Karnataka High Court
Sri. Anand S/O Keshav Mirji vs State Of Karnataka on 28 February, 2025
Author: Hemant Chandangoudar
Bench: Hemant Chandangoudar
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC-D:4069
CRL.A No. 100424 of 2022
AND CONNCTED MATTERS
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH
DATED THIS THE 28TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 100424 OF 2022
C/W
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 100394 OF 2022
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 100415 OF 2022
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 100425 OF 2022
IN CRL.A. NO.100424 OF 2022:
BETWEEN:
SMT. SHUBHA T W/O. MANJUNATH
AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS, OCC. JR. ENGINEER,
FORMERLY AT MRBC, NAVILUTHIRTH,
NOW AT WATER RESOURCES DEPT.
OFFICE OF CHIEF ENGINEER,
KNNL, MALAPRABHA PROJECT ZONE,
COLLEGE ROAD, DHARWAD-08.
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI. ASHOK R.KALYANASHETTY, ADVOCATE)
AND:
Digitally signed by
R HEMALATHA
Location: High THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
Court of
Karnataka BY ITS BELAGAVI LOKAYUKTA POLICE,
KARNATAKA LOKAYUKTA OFFICE,
M.S. BUILDING, BENGALURU-01.
...RESPONDENT
(BY SRI. SANTOSH B.MALAGOUDAR, SPP)
THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL IS FILED U/S 374(2) OF CR.P.C.,
SEEKING TO, SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT OF CONVICTION AND
ORDER OF SENTENCE DATED 12.08.2022 PASSED BY THE IV
ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, SPECIAL
JUDGE (PCA) BELAGAVI IN SPECIAL CASE NO.3/2015 FOR THE
OFFENCES PUNISHABLE U/S 120B, 120B AND 420 R/W 511,
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC-D:4069
CRL.A No. 100424 of 2022
AND CONNCTED MATTERS
120 B R/W 465, 120 B R/W 466, 120B R/W 468, 120 B R/W
471, 120 B R/W 477 A AND SECTION 15 OF PC ACT AND R/W
120B OF IPC, AND ACQUIT THE APPELLANT/ACCUSED NO.5 OF
ALL THE CHARGES.
IN CRL.A. NO.100394 OF 2022:
BETWEEN:
PADMANABHA B S/O. B LAXMINARAYAN RAO
OCC. SUPERINTENDING ENGINEER, PRMAC,
AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS,
HEMAVATHI KENAL CIRCLE,
CHANNARAYAPATTANA,
NOW R/AT # 2243, 5TH CROSS,
BASAVESHWARA ROAD,
K.R. MOHALL, MYSURU-570024.
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI. ASHOK R.KALYANASHETTY, ADVOCATE)
AND:
STATE OF KARNATAKA
BY THE LOKAYUKTA POLICE,
BELAGAVI-590001,
R/BY SPL. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
(LOKAYUKTA), HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA.
...RESPONDENT
(BY SRI. SANTOSH B.MALAGOUDAR, SPP)
THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL IS FILED U/S 374(2) OF CR.P.C.,
SEEKING TO CALL FOR THE RECORDS IN SPL.CASE (PCA)
NO.3/2015 ON THE FILE OF THE IVTH ADDITIONAL DISTRICT
AND SESSIONS JUDGE AND SPECIAL JUDGE (PCA) BELAGAVI,
AND SET ASIDE THE ORDER OF CONVICTION AND SENTENCE
DATE 12.08.2022 FOR THE OFFENCES PUNISHABLE U/S 120B
OF IPC, SECTION 120B AND SECTION 420 R/W 511 SECTION
120B R/W SECTION 465 OF IPC, SECTION 120B R/W SECTION
466, SECTION 120B R/W 468 OF IPC, 120(B) R/W SECTION
471 OF IPC, SECTION 120 B R/W SECTION 477 A OF IPC AND
SECTION 15 OF THE PREVENTION OF CORRUPTION ACT, 1988
R/W SECTION 120B OF THE IPC AND ACQUIT HIM.
