 2025 SCC OnLine SC 296; Paritala Sudhakar v. State of Telangana, 2025 SCC OnLine SC 1072; Yadwinder Singh v. Lakhi, 2025 SCC OnLine SC 686 – referred to. List of Acts Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. List of Keywords Bribe; Illegal gratification; Unreliable testimony; Extension officer; Spot inspection report; Phenolphthalein-smeared currency notes; Sodium carbonate solution turned pink; Demand, acceptance and recovery; Factum of demand; Demand of illegal gratification; Validity certificate; Tainted currency notes. Case Arising From CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal No. 1157 of 2015 From the Judgment and Order dated 09.07.2013 of the High Court of Karnataka at Bangalore in CRLA No. 12 of 2012 [2025] 5 S.C.R. 1039 State of Lokayuktha Police, Davanagere v. C B Nagaraj Appearances for Parties Adv. for the Appellant: D. L. Chidananda. Advs. for the Respondent: Dr. Joseph Aristotle S., Sr. Adv., Ms. Priya Aristotle, Ashish Yadav, Ms. Anagha S. Desai. Judgment / Order of the Supreme Court Judgment Ahsanuddin Amanullah, J. This appeal assails the Final Judgment and Order of a learned Single Judge of the High Court of Karnataka (hereinafter referred to as the ‘High Court’) dated 09.07.2013 rendered in Criminal Appeal No.12/2012 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Impugned Judgment’) [2013 SCC OnLine Kar 5293], whereby the High Court set aside the Judgment and Order of convict
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.