Karnataka High Court
The State Of Karnataka vs Suresh S/O Balangouda Biradar And Ors on 10 June, 2025
Author: V Srishananda
Bench: V Srishananda
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC-K:2984
CRL.A No. 200065 of 2021
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
KALABURAGI BENCH
DATED THIS THE 10TH DAY OF JUNE, 2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V SRISHANANDA
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.200065 OF 2021
(378(Cr.PC)/419(BNSS))
BETWEEN:
THE STATE OF KARNATAKA THROUGH,
KARNATAKA LOKAYUKTA POLICE STATION
KALABURAGI,
REP. BY SPL. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
KARNATAKA LOKAYUKTA,
HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
KALABURAGI-585 107.
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI SUBHASH MALLAPUR, SPL.PP)
Digitally signed
by SUMITRA AND:
SHERIGAR
Location: HIGH
COURT OF 1. SURESH S/O BALANGOUDA BIRADAR,
KARNATAKA
AGE: 54 YEARS, OCC: EXECUTIVE OFFICER,
TALUKA PANCHAYAT, SINDAGI,
R/O H.NO.103, SHASTRI NAGAR,
OPP. SAINIK SCHOOL, VIJAYAPUR-586101.
2. DANAPPA S/O KASHAPPA DODDAMANI,
AGE: 55 YEARS, OCC: ASST. ENGINEER,
PANCHAYAT RAJ ENGINEERING, SUB-DIVISION,
CHITTAPUR, DIST. KALABURAGI,
R/O H.NO.1-866, BHAGAVATI NAGAR,
KALABURAGI-585102.
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC-K:2984
CRL.A No. 200065 of 2021
HC-KAR
3. KANTHU S/O MARUTHI MUNNALLI,
AGE: 34 YEARS, OCC: CONTRACTOR,
R/O RAM NAGAR, KALABURAGI-585104.
4. NANDAKUMAR S/O HANUMANTHRAO KULKARNI,
AGE: 63 YEARS, OCC: ASST. EXECUTIVE ENGINEER,
PANCHAYAT RAJ ENGINEERING, SUB-DIVISION,
CHITTAPUR, DIST. KALABURAGI (NOW RETIRED),
R/O H.NO.1-5-17/4, KHUBA PLOT, SANJEEVRAO
LAYOUT, KALABURAGI-585102.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI RAVI K. ANOOR, ADVOCATE FOR
SRI AVINASH A. UPLAONKAR, ADVOCATE FOR R3 AND R4;
R1 SERVED; NOTICE TO R2 IS DISPENSED WITH
V/O DTD.09.02.2023.)
THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 378
(1) AND (3) OF THE CR.P.C. PRAYING TO A) GRANT LEAVE TO
THE APPEAL AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND ORDER OF
ACQUITTAL DATED 29.07.2019, PASSED BY THE SPECIAL
JUDGE (LOKAYUKTA) AND PRL. SESSIONS JUDGE,
KALABURAGI IN SPL.CASE NO.02/2016,, WHEREIN HAS
ACQUITTED THE RESPONDENTS 3 AND 4 FOR THE OFFENCE
U/SEC. 7, 13(1)(C) R/W 13(2) OF THE PREVENTION OF
CORRUPTION ACT, 1988 AND SECTIONS 468, 471, 420 R/W 34
OF IPC. B) SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND ORDER OF
ACQUITTAL DATED 29.07.2019 PASSED BY THE SPECIAL
JUDGE (LOKAYUKTA) AND PRL. SESSIONS JUDGE,
KALABURAGI IN SPL.CASE NO.02/2016, WHEREIN HAS
ACQUITTED THE RESPONDENTS 3 AND 4 FOR THE OFFENCE
U/SEC.7, 13(1)(C) R/W 13(2) OF THE PREVENTION OF
CORRUPTION ACT, 1988 AND SECTIONS 468, 471, 420 R/W
SEC.34 OF IPC. C) CONVICT AND SENTENCE THE
RESPONDENT/ACCUSED FOR THE OFFENCE UNDER SECTIONS
7, 13(1)(C) R/W 13(2) OF THE PREVENTION OF CORRUPTION
ACT, 1988 AND SECTIONS 468, 471, 420 R/W 34 OF IPC.
-3-
NC: 2025:KHC-K:2984
CRL.A No. 200065 of 2021
HC-KAR
THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR HEARING, THIS DAY,
JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V SRISHANANDA
ORAL JUDGMENT
(PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V SRISHANANDA)
Heard Sri. Subhash Mallapur, learned Spl. P.P. for
Lokayukta/appellant and Sri.Ravi K. Anoor, learned counsel
on behalf of Sri. Avinash A. Uploankar, learned counsel for
respondent Nos.3 and 4.