-3-
NC: 2025:KHC-D:4069
CRL.A No. 100424 of 2022
AND CONNCTED MATTERS
IN CRL.A. NO.100415 OF 2022:
BETWEEN:
1. SRI. ANAND S/O. KESHAV MIRJI
AGE. 63 YEARS, OCC. RETIRED GOVERNMENT
EMPLOYEE, R/O. VIVEKAND NAGAR,
NEAR BDA GROUND VIJAYAPURA,
TQ. DIST. VIJAYAPURA.
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI. NEELENDRA.D.GUNDE, ADVOCATE)
AND:
STATE OF KARNATAKA
BY BELAGAVI LOKAYUKTH POLICE,
R/BY THE STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT BUILDING, DHARWAD-580001.
...RESPONDENT
(BY SRI. SANTOSH B.MALAGOUDAR, SPP)
THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL IS FILED U/SEC. 374(2) OF
CR.P.C. SEEKING TO, CALL FOR THE RELEVANT RECORDS AND
ALLOW THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL BY SETTING ASIDE THE
JUDGMENT AND ORDER OF CONVICTION AND SENTENCE
DATED 12.08.2022 PASSED IN SPL. CASE. NO. 03/2015
PASSED BY THE IV ADDL. DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE
AND SPECIAL JUDGE (PCA), BELAGAVI., THEREBY CONVICTING
THE APPELLANT FOR THE OFFENCE PUNISHABLE UNDER
SECTION 120B OF IPC AND SENTENCING TO UNDERGO SI OF
FOR 2 YEARS AND PAY FINE OF 10,000/- WITH DEFAULT
CLAUSE OF 6 MONTHS IMPRISONMENT, SECTION 120B AND
420 R/W SECTION 511 OF IPC SENTENCED TO UNDERGO SI
FOR 2 YEARS AND SHALL FINE OF RS.10,000/- WITH DEFAULT
CLAUSE OF 6 MONTHS. SECTION 120B R/W 465 OF IPC
SENTENCED TO UNDERGO SIMPLE IMPRISONMENT FOR 1 YEAR
AND SHALL PAY FINE OF RS.5000/- WITHN DEFAULT CLAUSE
OF 3 MONTHS. SECTION 120B R/W 466 OF IPC SENTENCED TO
UNDERGO SI FOR 2 YEARS AND SHALL PAY FINE OF 10,000/-
2ITH DEFAULT OF 6 MONTHS IMPRISONMENT. SECTION 120B
R/W 468 OF IPC SENTENCED TO UNDERGO SI FOR 2 YEARS
AND SHALL PAY FINE OF 10,000/- AND WITH DEFAULT CLAUSE
OF 6 MONTHS. SECTION 120B R/W 471 OF IPC SENTENCED TO
-4-
NC: 2025:KHC-D:4069
CRL.A No. 100424 of 2022
AND CONNCTED MATTERS
UNDERGO SI FOR 1 YEARS AND SHALL PAY FINE OF
RS.5,000/- WITH DEFAULT CLAUSE 3 MONTHS. AND SECTION
120B R/W 4771 OF IPC SENTENCED TO UNDERGO SI FOR 2
YEARS AND SHALL PAY FINE OF RS.10,000/- WITH DEFAULT
CLAUSE 6 MONTHS IMPRISONMENT AND SECTION 15 OF
PREVENTION OF CORRUPTION ACT R/W 120B OF IPC
SENTENCED TO UNDERGO SI 2 YEARS AND SHALL PAY FINE OF
10,000/- WITH DEFAULT OF THE 6 MONTHS IMPRISONMENT.
IN CRL.A. NO.100425 OF 2022:
BETWEEN:
1. MALLIKARJUN B KAVADI
AGE. 69 YEARS, OCC. RETD. EXECUTIVE
ENGINEER, KNNL,
R/O. NOW AT 89, LAXMI LAYOUT,
BASAVESHWARNAGAR,
GOKUL ROAD, HUBBALLI-580030.
