Karnataka High Court
Sri.Ramappa S/O Chennappa Biradar vs State Of Karnataka on 28 January, 2025
1 Crl.R.P.No.100013/2020
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH
DATED THIS THE 28TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE J.M.KHAZI
CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO.100013 OF 2020
BETWEEN:
SRI. RAMAPPA S/O CHENNAPPA BIRADAR
AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS
OCC: GOVT. SERVANT
R/AT KUBKADDI
TQ:BASAVANA BAGEWADI
DIST: VIJAYPURA - 586 203.
...PETITIONER
Digitally signed by
MALLIKARJUN
(BY SRI. SRINAND A. PACHHAPURE, ADVOCATE)
RUDRAYYA KALMATH
Location: HIGH
COURT OF AND:
KARNATAKA
STATE OF KARNATAKA
BY BELAGAVI
LOKAYUKTA SPECIAL PUBLIC PROCECUTOR
DHARWAD HIGH COURT
...RESPONDENT
(BY SRI. SANTOSH B. MALAGOUDAR, SPL.PP)
THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION IS FILED UNDER
SECTION 397 R/W 401 OF CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE,
PRAYING TO CALL FOR THE ENTIRE RECORDS IN SPECIAL CASE
NO.36/2016 ON THE FILE OF IV ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND
SESSIONS JUDGE & SPECIAL JUDGE (PCA) BELAGAVI AND PERUSE
THE LEGALITY AND CORRECTNESS OF THE IMPUGNED ORDER AT
ANNEXURE-F DATED 25.10.2019 AND TO QUASH THE SAME AND
TO DISCHARGE THE PETITIONER/ACCUSED NO.3 OF THE CHARGES
LEVELED AGAINST HIM FOR THE OFFENCES PUNISHABLE UNDER
2 Crl.R.P.No.100013/2020
SECTIONS 7, 13(1)(C) AND 13(2) OF PREVENTION OF
CORRUPTION ACT AND ALSO UNDER SECTIONS 420, 465, 468,
409, 471, 477A AND 120(B) READ WITH SECTION 34 OF IPC.
THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION, HAVING BEEN HEARD
AND RESERVED ON 27.09.2024., COMING ON FOR
PRONOUNCEMENT OF ORDER THIS DAY, THE COURT DELIVERED
THE FOLLOWING:
CORAM: THE HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE J.M.KHAZI
CAV ORDER
(PER: THE HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE J.M.KHAZI)
For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to by
their ranks in the charge-sheet.
2. Petitioner who is arraigned as accused No.3 has
filed this petition under Section 397 read with Section 401 of
the Cr.P.C. to set aside the order dated 25.10.2019 and
discharge him for the offences punishable under Sections 7,
13(1)(c), 13(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act (for short, 'the
P.C. Act') and Sections 420, 465, 468, 409, 471, 477(A),
120(B) read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code (for
short, 'the IPC').
3 Crl.R.P.No.100013/2020
3. In support of the petition, petitioner has contended
that the impugned order rejecting the application filed by the
petitioner seeking discharge is illegal and not sustainable
under law. The FSL report dated 26.08.2013 unfurl the fact
that the Investigating Officer has sought clarification regarding
Q-1 to Q-5. Further, it finds a place the said report that the
obligatory writings involved in the said questions are
deciphered and it was mentioned as what finds therein.
However, it is relevant to state that the said report does not
point out at the petitioner in any way and the same is not
considered by the Trial Court.
3.1. The second FSL report dated 31.03.2015 unveils
the fact that the Investigating Officer has sent the admitted
writings of the petitioner marked as S-1 To S-16 and R-9 to
R-12 along with two sheets of order copy pertaining to "Upa
Vibhagadikarigalu, Bailhongal, Sub-Division, Bailhongal"
(G¥À «¨sÁUÁ¢üPÁjUÀ¼ÀÄ, ¨ÉÊ®ºÉÆAUÀ¯ï ¸À¨ï r«d£ï, ¨ÉÊ®ºÉÆAUÀ¯ï) which is
marked as Q-5 by the Investigating Officer as well as the
Scientific Officer and "dt 05/06/2023" which is marked as
4 Crl.R.P.No.100013/2020
Q-6 by Investigating Officer as well as the Scientific Officer.
