Karnataka High Court
The State Of Karnataka vs Dr. Pratap Singh on 25 June, 2025
Author: V Srishananda
Bench: V Srishananda
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC-K:3391
CRL.A No. 200223 of 2021
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
KALABURAGI BENCH
DATED THIS THE 25TH DAY OF JUNE, 2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V SRISHANANDA
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 200223 OF 2021
(378(Cr.PC)/419(BNSS))
BETWEEN:
THE STATE OF KARNATAKA,
THROUGH LOKAYUKTA POLICE STATION,
REP. BY SPECIAL PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
KALABURAGI.
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI SUBHASH MALLAPUR, ADVOCATE)
AND:
DR. PRATAP SINGH
Digitally signed S/O KUNDAN SINGH TIWARI,
by RENUKA
Location: HIGH
AGE:63 YEARS, OCC: DIRECTOR,
COURT OF PHYSICAL EDUCATION DEPARTMENT,
KARNATAKA GULBARGA UNIVERSITY, KALABURAGI,
AT PRESENT: DIRECTOR,
PHYSICAL EDUCATION DEPARTMENT,
KARNATAKA UNIVERSITY, DHARWAD,
R/O. H.NO.2-910/65/185,
GANGAMRUTHA NIVAS, BADEPUR COLONY,
SEDAM ROAD, KALABURAGI.
...RESPONDENT
(BY SRI. VISHAL PRATAP SINGH, ADVOCATE)
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC-K:3391
CRL.A No. 200223 of 2021
HC-KAR
THIS CRL.A. 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
05.01.2021 IN SPL.CASE NO.19/2015, PASSED BY THE
PRINCIPAL SESSIONS JUDGE AND SPL. JUDGE (LOKAYUKTA),
KALABURAGI FOR THE OFFENCE PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTION
13(i)(e) R/W SEC.13(2) OF PREVENTION OF CORRUPTION ACT-
1988. B) SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND ORDER OF
ACQUITTAL DATED 05.01.2021 IN SPL. CASE NO.19/2015,
PASSED BY THE PRINCIPAL SESSIONS JUDGE AND SPL. JUDGE
(LOKAYUKTA), KALABURAGI FOR THE OFFENCES PUNISHABLE
UNDER SECTION 13(i)(e) R/W SEC.13(2) OF PREVENTION OF
CORRUPTION ACT-1988. C) CONVICT AND SENTENCE THE
RESPONDENT/ACCUSED FOR THE OFFENCE U/SEC. 13(i)(e)
R/W SEC.13(2) OF 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 V SRISHANANDA
ORAL JUDGMENT
(PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V SRISHANANDA)
Heard Sri. Subhash Mallapur, learned counsel for the
appellant and Sri. Vishal Pratap Singh, learned counsel for
the respondent.
2. This appeal is by the Lokayukta challenging the
order of acquittal passed in Special Case No.19/2015 dated
05.01.2021.
NC: 2025:KHC-K:3391
HC-KAR
3. Facts which are utmost necessary for disposal of
the present appeal are as under:
3.1. The respondent was Physical Cultural Instructor
promoted to different cadres in the Office of Directorate of
Physical Education, Gulabarga University, Kalaburagi. Finally
he was promoted as Director of Physical Education. Based on
source information, he was observed by the Lokayukta in the
check period of 12.10.1981 to 13.12.2009 and as per the
prosecution, following is the assets, expenditure etc.,
Total assets of the accused during the check Rs.1,27,90,624/-
period from 12.10.1981 to 30.12.2009
Total expenditure of the accused during the Rs.1,97,01,822/-
check period
Total Assets and Expenditure Rs.3,24,92,446/-
Estimated total income Rs.1,81,67,442/-
Total disproportionate Assets and Expenditure of Rs.1,43,24,804/-
the accused during the check period
3.2. Charge-sheet came to be filed and after due trial
in Special Case No.19/2015 accused was acquitted. The
learned trial Judge, however, noted that, the total
disproportionate assets and expenditure during the cheque
NC: 2025:KHC-K:3391
HC-KAR
period is to the tune of Rs.27,14,044/- which is in excess of
11.6%.
4. Learned trial Judge, however wrongly relied on
the Judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of State of
Maharastra Vs. Pollonji Darabshaw Daruwalla, reported
in AIR 1988 SC 88, is of the opinion that, the excess assets
held by him is within permissible limit and acquitted the
accused.
5. This Court in the light of the arguments advanced
on behalf of the appellant, perused the Judgment rendered
by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of State of
Maharastra Vs. Pollonji Darabshaw Daruwalla, referred
supra, in detail. The reasons accorded by the learned trial
Judge to give the benefit of acquittal are not found in the
said Judgment.
6. Therefore, a case is made out by the appellant for
reversing the Judgment.
NC: 2025:KHC-K:3391
HC-KAR
7. However, Sri. Vishal Pratap Singh, contended
that, an opportunity be provide to explain the excess amount
in the light of Judgments rendered by the Hon'ble Apex Court
in the case of Krishnananda Agnihotri Vs. State of
Madhya Pradesh, reported in (1977) 1 SCC 816 and in
the case of B.C.Chaturvedi Vs. Union of India and
others, reported in (1995) 6 SCC 749.
8. The submission made on behalf of the
respondent-accused has got sufficient substance, inasmuch
as, it is the offence under Section 13(i)(e) of Prevention of
Corruption Act, gets completed when accused is unable to
satisfactorily account for the excess amount as determined
by the prosecution.
9. Therefore, a case is made out to set aside the
impugned Judgment and remit the matter to the trial Judge,
affording the parties to address the arguments afresh in
accordance with law.
10. Hence, the following order:
NC: 2025:KHC-K:3391
HC-KAR
ORDER
(i) The appeal is allowed;
(ii) The impugned Judgment dated
05.01.2021 in Special Case No.19/2015
(Lokayukta) passed by the Principal Sessions
Judge and Special Judge at Kalaburagi, is hereby
set aside;
(iii) The matter is remitted to the learned
Special Judge for fresh disposal in accordance with
law, from the stage of arguments.
Sd/-
(V SRISHANANDA)
JUDGE
SVH
CT:PK
