State Of Karnataka vs S Jayakumar - Corruption Case Appeal

## Unlock Advanced Research with PRISM AI

Integrated with over 4 crore judgments and laws — designed for legal practitioners, researchers, students and institutions

• Know your Kanoon - Doc Gen Hub - Counter Argument - Case Predict AI - Talk with IK Doc -... Upgrade to Premium [Cites 15, Cited by 0 ] ### Karnataka High Court

State Of Karnataka vs S Jayakumar on 4 March, 2026

Author: M.G.S. Kamal

Bench: M.G.S. Kamal

-1-
NC: 2026:KHC:13249
CRL.A No. 1130 of 2013

               HC-KAR

                    IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

                        DATED THIS THE 4TH DAY OF MARCH, 2026

                                            BEFORE
                         THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.G.S. KAMAL
                        CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 1130 OF 2013 (A-)
               BETWEEN:

               1.    STATE OF KARNATAKA
                     THROUGH LOKAYUKTA POLICE
                     CHAMARAJANAGAR
                     CHAMARAJANAGAR DISTRICT
                                                                     ...APPELLANT
               (BY SRI.B.S.PRASAD, SPL.P.P., ADVOCATE)

               AND:

               1.    S JAYAKUMAR S/O SIDDAIAH,
                     AGED 41 YEARS
                     II GRADE SURVEYOR, TALUK OFFICE
                     SURVEY DIVISION, GUNDLUPET TALUK

Digitally signed CHAMARAJANAGAR DISTRICT
by ...RESPONDENT
SHARADAVANI
B (BY MS. LENITA MATHAIS, ADVOCATE FOR SRI. P
Location: HIGH PRITHVI KIRAN SETTY, ADVOCATE)
COURT OF
KARNATAKA THIS CRL.A. IS FILED U/S.378(1) AND (3) CR.P.C BY THE
SPL.P.P. FOR THE STATE PRAYING TO GRANT LEAVE TO
APPEAL AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT OF ACQUITTAL DATED
17.6.2013 PASSED BY THE DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE,
CHAMARAJANAGAR DIST. IN SPL. CASE NO.158/2009 -
ACQUITTING THE RESPONDENT/ACCUSED FOR THE OFFENCE
-2-
NC: 2026:KHC:13249
CRL.A No. 1130 of 2013

HC-KAR

P/U/S 7, 13(1)(d)(ii) R/W SEC.13(2) OF THE PREVENTION OF
CORRUPTION ACT, 1988.

  THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR FURTHER HEARING, THIS

DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.G.S. KAMAL

                  ORAL JUDGMENT This appeal is by the State represented by Lokayukta

Police, being aggrieved by the judgment and order dated

17.06.2013 passed in Special Case no.158/2009 on the file of

the District and Sessions Judge at Chamarajanagar, by which

the Trial Court had acquitted the respondent - accused for the

offences punishable under Sections 7, 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 ('Act',

for brevity).

1. Brief facts of the case of the prosecution are that

the complainant, P.W.1, namely, A.V.Channiyappan had

apparently approached the respondent - accused, who was a

Taluk Surveyor, then working in the Survey Department in the

Office of the Tahsildar, Gundlupet, requesting him to have his

land measuring 3 acres 28 guntas bearing Sy.No.23/2 situated -3- NC: 2026:KHC:13249 CRL.A No. 1130 of 2013 HC-KAR

at Managalli village, Gundlupete Taluk, surveyed and to have

the encroachment by the neighbours removed enabling him to

have the ingress and aggress and to carry his agricultural

produce. That the accused went on postponing the same.

Finally the accused had informed him that it was difficult to

have the land surveyed as the neighbours would create galata

and had instructed the complainant to seek police help.

Accordingly, complainant had given a complaint to Gundlupet

police and had taken the police protection for the purpose of

surveying the land. Though the police had come near the land,

the accused did not measure the land and expressed his

inability to do same. The accused had asked the complainant

to approach the Civil Court assuring that he would furnish a

sketch copy.

1. That on 28.02.2008 complainant went to the office

of the accused and requested him to furnish a survey sketch to

which he demanded a sum of Rs.2,000/-, the complainant

informed the accused that he would bring cash on the next day

and would give it to him. That on the very same day evening,

he went to Lokayukta office, Chamarajanagar, where Lokayukta -4- NC: 2026:KHC:13249 CRL.A No. 1130 of 2013 HC-KAR

Police Inspector - P.W.4 (C.W.18) was present, on complainant

explaining the event that transpired between him and accused,

P.W.4 - Police Inspector, asked him to come to office on the

next day with the cash of Rs.2,000/-, that on confirmation of

the demand for bribe made by the accused, on the following

day on 29.02.2008 at about 7.15 a.m., the complainant went

to the office of Lokayuktha police, Chamarajanagar, and lodged

a written complaint through a person.