The Scientific Officer has opined that the person, who has
written the writings at S-1 to S-16 and R-9 to R-12 has
written the writings Q-5 and Q-6. It is accentuated that even
the writings at S-1 to S-16 and original writings Q-5 and Q-6
were admittedly written by the petitioner while working in the
land Tribunal, Ramdurga as S.D.C. Hence, it is very much
cardinal to state that even the second FSL report dated
31.03.2015 does not play even an infinitesimal role implicating
the petitioner in the commission of the offences, which has
gone out of the sight of the Trial Court.
3.2. In all perspective, upon peering into the both the
FSL reports dated 26.08.2013 and 31.03.2015, there does not
find even petite incriminatory evidence against the petitioner
as to whether the writing made upon the original writings of
Q-5 and Q-6 are of the writings of the petitioner and rather,
the FSL report dated 31.03.2015 spells out to the extent that
the original writings of Q-5 and Q-6 are of the petitioner who
has admittedly written the original writings of Q-5 and Q-6
5 Crl.R.P.No.100013/2020
and hence, both FSL reports dated 26.08.2013 and
31.03.2013 do not implicate the petitioner which is not
fathomed by the Trial Court.
4. The FSL report does not state whether the scientific
officer has examined in whose hand writing the writing made
on the original writing at Q5 and Q6 after applying whitener
and whether it is compared with the admitted handwriting of
petitioner.
5. Admittedly, at the relevant point of time petitioner
was working at Gokak taluk office. None of the witnesses state
how he had access to the records of Ramdurg taluk office.
6. The complainant has not made any allegations
against petitioner, but the Investigating Officer has falsely
implicated him. The charge sheet does not make any prima
facie case against the petitioner. In his statement, under
Section 161 Cr.P.C. CW.16 is not implicating the petitioner.
Even if the entire charge sheet is taken into consideration
there is not even maniscal evidence to implicate the petitioner.
6 Crl.R.P.No.100013/2020
The sanction order issued against the petitioner is bad in law
and pray to allow the petition and quash the criminal
proceedings against the petitioner and discharge him.
7. In support of his arguments, learned counsel
representing the accused No.3-Ramappa S/o Chennappa
Biradar has relied upon the following decisions:
1) State of Maharashtra vs. Ishwar Piraji Kalpatri
(Ishwar Piraji)1
2) State by Karnataka Lokayukta, Police Station,
Bengaluru vs. M.R.Hiremath
(M.R.Hiremath)2
3) State through Deputy Superintendent of
Police vs. R. Soundirarasu Etc.
(Soundirarasu)3
8. Learned Special Public Prosecutor representing
respondent/Karnataka Lokayukta submitted oral objections
stating that agriculture land in Sy.No.9 of Kallolli village,
Gokak taluka measuring 3 acres 36 guntas was granted in
1
(1996) 1 SCC 542
2
(2019) 7 SCC 515
3
AIR Online 2022 SC 281
7 Crl.R.P.No.100013/2020
favour of Sri.Kalmeshwar Bhoodh Shripadh as per re-grant
order dated 30.12.1958. It was acquired for broadening of
Jath-Jamboti road and construction of barrage and
compensation was paid. After the acquisition the land was
standing in the name of Executive Engineer, PWD.
9. One Sabanna Khanagoudar, a social worker and
resident of Kallolli village filed a complaint under Section 200
Cr.P.C. before the Spl. Court, Belagavi, alleging that during
the year 2003 accused Nos.1 and 2 colluding with accused
No.5-who is non charge sheeted and cited as CW.8 has passed
an illegal order No.PÀ.¨sÀÆ.¸ÀÄ./7A:98-99 dated 05.06.2003
granting 2 acres 26 guntas out of Sy.No.9 in favour of accused
Nos.1 and 2 of Kallolli village. After the said order, for 2 acres
26 guntas accused Nos.1 and 2 got entered their names in the
revenue records from that of Executive Engineer, PWD,
Chikkodi. By this way accused Nos.1, 2 and 5 have caused
loss to the public. Even though the complainant and other
villagers approached the Karnataka Lokayukta, Belagavi and
reported the matter and they have failed to take any action
8 Crl.R.P.No.100013/2020
and therefore without any alternative private complaint is
filed.