2. The present appeal is preferred challenging the
order of acquittal recorded by the learned Special Judge in
Special Case No.2/2016 by the Judgment dated 29.07.2019,
insofar as accused Nos.3 and 4 is concerned.
3. The facts in nutshell which are utmost necessary
for disposal of the present appeal are as under:
3.1. A complaint came to be lodged with the
Karnataka Lokayukta Police, Kalaburagi that Sri. Shellagi
Devendrappa being the representative of All India Anti-
Corruption Committee, submitted a representation to the
NC: 2025:KHC-K:2984
HC-KAR
Superintendent of Police, Kalaburagi, and other officers
alleging misappropriation of funds of the Government.
3.2. The Superintendent of Police, Kalaburagi,
forwarded the representation to the Karnataka Lokayukta
and based on the same, a case came to be registered by the
Lokayukta department by Sri. T.R.Raghavendra being the
Police Inspector of Karnataka Lokayukta. He also conducted
preliminary enquiry and submitted a report to the
Superintendent of Police, Kalaburagi. After the receipt of the
said report, Tammaraya Patil, Police Inspector of Karnataka
Lokayukta was directed by the Superintendent of Police,
Kalaburagi to register a case and investigate and file
necessary charge-sheet.
3.3. Thereafter, the matter was investigated,
whereunder, it is noticed that, the taluka Panchayat,
Chittapur passed a resolution for repair and improvement of
Quarters Nos.2, 4 and 6 and directed to prepare the action
plan under the development funds. Accordingly, action plan
was prepared, estimated the expenditure in a sum of
NC: 2025:KHC-K:2984
HC-KAR
Rs.3,98,000/- for which, the action plan committee accorded
sanction.
3.4. Accused Nos.2 and 4 entrusted the contract
work of repairing and upgrading of the Quarters Nos.2, 4
and 6 to accused No.3, who is the contractor in the case.
Accused No.3 as per the work order, completed the repair
work and development works of Quarters No.2.
3.5. The prosecution case also reveals that, accused
No.3 did not undertake any repair work to Quarters Nos.4
and 6, but despite the same, accused Nos.1 to 4 conspired
themselves by placing forged and fabricated documents
shown that the repair works are carried out in all the
Quarters and prepared the bill to the tune of Rs.3,70,006/-
and after deducting the tax amount, submitted the bill to
sub-treasury for sanction and release of the amount.
3.6. After verification of the work order and
conducting the spot inspection, sub-treasury passed the
bill and released the amount.
NC: 2025:KHC-K:2984
HC-KAR
3.7. It is the further case of the prosecution that,
Assistant Executive Engineer of P.W.D, Chittapur, by name
Ramesh Reddy submitted a report that, repairs and
upgrading work of Quarters No.2 was only completed
which was to the tune of Rs.1,32,567/- and in respect of
Quarters Nos.4 and 6, there are no work undertaken by
the accused and there is a misappropriation of the funds of
the Government to the tune of Rs.2,37,439/- and they
have cheated the Government by furnishing the bogus bills
and sought for action against the concerned.
4. On collection of necessary materials, Lokayukta
filed necessary charge-sheet after obtaining sanction to
prosecute the Government Servants. The presence of the
accused persons were secured by the learned Sessions
Judge and after compliance of Section 207 of Cr.P.C.,
charges were framed. Accused persons pleaded not guilty.
In the interregnum, accused No.1 filed an application
seeking his discharge from the case which was allowed by
the learned Special Judge and Lokayukta for the reasons
NC: 2025:KHC-K:2984
HC-KAR
best known to it, did not challenge the discharge of the
accused No.1 from the case and it became final.
5. In the interregnum, accused No.2 died and
therefore the case against accused No.2 stood abated.
6. In order to bring home the guilt of the accused,
the prosecution in all examined 8 witnesses as P.W.1 to
P.W.8 and placed on record 19 documentary evidence,
which were exhibited and marked as Exs.P.1 to P.19.
7. On conclusion of recording of evidence, the
accused statement as is contemplated under Section 313
of Cr.P.C. was recorded by the learned Special Judge.
Accused Nos.3 and 4 denied the incriminatory
circumstances found against them and did not choose to
place any defence evidence nor any written submissions as
is contemplated under Section 313(4) of Cr.P.C.
8. Thereafter, learned Trial Judge heard the
arguments of the parties in detail and by impugned
NC: 2025:KHC-K:2984
HC-KAR
judgment, acquitted the accused Nos.3 and 4 from the
charges.