1. P.W.4 secured one Lingaraju - P.W.2 and one

Marimuthu-P.W.3 to the office of Lokayuktha. That the

complainant had handed over cash of Rs.2,000/- of

denomination of Rs.500/- notes to P.W.4-Police Inspector.

P.W.4 introduced P.Ws.2 and 3 to the complainant that they

would be accompanying him to Gundlupet. Thereafter P.W.4

gave the said notes to P.Ws.2 and 3 and dictated currency

notes number and P.W.2 recorded the said numbers. Some

powder was smeared on the said notes and thereafter P.W.2

kept the said currency notes in the shirt pocket of the

complainant and told him not to touch the said currency notes

and to go to the accused office and if the accused demands -5- NC: 2026:KHC:13249 CRL.A No. 1130 of 2013 HC-KAR

payment of the bribe to hand over the said amount. He was

further instructed if the accused accepted the bribe amount to

give a signal by wiping his hair.

1. That about 9.15 a.m., complainant along with

P.Ws.2 to 4 and his other staff went in a jeep to Gundlupet,

complainant along with P.W.3, as instructed, went inside the

office of accused at about 10.30 to 10.45 a.m., there were

many persons standing near the accused, as such complainant

waited for 10-15 minutes, so that the said persons would go

away. Before entering the office complainant had switched on

the voice recorder. After all the persons moved away, he asked

the accused whether the sketch copy was ready, accused told

that he would prepare sketch copy and asked him if he had

brought the bribe amount to which he responded in positive

and then he handed over the said cash to the accused taking

out from his shirt pocket, accused counted the same and kept

the same in the right side pocket of his pants. When the

complainant asked for the sketch copy, he was informed to

come after some time. Thereafter, complainant and P.W.3

went near the place, where P.W.4 and others were waiting -6- NC: 2026:KHC:13249 CRL.A No. 1130 of 2013 HC-KAR

outside and he gave a signal by wiping his hair. Thereafter

P.W.4 and his staff and P.W.2 came to the office of the

accused, complainant and P.W.3 took the police and showed

the accused and told them of he receiving the bribe amount.

Accused, on questioning by P.W.8, admitted to have received

the cash from the complainant. P.W.4 secured two glasses of

water and a solution was prepared by putting powder and both

the hands of the accused were dipped into the said solution,

which turned into pink colour. The accused thereafter removed

the cash from his pants pocket and produced before the Police.

On comparison, the number of the notes were the same as was

prepared earlier, the police prepared the mahazar and the

complainant handed over the voice recorder of the police.

1. Based on the above, a chargesheet was filed, trial

was conducted, prosecution examined 7 witnesses as P.Ws.1 to

7 and got marked 18 documents as Exs.P-1 to P-18. One

B.R.Umesh Kumar has been examined as D.W.1 on behalf of

defence and 24 documents have been marked as Exs.D-1 to D-

24; 9 material objects have been marked as M.Os.1 to 9. -7-

NC: 2026:KHC:13249 CRL.A No. 1130 of 2013 HC-KAR

1. The Trial Court on appreciation of evidence, has

framed the following points for consideration and answered

points no.1 and 2 in the negative and consequently passed the

impugned judgment and order acquitting the accused of the

aforesaid offences:

1. Whether the prosecution has obtained valid
   sanction for prosecuting the accused, for the
   offences alleged against him, as required?

2. Whether the prosecution proves beyond all
   reasonable doubt that the accused being a public
   servant, working as Grade II Surveyor in the Survey
   Section of Taluk Offices, at Gundlupet,
   Chamarajanagar District, on 29.02.2008, at 12
   noon, he demanded and accepted illegal gratification
   of A.V.Chinniappan for doing an official act i.e., for
   issuing the sketch copy of the way leading to
   S.No.23/2 of Managalli village, belonging to the
   complainant; and the accused, being a public
   servant, committed criminal misconduct by making
   such demand and accepting pecuniary advantage for
   himself in the form of illegal gratification or bribe, as
   a motive for doing an official act, other than legal
   remuneration and thereby, he committed the
   offences punishable under Sections 7, 13(1)(d) r/w.
   Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act,
   1988?

1. What Order?

2.  Being aggrieved by the impugned judgment and
   

order, the State is before this Court.

-8-

NC: 2026:KHC:13249 CRL.A No. 1130 of 2013 HC-KAR

1. Learned Special Public Prosecutor taking this Court

through the records submitted that the trial Court has not

appreciated the material evidence placed on record. If the trial

Court had appreciated the evidence in proper perspective, no

other opinion could have been formed other than proving the

guilt of accused resulting in his conviction.