9.1. The said complaint was referred for investigation to
the Lokayukta police under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. Initially the
case was registered in Crime No.4/2013 of Lokayukta P.S.
Belagavi against accused Nos.1, 2 and 5 (wherein accused
No.5 was arraigned as accused No.3). After detailed
investigation, charge sheet came to be filed against accused
Nos.1 to 4. In the charge sheet, original accused No.3 was
shown as accused No.5 and he has been non charge sheeted.
He is also cited as CW.8.
9.2. The charge sheet reveal that, despite the
acquisition of Sy.No.9 measuring 3 acre 36 guntas of Kallolli
village, the father of accused Nos.1 and 2 by name Shivappa
Belakod filed Form No.7A. The then Deputy Tahsildar
submitted report stating that Balappa Ningappa Belakod the
father of Shivappa Belakod had applied Form No.7A during the
year 1999-2000 seeking re-grant and therefore it is not open
9 Crl.R.P.No.100013/2020
to his son Shivappa Belakod to once again claim re-grant and
as such, his application was rejected.
9.3. However, in order to facilitate accused Nos.1 and 2
to make illegal claim against the said land, accused Nos.3 and
4 colluded with them. Despite the fact that earlier report was
given that the application in Form No.7A given by father of
accused Nos.1 and 2 is not maintainable, accused No.4
submitted a false report stating that the father of accused No.
1 and 2 was in possession and cultivation of 2 acres 26 guntas
in Sy.No.9 of Kallolli village and there is no impediment to
grant the same in favour of accused Nos.1 and 2. He has also
concocted mahazar and other documents and submitted
report.
9.4. In order to help accused Nos.1 and 2, accused No.3
created a fake grant order by utilizing grant order
dated 05.06.2003 passed by Assistant Commissioner,
Bailhongal, Sub-Division at Ramdurga in favour of CW.13-
Irappa Shivappa Kalli, by applying whitener on the place
where names of the grantee, father's name and details of
10 Crl.R.P.No.100013/2020
properties were written and typing the name of accused Nos.1
and 2 and details of property as though grant is made in their
favour in respect of Sy.No.9 measuring 2 acres 26 guntas.
After the said order, the accused Nos.1 and 2 have got
entered their names to an extent of 2 acres 26 guntas and the
name of Executive Engineer, PWD was continued only for
remaining extent of 1 acre and thereby accused Nos.1 to 4
have committed the offences punishable under Sections 420,
465, 468, 471, 477-A and 120-B IPC.
9.5. Though the complaint was filed against accused
Nos.1, 2 and 5/CW.8, wherein accused No.5/CW.8 was shown
as accused No.3, during the investigation, it came to light that
he is not involved in the creation of fake document in question
and that the original order dated 05.06.2003 passed by him in
favour of CW.13/Irappa Shivappa Kalli was used for creating
fake document and therefore he is shown as accused No.5 and
non charge sheeted. He is also cited as CW.8. Based on his
statement when detailed investigation was conducted and the
fake document in favour of accused Nos.1 and 2 was got
11 Crl.R.P.No.100013/2020
examined by the hand writing expert, the involvement of
accused Nos.3 and 4 was revealed and accordingly charge
sheet is filed against accused Nos.1 to 4. There is prima facie
material to frame charge against all the accused persons
including the petitioner/accused No.3. Rightly the Trial Court
has rejected the application filed by him under Section 227 of
Cr.P.C. and pray to reject this petition also.