9. Being aggrieved by the same, the Lokayukta
has filed the present appeal on following grounds:
"11. That the judgement passed by the Trial court is
contrary to the facts of the case besides being
erroneous, hence the impugned judgement is
unsustainable in the eye of law.
12. That the Trial Court without proper appreciation
of the facts of the case and the evidence led by the
prosecution has passed the order of acquittal, which
has led into gross miscarriage of justice.
13. That the Trial court has not at all appreciated the
evidence led by the prosecution wherein all the 8
witnesses have supported the case of the
prosecution.
14. That the Trial court has committed a grave error
by acquitting the accused only on the ground that
the complainant has not fully supported the case of
the prosecution, brushing aside the evidence of other
witnesses and the document produced to prove the
case.
NC: 2025:KHC-K:2984
HC-KAR
15. That the Trial court has not considered Ex.P-15 &
18 the documents relating to the work at quarters 4
& 6, wherein as per these documents the bills in
respect of repair and renovation of quarterno.4 7 6
was prepared and drawn in march 2013, before the
inspection was made by PW-5 and PW-4 & 8
submitted the spot inspection report, which is
sufficient prove the charges leveled against the
accused.
17. That the Appellant prays for the liberty to urge
additional grounds if any as may be available to, in
the circumstance of the case and in law, at the time
of hearing.
The appellant submits that they have not filed any
appeal against the judgment and award passed by
the court below before any other court and they are
pending."
10. Sri Subhash Mallapur, learned Spl.PP for the
appellant reiterating the grounds urged in the appeal
memorandum, vehemently contended that learned Trial
Judge failed to note that the report submitted by the
Assistant Engineer of PWD clearly indicated that accused
No.3 failed to carry out any repair or developmental work
- 10 -
NC: 2025:KHC-K:2984
HC-KAR
insofar as Quarters Nos.4 and 6 and only completed the
work in Quarters No.2. Therefore, drawing of the money
for the Quarters Nos.4 and 6 is nothing but criminal
misappropriation and wrongly acquitted the accused
persons and sought for setting aside the impugned
judgment and record an order of conviction insofar as
accused Nos.3 and 4 are concerned.
11. Per Contra, Sri Ravi K. Anoor, learned counsel
for respondent Nos.3 and 4 supports the impugned
judgment by contending that role of accused No.3 was
only that of contractor and after spot inspection of the
repair work conducted by accused No.3, the bills were
prepared by the concerned and officials of sub-treasury
have visited the place and verified the work carried out
and later on sanctioned amount and therefore order of
acquittal is just and proper.
12. Insofar as accused No.4 is concerned, he has
only countersigned the bill and sanction order as per the
- 11 -
NC: 2025:KHC-K:2984
HC-KAR
office note put up by the officials of PWD and he was not
the person, who ordered for carrying out the repair work
insofar as Quarters Nos.2, 4 and 6 nor he was involved in
getting the work done through accused No.3. Therefore,
acquittal order recorded by the learned Trial Judge is just
and proper.
13. Having heard the arguments of both sides, this
Court perused the material on record meticulously. On
such perusal of the material on record, the following points
would arise for consideration:
(i) Whether the material evidence placed by the
prosecution is sufficient enough to establish
are liable for the punishment in commission of
the offences under Sections 468, 465, 471, 420
read with Section 34 of IPC and Sections 7,
13(1) (c) read with Section 13(2) of the
Prevention of Corruption Act?
(ii) Whether the impugned judgment is suffering
from legal infirmity or perversity?
- 12 -
NC: 2025:KHC-K:2984
HC-KAR
(iii) If the answer to point Nos.1 and 2 are in
affirmative, what is the appropriate sentence?
(iv) What order?
Regarding point Nos.1 and 2:
14. In order to appreciate the validity of the
impugned judgment, it is just and necessary for this Court
to appreciate the oral testimony of P.W.4 and 8.
15. In the oral testimony of P.W.4, in cross-
examination, it has been elicited that he has no expertise
as to the civil works being conducted by public works
department. He admits that he has not measured the
length and breadth of the Quarters. He admits that the bill
is prepared based on the rates fixed under DSR. He admits
that in Exhibit P.7 he has not mentioned the percentage of
the work in comparison with the work order.
16. He also admits that neither the Lokayukta nor
Engineer of the PWD had furnished any copy of the work
order under estimation at the time of inspection. He
- 13 -
NC: 2025:KHC-K:2984
HC-KAR
admits that even though there is no written order, the
amount available in the budget must be spent before
March, 31st of that particular year otherwise, it would get
lapsed.
