[Cites 7, Cited by 0]
Karnataka High Court
The State Of Karnataka vs K Govindappa on 8 April, 2026
Author: Mohammad Nawaz
Bench: Mohammad Nawaz
-1-
NC: 2026:KHC:19248-DB
CRL.A No. 1019 of 2025
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 8TH DAY OF APRIL, 2026
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MOHAMMAD NAWAZ
AND
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VENKATESH NAIK T
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 1019 OF 2025 (A)
BETWEEN:
THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
REPRESENTED BY LOKAYUKTA POLICE,
TUMAKURU DISTRICT,
REPRESENTED BY
THE SPECIAL PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
BENGALURU-560 001.
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI. B.B. PATIL, SPECIAL PUBLIC PROSECUTOR (P/H))
AND:
Digitally
signed by
LAKSHMI T
Location:
1. K. GOVINDAPPA
High Court S/O KARIYANNA,
of Karnataka
AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS,
EX-PRESIDENT
NYAYADAGUNTE,
PANCHAYATH,
PAVAGADA TALUK,
TUMAKURU DISTRICT-577 101.
R/AT CHIKKATHIMMANAHATTI,
NIDGAL HOBLI,
PAVAGADA TALUK,
TUMAKURU DISTRICT-577 101.
-2-
NC: 2026:KHC:19248-DB
CRL.A No. 1019 of 2025
HC-KAR
2. RAMANJINAMMA
W/O GOPALAIAH,
AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS,
SECRETARY AND IN-CHARGE PDO,
NYAYADAGUNTE,
PANCHAYATH,
PAVAGADA TALUK,
TUMAKURU DISTRICT-577 101.
R/AT Y.S. HOSAKOTE,
PAVAGADA TALUK,
TUMAKURU DISTRICT-572 141.
...RESPONDENTS
THIS CRL.A IS FILED U/S 378(1)(3) OF CR.P.C PRAYING
TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT DATED 21.04.2021 ACQUITTING
THE RESPONDENT PASSED BY THE HON'BLE VII ADDITIONAL
SESSIONS AND SPECIAL JUDGE AT TUMAKURU IN SPECIAL
CASE NO.213/2016 FOR THE OFFENCE PUNISHABLE UNDER
SECTION 13(1)(c) R/W 13(2) OF THE PREVENTION OF
CORRUPTION ACT, 1988 AND SECTION 409 AND 466 R/W
SECTION 34 OF INDIAN PENAL CODE AND SECTION 120-B OF
INDIAN PENAL CODE, AND CONSEQUENTLY CONVICT THE
RESPONDENT FOR THE SAID OFFENCES.
THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY,
JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MOHAMMAD NAWAZ
and
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VENKATESH NAIK T
-3-
NC: 2026:KHC:19248-DB
CRL.A No. 1019 of 2025
HC-KAR
ORAL JUDGMENT
(PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MOHAMMAD NAWAZ)
This appeal is preferred against the judgment of
acquittal passed in respect of offences punishable under
Section 13(1)(c) r/w Section 13(2) of the Prevention of
Corruption Act and Section 409 and 466 r/w Section 34 of
IPC and Section 120B of IPC.
2. There is an inordinate delay of 1,066 days in
preferring the appeal. IA No.2/2025 is filed under Section
5 of the Limitation Act to condone the delay. The
application is accompanied with the affidavit of the Deputy
Superintendent of Police, Karnataka Lokayukta, Tumkur
City.
3. It is stated in the affidavit that after disposal of
Spl.CC No.213/2016, a decision was taken to file an
appeal. The undersigned was remitted and reoccupied due
to general transfers and there was huge workload pending
with the Anti-Corruption Bureau Authority. The said
Authority came to be abolished by Division Bench of this
NC: 2026:KHC:19248-DB
HC-KAR
Court and a direction was given to transfer all the pending
cases registered by the Anti-Corruption Bureau to
Karnataka Lokayukta. The transfer was delayed due to
administrative reasons. Hence, the delay in filing the
appeal is neither intentional nor willful, but due to good
and sufficient reasons.
4. The learned counsel for appellant would submit
that apart from the reasons stated in the affidavit, the
delay was also due to Covid pandemic which was at peak
at the relevant point of time. He therefore submitted that
the delay may be condoned.