2. PRAKASH F HOSMANI
AGE. 52 YEARS, OCC. JR. ENGINEER,
R/O. NOW AT H. NO.18, PUROHIT NAGAR,
KALAGHTAGI ROAD, DHARWAD-580002.
...APPELLANTS
(BY SRI. V M SHEELVANT, ADVOCATE)
AND:
THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
BY PSI BELAGAVI LOKAYUKTA POLICE
BELAGAVI-590001,
REP.BY THE SPECIAL P.S.,
HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DARWAD.
...RESPONDENT
(BY SRI. SANTOSH B.MALAGOUDAR, SPP)
THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL IS FILED U/S 374(2) OF CR.P.C.
SEEKING TO, CALL FOR THE RECORDS, ALLOW THE APPEAL
AND SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT OF CONVICTION AND
SENTENCE DT. 12.08.2022 PASSED BY THE IV ADDL. DISTRICT
AND SESSIONS JUDGE AND SPL. JUDGE (PCA) BELAGAVI, IN
-5-
NC: 2025:KHC-D:4069
CRL.A No. 100424 of 2022
AND CONNCTED MATTERS
SPECIAL CASE NO. 03/2015, (OFFENCE PUNISHABLE U/S
120B, 420, 511, 465, 466, 468, 471, 477(A) OF IPC AND
SECTION 15 OF PC ACT, AND SET THE ACCUSED APPELLANTS
AT LIBERTY.
THESE APPEALS, COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING, THIS
DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR
ORAL JUDGMENT
The appellants in these appeals have been convicted for
offences punishable under Sections 109, 120B, 420, 465, 466, 468,
and 471 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and
Sections 13(1)(c) read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of
Corruption Act, 1988. They have been sentenced to undergo
imprisonment for a period of two years.
2. The allegations in the private complaint u/s 200 Cr.p.c
revolves around a decision taken by the Government of Karnataka
to rehabilitate the villagers of Kagdal village to a safer location due
to seepage of water from the Malaprabha reservoir. In furtherance
of this decision, the Government of Karnataka, under the provisions
of the Land Acquisition Act, issued notifications for the acquisition
of properties situated in Kagdal village. These acquisitions were
carried out in favor of Karnataka Neeravari Nigam Limited (KNNL),
a government agency, with appropriate compensation to be paid to
the affected landowners. The notifications for land acquisition were
issued under references LAQ-SR-32/07-08 and LAQ-SR-34/07-08.
3. The primary allegation against Accused Nos. 1 and 2,
as stated in the complaint, is that they were entrusted with the
NC: 2025:KHC-D:4069
AND CONNCTED MATTERS
responsibility of assessing and determining the valuation of the
properties for compensation purposes. However, instead of
conducting a fair and transparent valuation, they allegedly engaged
in corrupt practices by awarding excessive compensation to certain
structure owners who had bribed them, while simultaneously
awarding meager compensation to others who had not approached
them with bribes.
4. The accused in the complaint are alleged to have
discriminated while calculating the compensation amounts, despite
the fact that the structures were of the same type, having identical
walls, roofs, and wooden materials. This discrepancy in valuation
led to significant disparities in the compensation awarded. The
learned Sessions Judge, upon examining the complaint, referred
the matter for investigation to the Lokayukta Police under Section
156(3) of the Criminal Procedure Code (Cr.P.C).
5. Following the direction of the Sessions Court, the
Lokayukta Police conducted a thorough investigation into the
allegations. Upon completion of the investigation, a charge sheet
was filed, naming the appellants as the accused. However, it is
pertinent to note that the Lokayukta Police dropped the persons
who were originally named in the private complaint from the charge
sheet.