17. P.W.8 is another important witness on behalf of
the prosecution. He deposed that he had inspected
Quarters Nos.2, 4 and 6 as per the letter dated
09.10.2013 received from the Lokayukta office.
Accordingly, he visited those Quarters and gave a report
that Quarters No.2 is completely repaired and
development work has taken place but in respect of
Quarters Nos.4 and 6, no such work has taken place. His
report is marked as Exhibit P.17.
18. In his cross-examination, he has answered that
it is the Lokayukta police, who has shown him the
Quarters for inspection. He has stated that based on the
DSR rate, he has given the report in Exhibit P.17. To a
Court question, as to what is the amount spent for each of
- 14 -
NC: 2025:KHC-K:2984
HC-KAR
the Quarters and what is the amount that was sanctioned,
he has answered that he obtained such report. However,
to the Court question that whether he has appended such
documents along with Exhibit P.17, P.W.8 has specifically
answered that he failed to append the same along with
Exhibit P.17.
19. To yet another Court question that whether he
has communicated with the respective departments to find
out the sanction and expenditure, witness answered that
he does not remember having communicated to the
concerned department.
20. The Court further questioned him as to whether
he obtained necessary documents in this regard from the
Lokayukta police, P.W.8 has answered categorically that
he did not receive any such documents from the
Lokayukta.
21. The effect of the above cross-examination is
discussed in paragraph No.29 onwards in the impugned
- 15 -
NC: 2025:KHC-K:2984
HC-KAR
judgment. For ready reference, paragraph Nos.29 to 36
are culled out hereunder:
"29. From the evidence of PWs.4 and 8, it is very clear
that without obtaining the Action Plan and
estimation prepared by the concerned authority
they have given their report as per Ex.P.7 and 17.
It is not possible for anybody to give report that
without seeing the estimation copy how much
amount is reserved for each repair work and how
much amount has been spent to the said quarters.
Further, it is not possible for them to issue the
certificate without seeing the estimation copy how
much amount has been spent to the said quarters.
30. Further, during the course of recording the
evidence, this Court put some questions to PW.8
and sought answers from him and they reads as
under;
£ÁåAiÀiÁ®AiÀÄzÀ ¥À±æ Éß: AiÀiÁªÀ AiÀiÁªÀ ªÀ¸wÀ UÀȺÀU¼
À À zÀÄgÀ¹U
Û ÁV JµÀÄÖ ºÀt
ªÀÄAdÆgÁVzÉ ºÁUÀÆ JµÀÄÖ RZÁðVzÉ JA§ÄzÀgÀ §UÉÎ
¸ÀA§Azs¥
À ÀlÖ E¯ÁSɬÄAzÀ zÁR¯ÉU¼
À ÀÄ
¥Àqz
É ÀÄPÉÆAr¢ÝgÁ?
GvÀg
Û À : ¥Àqz
É ÀÄPÉÆArzÉÝãÉ.
£ÁåAiÀiÁ®AiÀÄzÀ ¥À±æ Éß ¤ÃªÀÅ ¥Àqz
É ÀÄPÉÆAqÀAvÀºÀ D zÁR¯ÉU¼
À £
À Àß ªÀg¢
À eÉÆvÉ
®UÀw¹
Û ¢ÝgÁ?
- 16 -
NC: 2025:KHC-K:2984
HC-KAR
GvÀg
Û :À E¯Áè.
£ÁåAiÀiÁ®AiÀÄzÀ ¥À±æ Éß: ¸Àzj
À RZÀÄð ºÁUÀÆ ªÀÄAdÆgÁwAiÀÄ ¸ÀA§AzÀ¥ÀlÖ
E¯ÁSÉUÉ ¥ÀvÀæ §gÉ¢zÁÝgÁ?
GvÀg
Û :À £É£¦
À ®è.
£ÁåAiÀiÁ®AiÀÄzÀ ¥À±æ Éß: ¯ÉÆÃPÁAiÀÄÄPÀÛ ¥ÉưøÀjAzÀ zÁR¯ÁwUÀ¼£
À £
À Àß
¥Àqz
É ÀÄPÉÆArzÁÝg?À
GvÀg
Û :À E¯Áè.
31. From the evidence of this PW.18, it is very
clear that they have not secured the
estimation copy in respect of the amount
which has to be spent towards the quarters
No.2, 4 and 6. Without securing those
documents, they simply issued the certificate.
Therefore, the certificate issued by PW.4 and
8 do not take much value in the present case.