10. Heard arguments and perused the record.
11. The undisputed facts are that, Sy.No.9 measuring 3
acres 36 guntas of Kallolli village was acquired for broadening
Jath-Jamboti road and construction of barrage and after the
acquisition, khata was made out in the name of Executive
Engineer, PWD. After finding that out of 3 acres 36 guntas,
khata is made out in respect of 2 acres 26 guntas in the name
of accused Nos.1 and 2, a private complaint came to be filed
by CW.1-Sabanna Khangoudar alleging that in collusion with
accused No.5/CW.8 (S.M.Sonnada), who has served as
Assistant commissioner, Bailhongal, accused Nos.1 and 2 have
12 Crl.R.P.No.100013/2020
got some documents concocted and based on it got khata to
an extent of 2 acres 26 guntas.
12. It is pertinent to note that the concocted order
dated 05.06.2003 is purported to have been passed by Sri
S.M.Sonnad, the then Assistant Commissioner, Bailhongal at
Gokak. During investigation, the Investigating Officer has
recorded his statement i.e. accused No.5/CW.8, wherein, after
verifying the records, he has stated that though in the alleged
order dated 05.06.2003, his signature is forthcoming, on that
day he did not work at Gokak. As per the daily diary
maintained by him during the period when he served as
Assistant Commissioner, Bailhongal, which is available in the
said office, on 05.06.2003 he went to the office of Tahsildar,
Ramdurga and verified the work of the Tahsildar office. He
also disposed of few applications in Form No.7A under Section
77-A. Later he traveled to Yallamma Temple at Yallammana
gudda, opened the hundi and counted money. As it was late
he stayed there itself.
13 Crl.R.P.No.100013/2020
12.1 He has specifically stated that on 05.06.2003 he
has not passed any order granting 2 acres 26 guntas in
Sy.No.9 of Kallolli village in favour of accused Nos.1 and 2. On
the face of the said order one could make out that on the hand
written portion of the some other order whitener is applied
and the name of the father of accused Nos.1 and 2 and other
details are typed. Similarly, on the hand written portion of the
names to whom the copies are sent is also typed after
applying whitener. It appears using an order passed by him on
05.06.2003 the order in question is concocted.
12.2 Accused No.5/CW.8 has further stated that when
he examined the file pertaining to Sy.No.9 of Kallolli village he
found that there was no scope for granting the said land as
Form No.7A was already rejected. After his transfer the
document in question appears to have been concocted. Even
in the concerned register wherein the earlier application was
rejected, some portions are scored of to conceal what was
written earlier. In the file notice of hearing of Form No.7A is
not forthcoming. Despite the same in the order sheet it is
14 Crl.R.P.No.100013/2020
stated that hearing is fixed on 23.04.2003 and adjournments
were entered on 30.04.2003, 07.05.2003, 14.05.2003,
21.05.2003, 28.05.2003. Though on these days seal is
affixed, but signature of the officer who passed the order is
not forthcoming.
12.3 Accused No.5/CW.8 has further stated that in the
said file a requisition given by accused No.1 is forthcoming,
stating that instead of his father he should be allowed to
appear. In this requisition the reference number is given as
¸ÀA:PÀæ:PÀ¨sÀƸÀÄ:7C:«ªÀ:1:98-99 Kallolli village dated 10.04.2007.
However, after the signature, the date is mentioned as 4-2007
and the numeral '7' is corrected as '3'. However, in the
reference the date continued remain 10.04.2007. If the notice
is given for appearance on 10.04.2007, how can the accused
No.1 give request letter in the month of April 2003. This also
goes to show that the document is created.
12.4 In his statement accused No.5/CW.8 has further
stated that earlier with respect to Form No.7A filed by the
father of accused Nos.1 and 2 Deputy Tahsildar, Arebhavi had
15 Crl.R.P.No.100013/2020
given report and it is forwarded by Tahsildar, Gokak on
31.03.2000 stating that the Form No.7A is liable to be
rejected. Despite the same, accused No.4 has given a report
that accused Nos.1 and 2 are cultivating the said land.
13. In the light of statement of accused No.5/CW.8,
Investigating Officer sent the document in question along with
the Form No.7A filed by father of accused Nos.1 and 2 for
scientific examination to FSL. In Form No.7A the scored off
portion is marked as Q1, Q2 and Q3. In the requisition letter
dated 10.04.2007 given by accused No.1 the numeral which is
tampered as 3 is marked as Q4 and in the tampered order the
obliterated portion is marked as Q5. The hand written date
5-6-2003 in the tampered order is marked as Q6.