1. It is further submitted that the Trial Court has failed

to appreciate the fact that the amount of bribe was recovered

in the presence of the witnesses and the process of the trap

laid by P.W.4 was beyond any doubt. Since the amount is

recovered from the possession of the accused, which is

preceded by a demand for bribe for furnishing a survey sketch,

which had remained unchallenged, the Trial Court ought not to

have acquitted the accused. Even if there were to be any

discrepancies or omissions, the Trial Court ought to have taken

the circumstantial evidence for the consideration which has not

been done. He submits that P.Ws.2 and 3 have withstood the

test of cross-examination and had supported the case of

prosecution. Even if a shadow witness P.W.3 has not spoken

about he being present at the time of demand and receipt of -9- NC: 2026:KHC:13249 CRL.A No. 1130 of 2013 HC-KAR

bribery amount, the same cannot take away the core of the

prosecution case. Such minor discrepancy should not go to the

roof of the matter resulting in accused being acquitted of the

offences alleged. He relies upon the judgment of the Apex

Court in the case of [Neeraj Dutta v. State (Government of

NCT of Delhi](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/15799208/)), reported in (2023)4 SCC 731 and referring to

para 88 of the said judgment he submits that the facts and

circumstances of the present case would squarely fall within the

parameters laid by the Apex Court for the purpose of

consideration of the evidence produced by the prosecution, the

Trial Court has, thus, lost sight of this crucial aspect of the

matter. Hence, seeks for allowing of the appeal.

1. Per contra, Ms.Lenita Mathais for Sri.P.Prithvi Kiran

Setty appearing for accused, taking this Court through the

records submits that the essential requirement of element of

demand and payment has to be established beyond reasonable

doubt, which is a statutory requirement of the case of this

nature, anything short of it has to be read in favour of the

accused. She submits that nothing is placed on record either

by the complainant or by the prosecution witness to establish

• 10 -

NC: 2026:KHC:13249 CRL.A No. 1130 of 2013 HC-KAR

this fact of there being a demand. She submits that even

according to the prosecution witnesses, the purported tape

recorder which was sent through P.W.1 has not been produced

in the manner known to law which was the only proof according

to the prosecution to establish the factum of demand made by

the accused. That in the absence of such material being placed

on record, the sole testimony of the complainant - P.W.1 could

not have been relied which is rightly rejected by the Trial Court.

1. She submits that P.W.3, a shadow witness has

spoken the truth of he not being present at the time of alleged

payment of Rs.2,000/- by the complainant - P.W.1 to the

accused. Even P.W.2 has spoken about the circumstances

which he witnessed when he entered the room where the

money was allegedly taken by the accused from the pants

pocket after he had changed into different pants. She submits

that all these events would indicate that there seems to be

planting of the evidence against the accused, which is not safe

to rely upon and has been rightly rejected by the Trial Court.

Mere recovery of the amount from the possession of the

accused is not sufficient unless the element of demand is

• 11 -

NC: 2026:KHC:13249 CRL.A No. 1130 of 2013 HC-KAR

proved beyond reasonable doubt. She relies upon the following

judgments in support of her submissions-

i. Rajesh Gupta v. State through Central Bureau of
Investigation (2022 SCC OnLine SC 1107);

 ii. [Aman Bhatia v. State (GNCT of Delhi](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/127745999/)) 2025 INSC 618;

 iii. [State of Lokayuktha Police, Davangere v. C.B.Nagaraj](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/28081643/) (2025 INSC 736);

iv. P.Somaraju v. State of Andhra Pradesh (2025 INSC
1263);

v. Neeraj Dutta v. State (Govt. of N.C.T. of Delhi) (2023
INSC 245);

vi. Paritala Sudhakar v. State of Telangana, (2025 INSC

655);

vii. Vinod Kumar Garg v. State (Government of National
Capital Territory of Delhi), (2019 SCC OnLine SC 1522);

 viii. [Suresh Thipmppa Shetty v. The State of Maharashtra](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/191003377/) (2023 INSC 749);

ix. Aslam Alias Imran v. The State of Madhya Pradesh (2025 INSC 403).

1. Heard. Perused the records.

2. The law in the case of this nature is well settled,

unless and until there is proof beyond reasonable doubt with

regard to the ingredients of demand and payment thereof, Section 7 of the Act cannot be pressed into service. It is

relevant to refer to the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in

• 12 -

NC: 2026:KHC:13249 CRL.A No. 1130 of 2013 HC-KAR

the case of [M.Sambasiva Rao v. The State of Andhra

Pradesh](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/109553403/), reported in 2025 SCC OnLine SC 1648, wherein at

para 34 it is held as under -

"34. In a case of such nature, where the accused
persons have been acquitted by the Trial Court, there
is a double presumption of innocence which accrues in
their favour. Reference may be made to Jafarudheen v. State of Kerala, (2022)8 SCC 440
which observed :