6. The prosecution alleges that the accused, in
connivance with each other, fabricated measurement books by
deliberately recording different types of wood used in the
construction of the structures. This manipulation resulted in the
NC: 2025:KHC-D:4069
AND CONNCTED MATTERS
payment of excessive compensation to certain beneficiaries, far
beyond the just and proper amount, in exchange for extraneous
considerations such as bribes and undue influence.
7. Thus, the conviction and sentencing of the appellants
stem from their alleged involvement in a larger conspiracy to
manipulate government compensation payments through
fraudulent practices.
Evidence and Trial Court's Findings:
8. In order to prove its case, the prosecution examined a
total of 18 witnesses, designated as PW.1 to PW.18. Additionally, it
exhibited documentary evidence marked as Exs.P.1 to P.36. The
accused, in their defense, produced and exhibited documents
marked as Exs.D.1 to D.3.
9. After thoroughly appreciating the evidence on record
and considering the arguments advanced by both the prosecution
and the defense, the trial court framed specific points for
consideration and reached the following conclusion:
"The prosecution has established the guilt of the accused
beyond all reasonable doubt."
Consequently, the trial court convicted the accused and passed the
impugned judgment of conviction along with an order of sentence.
Submissions on Behalf of the Appellants:
10. Sri. Ashok R. Kalyanashetty, Sri. Neelendra D. Gunde,
and Sri. V. M. Sheelavant, learned counsel appearing on behalf of
NC: 2025:KHC-D:4069
AND CONNCTED MATTERS
the appellants, made the following submissions challenging the
conviction:
11. Testimony of PW.7: PW.7, who worked as a Work
Inspector in the Shirasangi Sub-Division, admitted that corrections
were made regarding the type of wood and other figures. However,
the prosecution failed to establish that the appellants/accused
conspired with Accused No.3 to manipulate the records in order to
award higher compensation in exchange for bribes.
12. Statements of PWs.12 to 14: These witnesses, who
were officers working in the relevant Sub-Division, categorically
stated that, at the time of scrutiny of Ex.P.6 (a key document in the
case), there were no visible corrections in the type of wood used
for the construction of structures acquired under the notification.
This directly contradicts the prosecution's case that the accused
had tampered with official records to inflate compensation
amounts.
13. Testimony of PW.5 and PW.6:
• PW.5, an Executive Engineer, and PW.6, a
Subordinate Officer, were instructed to conduct an on-
site inspection of the acquired structures to verify
whether the corrections related to the type of wood and
figures, as reflected in Ex.P.8, were genuine or
fraudulent.
• However, during their cross-examination, in
response to questions posed by the Court, both
witnesses categorically admitted that they did not
conduct any physical inspection of the acquired
structures as per the notification.
NC: 2025:KHC-D:4069
AND CONNCTED MATTERS
• Furthermore, PW.5 admitted that he could not
verify whether the contents of Ex.P.8 were authentic or
not.
14. Initially, a private complaint was filed, in which the
primary allegations regarding the payment of excessive
compensation were directed against Accused Nos.1 and 2, who
were the Special Land Acquisition Officers and are responsible for
passing the compensation awards. However, during the course of
the investigation:
• Accused Nos.1 and 2 were excluded from the
charge sheet, despite their alleged involvement in
granting excessive compensation.
• Furthermore, they were not examined as charge-
sheet witnesses, raising concerns over the credibility
and completeness of the investigation.
• PW.7, who admitted to carrying out corrections in
the official records, did so at the instructions of Accused
No.3.
• However, PW 7 was not arraigned as an accused
in the case, despite his direct involvement.
• Therefore, the prosecution's claim that the
appellants conspired with Accused No.3 to manipulate
compensation records lacks any factual foundation.
Submissions by the Respondent - Lokayukta:
15. In response, the learned counsel for the respondent -
Lokayukta argued that:
• The testimony of PW.7, when read in conjunction
with the documentary evidence at Exs.P.6 and P.8, as
- 10 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:4069
AND CONNCTED MATTERS
well as the statements of PWs.12, 13, and 16, clearly
establishes that the accused colluded with Accused
No.3.