14. The scientific expert has given report stating that:-
i) The obliterated portion marked as Q1 is
deciphered as "2.05.2007".
ii) The obliterated writing marked as Q2 is
deciphered as "wgÀ¸ÀÌj¸À¯Á¬ÄvÀÄ".
16 Crl.R.P.No.100013/2020
iii) The obliterated writing marked as Q3 is
deciphered as "rejected".
iv) The original year in the tampered portion
marked as Q4 is 2007 and numeral '7' is
overwritten as "3".
v) The obliterated writing in the enclosed portion
marked as Q5 is deciphered as "FgÀ¥Àà ²ªÀ¥Àà PÀ½î,
¸ÁQ£À ¨É¸É® PÀnÖ. gÁªÀÄzÀÄUÀð".
15. With this information based on scientific analysis
and after preliminary investigation, realizing that accused
No.5/CW.8 is not involved in the creation of the document in
question, the Investigating Officer has collected information
that the following were the persons who were working in land
reforms branch and collected their sample request hand
writing and marked them in 'R' series as under:
i) Siddappa Kallappa Harake (R1 to 4)
ii) Parasappa Lakshman Bhajantri (R5 to 8)
iii) Ramappa Chennappa Biradar
(accused No.3) (R9 to 12)
17 Crl.R.P.No.100013/2020
16. The Investigating Officer also collected 5 files of
grant orders, passed in favour of the following grantees:
i) Shankrappa Veerbhadrappa Meti
(±ÀAPÀæ¥Àà «ÃgÀ¨sÀzÀæ¥Àà ªÉÄÃn) dated 5-6-2003
ii) Channappa Shidagireppa Huddar
(ZÀ£ÀߥÀà ²zÀVgÉ¥Àà ºÀÄzÁÝgÀ) dated 22-5-2003
iii) Smt. Uddavva Kariyappa Katakol
(²æêÀÄw GzÀݪÀé PÀjAiÀÄ¥Àà PÀlPÉÆüÀ) dated 5-6-2003
iv) Maharudrappa Parappa Kalli
(ªÀĺÁgÀÄzÀæ¥Àà ¥ÀgÀ¥Àà PÀ½î) dated 5-6-2003
v) Irappa Shivappa Kalli
(FgÀ¥Àà ²ªÀ¥Àà PÀ½î) dated 5-6-2003
17. The investigation officer observed that in the files
at Sl.No.1 to 4 the original grant orders were available.
However in respect of file at Sl.No.5 pertaining to ªÀĺÁgÀÄzÀæ¥Àà
¥ÀgÀ¥Àà PÀ½î the original grant order is not found.
18. In order to ascertain as to who worked in the office
of Assistant Commissioner, Bailhongal on 05.06.2003 the hand
writing found in the grant orders in the said files are marked
18 Crl.R.P.No.100013/2020
as S1 to S16. He sent these files along with the request hand
writings at R1 to 12 to the FSL and requested the hand writing
expert to examine and report as to in whose hand writing S1
to 16 are and whether the hand written date 5-6-2003 at Q6
matches with any of these writings.
19. The hand writing expert has given report stating
that the person who wrote standard writing S1 to 16, R9 to 12
(accused No.3-Ramappa Biradar) also wrote the question
writing at Q5 and Q6. It means that at the relevant point of
time accused No.3 was the concerned clerk working in the
land reforms branch and was dealing with the concerned files
including the original order passed in favour of Irappa
Shivappa Kalli, which was found missing and used for
tampering and creating the grant order in favour of accused
Nos.1 and 2.
20. CW.13-Irappa Shivappa Kalli and CW.14-Rudrappa
Shivappa Kalli during the course of their statements they have
stated that even though grant order was made in their favour,
accused No.3 did not furnish them the copy of grant order and
19 Crl.R.P.No.100013/2020
he went on postponing and ultimately they kept quite after
getting khata transferred in their names.