32. From the evidence of PW.2, it shows that
nothing was made known to this witness prior
to conducting/drawing of panchanama and no
documents were shown to him in respect of
the work and what amount work was
entrusted, what amount of work is done and
what amount of work is pending. Further, the
photographs which are produced at Ex.P.2 to
4 are one sided and they does not reveal the
identity.
- 17 -
NC: 2025:KHC-K:2984
HC-KAR
33. From the evidence of PW. 4, it also appears
that PW.4 is not an specialist he has not
measured the area of the residential quarters,
he had no D.S.R rates, so also he cannot say
what percentage of work is done and how
much is yet to be completed.
34. In the present case, no documents are
forthcoming from the prosecution side stating
what are the documents forged by accused
No.2 and 4 and further no documents
forthcoming before the Court that as per the
Action Plan or Estimate prepared by
Panchayat, they have not completed the
work. Further, no evidence is forthcoming
from the mouth of any one of the witnesses
that accused No.2 and 4 received the amount
from any person for forging those documents
and they have forged the documents and
received the amount from any person. In the
absence of such evidence, it cannot be said
that accused No.2 and 4 have committed the
offence which is punishable under Section 13
(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act.
35. Further, it is the case of prosecution that
accused No.2 and 4 colluded with each other,
created and forged the documents and
submitted the bills to the Treasury and drawn
- 18 -
NC: 2025:KHC-K:2984
HC-KAR
the amount from the Treasury. Merely the
amount credited to the Account of accused
No.3, it does not mean to say that the said
amount was credited to the Account of
accused No.3 only on the basis of forged
documents. It is the heavy burden lies on the
have not completed the work i.e. as per the
estimation given by the Panchayat or Action
Plan of that Panchayat. Further, the accused
No.2 to 4 have colluded with each other and
forged the documents with an intention to
drawn the amount showing that work is
completed. In the absence of such evidence,
it cannot be said that accused committed the
offence punishable under Sections 468, 465,
471 and 420 of the Indian Penal Code.
36. In view of the discussion made above and on
perusal of the entire evidence adduced by the
prosecution as discussed by me supra, the
prosecution has failed to produce cogent,
corroborative and satisfactory evidence to
prove the charges levelled against the
accused persons. The evidence produced by
the prosecution is insufficient to hold that
accused persons committed the offence
punishable under Sections 468, 465, 471,
- 19 -
NC: 2025:KHC-K:2984
HC-KAR
420 R/W section 34 of the Indian Penal Code
and also under Sections 7 and 13 (1) (c)
punishable under Section 13 (2) of the
Prevention of Corruption Act. Accordingly, I
answer points No.2 to 6 in the negative."
22. On careful perusal of the above, it is crystal
clear that learned judge has rightly appreciated the
material evidence placed by the Lokayukta and recorded a
categorical finding that the prosecution evidence is not
sufficient to bring home the guilt of the accused by placing
cogent and convincing evidence which would be in a
position to attract all the ingredients for the aforesaid
offences and rightly acquitted the accused.
23. It is settled principles of law and requires no
emphasis that whenever a duly constituted Court records
an order of acquittal, it reinforces the innocence of the
accused as the accused is presumed to be innocent.
24. Likewise, it is yet another celebrated principles
of criminal jurisprudence that if two views are permissible
- 20 -
NC: 2025:KHC-K:2984
HC-KAR
on the same set of facts, the view which favours the
accused must be preferred.
25. It is equally settled principles of law that
prosecution has to travel a long distance between "may be
proved" and "actual proof".
26. In the case on hand, the prosecution failed to
establish that accused No.3 is a conspirator and was party
to the alleged misappropriation. Insofar as accused No.4
is concerned, he has only countersigned the bill produced
by the sub-treasury for sanction of the amount.
27. Under such circumstances, in the absence of
any positive evidence, that is placed on record by the
prosecution to prove the charges against accused Nos.3
and 4, the order of acquittal needs to be confirmed.
28. In view of the foregoing discussion, point Nos.1
and 2 are answered in the Negative.
- 21 -
NC: 2025:KHC-K:2984
HC-KAR
Regarding point No.3:
29. In view of finding of this Court on point Nos.1
and 2, this point would not arise for consideration.
Regarding point No.4:
30. In view of findings of this Court on point Nos.1
to 3 as above, the following order is passed:
ORDER
(i) The appeal is meritless and hereby
dismissed.
(ii) The bail bonds, if any, executed by
respondent Nos.3 and 4/accused Nos.3
and 4 stand discharged.
Sd/-
(V SRISHANANDA)
JUDGE
SVH/RSP
CT:PK