'25, While dealing with an appeal against
acquittal by invoking Section 378 CrPC, the
appellate Court has to consider whether the
trial court's view can be terms as a possible
one, particularly when evidence on record has
been analysed. The reason is that an order of
acquittal adds up to the presumption of
innovence in favour of the accused. Thus, the
appellate Court has to be relatively slow in
reversing the order of the trial court rendering
acquittal. Therefore, the presumption in favour
of the accused does not get weakened but only
strengthened. Such a double presumption that
enures in favour of the accused has to be
disturbed only by thorough scrutiny on the
accepted legal parameters."
15. In the instant case, the evidence of P.W.1 indicate

that he had approached the accused for the purported purpose

of surveying his land and for removal of encroachment by his

neighbours, which according to the P.W.1 was not done despite

he getting the police help at the insistence of the accused.

Instead, the accused had informed him that he would give the

• 13 -

NC: 2026:KHC:13249 CRL.A No. 1130 of 2013 HC-KAR

sketch copy subject to appellant paying Rs.2,000/-. It is this

allegation with which he seemed to have approached the

Lokayuktha Police on 28.02.2008.

1. Though in the evidence P.W.1/complainant had said

that the P.W.4, Investigating Officer having been confirmed of

the fact regarding demand being made by the accused, had laid

the trap on 29.02.2008, nothing on record is produced on this

aspect of the matter. P.W.1 does not speak about P.W.4

handing him over a tape recorder on 28.02.2008 and

instructing him to record the conversation between him and the

accused regarding the demand and he also does not speak

about he calling P.W.4 on the evening of 28.02.2008 which is

the evidence of P.W.4. According to P.W.4, when the

complainant - P.W.1 had approached him, alleging about the

demand being made by the accused, he had specifically

instructed him after handing over tape recorder to record the

conversation and to inform him. Except this, there is nothing on

record to show that there was indeed any demand made by the

accused. It is not the case of the prosecution that there was no

preparation made either by the complainant - P.W.1 or by the

• 14 -

NC: 2026:KHC:13249 CRL.A No. 1130 of 2013 HC-KAR

P.W.4 to obtain the evidence of the demand allegedly made by

the accused. It is their specific case that the demand so made

by the accused was recorded on a tape recorder. Said tape

recorder is not produced in evidence in the manner known to

law. P.W.4, except giving the reason of the recorded version

was not audible, has not made any efforts to bring the same on

record.

1. In this peculiar facts and circumstances of the

matter, the reliance is placed on by the learned counsel for the

appellant on the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Neeraj Datta (supra) to contend that the circumstantial

evidence has to be taken into consideration is untenable.

Perhaps the same could have been availed if it was the case of

the prosecution that they did not have any material to prove

the demand in the first instance, which is not the case on hand.

As such, the Trial Court is justified in declining the case of the

prosecution of there existing a demand for bribe.

1. As regards, the presence of P.W.3 - shadow

witness, P.W.1 in his evidence though has spoken about he

entering into the office of the accused at about 9.15 a.m., and

• 15 -

NC: 2026:KHC:13249 CRL.A No. 1130 of 2013 HC-KAR

waiting near the table of the accused for about 10-15 minutes

waiting for others to move away, he has not spoken about

P.W.3 being present at the time when the accused allegedly

demanded the bribe and he allegedly handing over the same.

1. P.W.3 was a shadow witness, in his evidence has

categorically deposed as under-

"There were many people in the office, P.W.1
and accused were talking to each other. Then
myself and Lokayukta staff were standing outside
the hall in the verandah, after about 10-15
minutes P.W.1 came out and told he has given the
bribe amount to the accused and gave a signal by
wiping his head."
20. This is not the case of the witness turning hostile.

Here is a case, P.W.1 himself has not spoken about presence of

P.W.3 at the time of alleged demand and handing over the

money, which fact is merely reiterated by P.W.3 of he standing

outside the hall. So, therefore, it is not the case of discrepancy

or a case of hostility. It is the case of plain and simple truth of

P.W.3 not being present at the time of demand and handing

over of the bribe by the complainant - P.W.1 to the accused.

Nothing can be improved thereupon by the prosecution.

• 16 -

NC: 2026:KHC:13249 CRL.A No. 1130 of 2013 HC-KAR

1. These two elements of demand made prior to the

trap, during the trap, not being proved by the prosecution

beyond reasonable doubt, this Court do not see any error

having been committed by the Trial Court in rejecting the case

of the prosecution. The other submissions and the grounds

urged do not warrant any further consideration. Accordingly,

Appeal fails and same is dismissed. Judgment and order

passed by the Trial Court is confirmed.

Sd/-

(M.G.S. KAMAL)
JUDGE

HNM
List No.: 1 Sl No.: 21