• Their alleged conspiracy led to manipulations in
Ex.P.6 and Ex.P.8, resulting in excessive compensation
being awarded to certain structure owners who had
bribed them.
16. The Lokayukta further contended that the trial court
had properly appreciated the oral and documentary evidence on
record, and, based on such appreciation, rendered a legally sound
judgment convicting the accused.
• The impugned judgment of conviction was passed
only after a thorough and careful evaluation of the
evidence.
• There were no infirmities or illegalities in the trial
court's findings.
• Therefore, the appeal was devoid of merit and
should be dismissed in its entirety.
Point for Consideration:
17. After carefully considering the submissions advanced
by both parties, and thoroughly reviewing the trial court's records,
the only point that arises for determination in this appeal is:
"Whether the prosecution has established the guilt of
the accused beyond all reasonable doubt, and whether
the impugned judgment of conviction passed by the trial
court is legally sustainable?"
18. The case originated from a private complaint filed
under Section 200 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr.P.C.).
The complainant alleged that Accused Nos.1 and 2, who were
- 11 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:4069
AND CONNCTED MATTERS
serving as Special Land Acquisition Officers at the relevant time,
had engaged in corrupt practices while determining compensation
amounts for acquired properties. Specifically, it was alleged that
these officers had awarded excessively high compensation by
manipulating official records and accepting bribes from certain
structure owners.
19. The alleged tampering of records was said to have
been carried out by making corrections in Ex.P.8, which, along with
Ex.P.6, contained measurement details of the structures acquired
under the notification.
20. The core allegation in the complaint was that
corrections were made regarding the type of wood used in the
construction of structures, which led to an artificial inflation of
compensation amounts.
21. During the course of the investigation, Accused Nos.1
and 2 were inexplicably dropped from the charge sheet, despite the
initial allegations against them.
22. Furthermore, they were not even cited as charge-sheet
witnesses, raising serious concerns about the fairness and
completeness of the investigation.
23. While Accused Nos.1 and 2 were left out, the
appellants (current accused) along with Accused No.3 were
formally charged, on the grounds that they had conspired with each
other to manipulate Exs.P.6 and P.8 in order to secure higher
compensation by accepting bribes.
- 12 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:4069
AND CONNCTED MATTERS
24. Ex.P.6 and Ex.P.8 are official documents that record
the measurements of the structures acquired under the notification.
Accused No.3, along with PW.7, were the authors of these
documents, meaning they were responsible for preparing and
maintaining these measurement records.
25. PW.7, in his examination-in-chief, initially supported
the prosecution's case by stating that corrections were indeed
made to Ex.P.6 and Ex.P.8. However, during his cross-
examination, PW.7 admitted that these corrections were carried out
at the sole instance of Accused No.3. This statement is contrary to
the prosecution's case as it failed to prove that the appellants
conspired with Accused No.3 to manipulate the documents.
26. Following PW.7's cross-examination by the defense,
he was declared as a hostile witness and proceeded to cross-
examine him once again. However, the procedure adopted by the
trial court in permitting the prosecution to cross-examine PW.7 after
he had already been cross-examined by the defense is legally
flawed and contrary to establish procedural norms. Such a practice
is unprecedented and violates the principles of fair trial and due
process.
27. Since PW.7 retracted his earlier statements and, when
questioned by the court, admitted that his examination-in-chief was
false, his testimony loses credibility. As a result, any evidence
extracted by the prosecution during its improper cross-examination
of PW.7 holds no evidentiary value.
- 13 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:4069
AND CONNCTED MATTERS
28. Section 165 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872
empowers a Judge to ask any question at any time, in any form, to
any witness or party, whether the question pertains to relevant or
irrelevant facts, in order to discover or obtain proper proof of
relevant facts. Additionally, the Judge is also empowered to order
the production of any document or thing that may assist in
establishing the truth of the matter at hand.