5. The impugned judgment is dated 21.04.2021.
The certified copy of the judgment was delivered to the
applicant on 31.05.2021 itself. The appeal is filed on
29.04.2025. In the affidavit there is no mention about
delay being on account of difficulty faced during the
pandemic. No satisfactory or acceptable reasons are
assigned in the affidavit, so as to condone an inordinate
delay of 1,066 days, which excludes 90 days limitation
NC: 2026:KHC:19248-DB
HC-KAR
provided to the State to file the appeal. We do not see
any good reasons to condone the delay in preferring the
appeal.
6. Insofar as merit of the case is concerned, it is
the case of the prosecution that accused No.1, President of
one Nyayadagunte Grama Panchayat and accused No.2
being the Secretary and in-charge PDO, demanded bribe
from the complainant for releasing the bill amount in
respect of the work done under MNREGA scheme, in spite
of the specific orders of the District ombudsman directing
accused No.2 to release the bill amount of Rs.23,142/-
from her personal funds. Subsequent to lodging of the
complaint by PW1, a raid was conducted in the Grama
Panchayat Office and certain documents were seized. On
completion of investigation, charge sheet was filed against
the accused.
7. The charges are framed against accused Nos.1
and 2, principally in respect of allegations of
misappropriation of amount of the Grama Panchayat,
NC: 2026:KHC:19248-DB
HC-KAR
criminal breach of trust, forgery and criminal conspiracy. It
is alleged that accused Nos.1 and 2 have demanded bribe
for releasing the bill amount in respect of work done by
PW1 under MNREGA. On appreciation of the oral and
documentary evidence led by the prosecution, the trial
Court has come to the conclusion that apart from the
uncorroborated testimony of PW1 in respect of the said
demand of bribe, there is absolutely no other material on
record. In the complaint, certain vague allegations are
made that in the work done under the MNREGA scheme
during 2008-2010, more than double the amount as
compared to actual work done was released and hence,
there is misappropriation. The allegation does not concern
the accused. The further allegations are that in respect of
construction of toilets under Nirmala Bharata Yojana, there
has been large scale irregularities and the amounts were
released in respect of non-existent toilets and those who
have actually constructed the toilets were deprived of the
benefits. However, the trial Court having regard to the
NC: 2026:KHC:19248-DB
HC-KAR
material on record has come to the conclusion that the
said allegation has remained unsubstantiated, since there
is no reference to this allegation in the report submitted by
PW3 and further, none of the witnesses who are examined
have deposed against accused Nos.1 and 2 that they have
demanded bribe in releasing the sanctioned amounts.
8. Insofar as the allegation in respect of the
Housing Scheme, allotment of houses made to the friends
and relatives of accused Nos.1 and 2, nothing was
unearthed during investigation and therefore, the said
allegation also remained unsubstantiated. In respect of
procurement of pump sets for bore-wells, that low quality
pump sets are procured, etc., the trial Court has rightly
observed that report published in the newspaper is hardly
any evidence. Even in respect of said allegation, there is
no material collected against the accused.
9. Insofar as the allegation regarding
misappropriation of public funds and criminal breach of
trust, the subject matter of offences under Section 13
NC: 2026:KHC:19248-DB
HC-KAR
(1)(c) r/w Section 13 (2) of Prevention of Corruption Act
and under Section 409 r/w Section 34 of IPC, the trial
Court has appreciated the evidence of PW3 and report at
Ex.P6. The bulk of the allegations relates to
non-compliance of procedural requirements, hence held it
will not amount to misappropriation and criminal breach of
trust, which would render the accused liable for criminal
prosecution.
10. Even in respect of the allegation of forgery of
documents are concerned, the prosecution relied on the
evidence of PW5, who has categorically stated that he has
not done any work of motor rewinding or any other work
for the panchayat. Hence, the trial Court has come to the
conclusion that his evidence is unreliable and cannot be
accepted without due corroboration. Further, the allegation
with regard to criminal conspiracy, none of the witnesses
have even whispered about the conspiracy between
accused Nos.1 and 2.
NC: 2026:KHC:19248-DB
HC-KAR
11. We find no reason to interfere with the
impugned judgment passed by the trial Court. Hence, the
appeal is dismissed even on merits.
I.A.No.1 of 2025 and I.A.No.2 of 2025 are
dismissed.
Sd/-
(MOHAMMAD NAWAZ)
JUDGE
Sd/-
(VENKATESH NAIK T)
JUDGE
HB,AM
List No.: 1 Sl No.: 6
