Karnataka High Court
State Of Karnataka Through vs Kashinath S/O Sidramayya Bidarkar on 2 September, 2025
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC-K:5077
CRL.A No. 200215 of 2022
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
KALABURAGI BENCH
DATED THIS THE 2ND DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE M G UMA
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 200215 OF 2022
(378(Cr.PC)/419(BNSS))
BETWEEN:
THE STATE OF KARNATAKA THROUGH,
LOKAYUKTA POLICE STATION,
REP. BY SPECIAL PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
KALABURAGI- 585 102.
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI SUBHASH MALLAPUR, SPL.PP)
AND:
Digitally signed
by RAMESH KASHINATH S/O SIDRAMAYYA BIDARKAR,
MATHAPATI AGE:61 YEARS, OCC: DEPUTY DEVELOPMENT
Location: HIGH OFFICER AND ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER,
COURT OF KIADB, KALABURAGI , NOW CHIEF ENGINEER,
KARNATAKA
PWD (NORTH-EAST RANGE), KALABURAGI,
R/O. HO NO. 4-601/36 AND 36-B, III CROSS,
M. B. NAGAR KALABURAGI- 585 102.
...RESPONDENT
(BY SRI KASHINATH S/O SIDRAMAYYA BIDARKAR
(PARTY-IN-PERSON)
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC-K:5077
CRL.A No. 200215 of 2022
HC-KAR
THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION
378 (1) AND (3) OF THE CR.P.C PRAYING TO, GRANT LEAVE TO
THE APPEAL AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND ORDER OF
ACQUITTAL DATED 03.03.2022, IN SPL. CASE NO.11/2017,
PASSED BY THE PRL. DIST. AND SESSIONS JUDGE AND SPL.
JUDGE (LOKAYUKTA), KALABURAGI, FOR THE OFFENCES
PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTION 13(1)(e) R/W. SEC.13(2) OF
PREVENTION OF CORRUPTION ACT, 1988. AND SET ASIDE THE
JUDGMENT AND ORDER OF ACQUITTAL DATED 03.03.2022, IN
SPL. CASE. NO.11/2017, PASSED BY THE PRL. DIST. AND
SESSIONS JUDGE AND SPL. JUDGE (LOKAYUKTA),
KALABURAGI.
THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING, THIS
DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE M G UMA
ORAL JUDGMENT
(PER: HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE M G UMA)
The State through Lokayukta Police, Kalaburagi,
being the complainant in Special Case No.11/2017
(Lokayukta) on the file of the learned Principal Sessions
Judge & Special Judge, Kalaburagi, (hereinafter referred to
as 'Trial Court') is impugning the judgment dated
NC: 2025:KHC-K:5077
HC-KAR
03.03.2022 acquitting the respondent-accused for the
offence punishable under Section 13(1)(e) r/w 13(2) of
Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, [for short, 'the PC
Act'].
2. Heard Sri Subhash Mallapur, learned Special
Public Prosecutor for the appellant-Lokayukta and Sri
Kashinath S/o: Sidramayya Bidarkar, the respondent-party
in person. Perused the materials on record.
3. In view of the rival contentions urged by
learned counsel for both the parties, the point that would
arise for my consideration is:
"Whether the judgment passed by the Trial Court
acquitting the accused suffers from infirmities
and calls for interference by this Court?"
4. My answer to the above point is in the
'Negative' for the following:
REASONS
5. The Deputy Superintendent of Police, Karnataka
Lokayukta, Kalaburagi, submitted the charge sheet for
NC: 2025:KHC-K:5077
HC-KAR
prosecuting the accused for the aforesaid offences. It is
the contention of the prosecution that, the accused was
appointed as Assistant Engineer in Public Works
Department on 27.01.1983 and served at different places
in different capacities. The Lokayukta Police took the check
period from 27.01.1983 to 29.04.2015, to verify the
assets, liabilities, income and expenditures of the accused
to find out as to whether he has amassed wealth
disproportionate to his known source of income. According
to the prosecution, he has acquired assets worth
Rs.1,71,15,230/- and has incurred expenditure of
Rs.1,02,76,051/-. Thus, the total assets and expenditure
runs to Rs.2,73,91,280/-, whereas the income from the
known source is only Rs.1,20,94,100/-. Thus there was
disproportionate assets of Rs.1,52,97,181/- which was
estimated at 47.79% more than the known source of
income. Thus, it is the contention of the prosecution that
the accused has amassed disproportionate wealth and
committed misconduct.
NC: 2025:KHC-K:5077
HC-KAR
6. In order to prove its contention, the prosecution
examined PWs.1 to 23 and got marked Exs.P1 to P-104 in
support of its contention. The accused has denied all the
incriminating materials available on record in his
statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. but has not chosen to
lead any evidence in support his defence. The Trial Court,
after taking into consideration all these materials on
record, came to the conclusion that the prosecution is not
successful in proving the guilt of the accused beyond
reasonable doubt. Accordingly passed the impugned
judgment of acquittal. Being aggrieved by the same, the
appellant is before this Court.
7. Learned counsel for the appellant contended
that even though 23 documents were exhibited before the
Trial Court, it has committed an error in taking into
consideration as many as 104 documents, to record the
acquittal of accused. On going through the order sheet
dated 25.08.2021 maintained by the Trial Court, it is
stated that the learned Special Public Prosecutor has
NC: 2025:KHC-K:5077
HC-KAR
produced several documents along with the memo and
those documents were marked with consent by the
learned counsel representing the accused. Accordingly,
several witnesses cited in the charge sheet were given up.
Thus, Exs.P25 to 104 came to be marked and thereafter
the matter was posted for recording the statement of the
accused under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. Under such
circumstances, the contention raised by the learned
counsel for the appellant that the Trial Court has referred
to several documents which were never marked, cannot be
accepted.
8. The next contention raised by the learned
counsel for the appellant is that, the Trial Court has not
properly valued the golden jewelries that were seized
during the raid. The Trial Court has found that the accused
was in possession of 247.700 grams of golden articles. It
appears that the prosecution has not produced any
materials to show the exact value of the golden articles,
and as to when the same were acquired by the accused.
NC: 2025:KHC-K:5077
HC-KAR
Under such circumstances, the Trial Court with some
guess work valued the golden articles, which cannot be
found fault with. Learned counsel for the appellant has not
disputed any other specific items taken into consideration
by the Trial Court. Under such circumstances, I do not find
any illegality or perversity in the judgment passed by the
Trial Court. No other grounds are urged by the learned
counsel for the appellant.
9. It is settled position of law that unless the
prosecution is successful in proving that the accused has
amassed wealth disproportionate to his known source of
income and such disproportionate asset is at-least 10%
more, then he is liable for prosecution and conviction.
When no such specific grounds are made out, I do not find
any reason to interfere with the impugned judgment of
acquittal passed by the Trial Court. Hence, without
discussing much about the impugned judgment passed by
the Trial Court, I answer the above point in the 'negative'
and proceed to pass the following:
NC: 2025:KHC-K:5077
HC-KAR
ORDER
The appeal is dismissed.
Sd/-
(M G UMA)
JUDGE
MSR
CT:PK