21. On 05.06.2003 when accused No.5/CW8
S.M.Sonnad, the then Assistant Commissioner, Bailhongal has
not discharged his duties at Gokak and has not passed any
grant order in favour of accused Nos.1 and 2, as the official
in-charge of the said file, accused No.3 owes and explanation
as to how the original order dated 05.06.2003 passed in
favour of CW.13 Irappa Shivappa Kalli, pertaining to survey
Nos.144/1 measuring 3 acres 26 guntas and 145/1 measuring
5 acres 5 guntas of Kunnal village was utilized and tampered
into the grant order in favour of accused Nos.1 and 2. There
is a prima-facie material to show that utilizing the original
grant order, with the help of false report given by accused
No.4, accused No.3 has concocted the order in question.
22. Having regard to the fact that accused No.3 was
the custodian of said files, the Investigating Officer has rightly
arraigned him as accused and filed the charge sheet. It is true
that when the complaint under Section 200 Cr.P.C. was filed,
20 Crl.R.P.No.100013/2020
complainant arraigned accused No.5/CW.8 (S.M.Sonnad) as
accused since the concocted order bears his signature and he
was occupying the post of Assistant Commissioner, Bailhongal
and had jurisdiction over the subject matter of the concocted
order. Only after detailed investigation and with the help of
hand writing expert, the Investigating Officer was able to zero
down on accused No.3. Although already the Form No.7A filed
by father of accused Nos.1 and 2 rejected, having regard to
the fact that accused No.4 has given a false report stating that
the father of accused Nos.1 and 2 and after his death accused
Nos.1 and 2 are in possession and enjoyment of 2 acres 26
guntas in Sy.No.9, accused No.4 is arraigned as accused. Of
course as beneficiaries of the concocted order accused Nos.1
and 2 are rightly arraigned as accused.
23. Taking into consideration the material placed in the
charge sheet, the Trial Court has rightly rejected the
application filed by accused No.3 under Section 227 of Cr.P.C.
The impugned order has not caused gross miscarriage of
justice. It does not suffer from any manifest illegality calling
21 Crl.R.P.No.100013/2020
for interference by this Court in exercise of revision jurisdiction
under Section 397 R/w 401 of Cr.P.C.
24. Before concluding, a piece of advise to be
investigating officer in general. When a person is arraigned as
accused and given a number, he shall continue to be referred
to as such till the end. If any other persons are added as
accused they shall be given subsequent numbers. Ultimately,
if any of the accused are found not involved and given up i.e.
charge sheet is not filed against them, even though their rank
is earlier or in between, in the charge sheet, additional charge
sheet or split up charge sheet the accused shall be referred to
with reference to their original ranking, instead of realigning
their rank. It will avoid confusion when they are referred to in
the order or judgment. In the present case, initially complaint
was filed against accused No.5 showing him as accused No.3.
However, while filing the charge sheet he is shown as accused
No.5. Two other case workers who were working in the said
office are arraigned as accused Nos.3 and 4. It would have
been convenient had the original accused No.3 is continued as
22 Crl.R.P.No.100013/2020
such and shown his name in column No.13 as accused who are
not charge sheeted and the persons who are subsequently
arraigned as accused should have been shown as accused
No.4 and 5 in column No.12 against whom the charge sheet is
filed.
25. In the result, the petition fails and accordingly the
following:
ORDER
1) The Criminal Revision Petition filed by
accused No.3/Ramappa Chennappa Biradar
under Section 397 of Cr.P.C. is hereby
rejected.
2) The impugned order dated 25.10.2019
passed on application under Section 227 of
Cr.P.C. filed by accused No.3/Ramappa
Chennappa Biradar in Spl.Case No.36/2016
by the IV-Addl. Dist. & Sessions & Spl.
Judge (PCA), Belagavi, vide Annexure-F is
hereby confirmed.
3) Registry is directed to send a copy of this
order to the Trial Court forthwith.
Sd/-
(J.M.KHAZI)
JUDGE
sdu/SMP