29. In the present case, the trial Judge went beyond the
permissible limits of Section 165 by posing a direct question to the
witness regarding whether the statement made in his examination-
in-chief was correct or not. This line of questioning is legally
impermissible, as it compromises the principle of impartial
adjudication and risks influencing the witness's testimony rather
than merely seeking clarifications to establish relevant facts.
30. PWs.12, 13, and 16, who were working as Junior
Engineers in the relevant sub-divisions, were examined to establish
that corrections in measurement records were made fraudulently in
exchange for bribes. However, these witnesses turned hostile and
did not provide any incriminating evidence that would support the
prosecution's case. Despite their cross-examination, the
prosecution failed to elicit any testimony that would implicate the
accused in the alleged offense.
31. PW.6, who was involved in the inspection process,
stated in his cross-examination that he had verified documents
related to 10 structures that were acquired under the notification.
- 14 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:4069
AND CONNCTED MATTERS
However, he admitted that he had not made any written notes
documenting his verification.
32. Furthermore, upon subsequent verification, the details
of the structures in those documents matched Ex.P.8, thereby
failing to establish any manipulation or fraud.
33. The acquisition of structures in question fell under the
jurisdiction of the Shirasangi Sub-Division. Accused Nos.1, 4, and 5
were working in the Naveel Teertha Circle Office. Accused No.2
was an Assistant Executive Engineer in the Naragund Division.
Accused No.3 was an Assistant Executive Engineer in the
Shirasangi Sub-Division, working alongside PW.7, PW.8, and
PW.9. Crucially, Accused Nos.1, 4, and 5, who were working as
Circle Officers, did not have the authority to approve compensation
amounts exceeding ₹5 lakhs.
34. Similarly, Accused No.2, in his capacity as an
Assistant Executive Engineer, lacked the authority to approve
either the compensation exceeding ₹5 lakhs or the measurement
records in Ex.P.6 and Ex.P.8. Therefore, serious doubts about
their alleged involvement in the manipulation of compensation
amounts, as they were not in a position to make such approvals.
35. Section 120B of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) deals
with the offense of criminal conspiracy, which can be proven
through direct or indirect evidence. In conspiracy cases, it is not
necessary to have direct evidence, but there must be at least some
substantial evidence to establish a meeting of minds among the
accused to commit an unlawful act. However, in the present case,
- 15 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:4069
AND CONNCTED MATTERS
the prosecution failed to provide any independent or corroborative
evidence demonstrating that the accused conspired with Accused
No.3 to manipulate measurement records.
36. In view of the above observations, the following
conclusions can be drawn:
• The trial court's questioning of the witness
regarding the correctness of his examination-in-chief
was impermissible, as it went beyond the scope of
Section 165 of the Indian Evidence Act.
• (PWs.12, 13, and 16) turned hostile, and nothing
incriminating emerged from their cross-examinations to
support the prosecution's claims.
• PW.6's testimony was inconclusive, as he failed
to maintain any documentary record of his verification
and ultimately confirmed that the documents tallied with
Ex.P.8.
• The accused lacked the authority to approve
compensation amounts above ₹5 lakhs or to manipulate
measurement records, further weakening the
prosecution's case.
• The prosecution failed to establish the existence
of a criminal conspiracy under Section 120B IPC, as
there was no independent evidence proving a
coordinated effort among the accused to commit fraud.
37. Given these findings, the impugned judgment of
conviction and sentence passed by the trial court is legally
unsustainable, as it is not supported by substantial evidence.
38. Accordingly, the appeals are allowed. The judgment of
conviction and order of sentence dated 12.08.2022 passed in
Special Case No.3/2015 on the file of learned IV Addl. District and
- 16 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:4069
AND CONNCTED MATTERS
Sessions Judge & Special Judge (PCA), Belagavi, is hereby set-
aside.
39. The appellants are acquitted of the aforesaid offences.
The bail bonds, if any, stand discharged.
Sd/-
(HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR)
JUDGE
AC/KMC/JTR
