Karnataka High Court
The State Of Karnataka vs Kadappa Jakkappa Kamble And Ors on 7 August, 2025
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC-K:4532
CRL.A No. 200138 of 2019
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
KALABURAGI BENCH
DATED THIS THE 7TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE M G UMA
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.200138 OF 2019
(378(Cr.PC)/419(BNSS))
BETWEEN:
THE STATE OF KARNATAKA THROUGH,
KARNATAKA LOKAYUKTA POLICE, VIJAYAPURA,
REP. BY SPL. PROSECUTOR LOKAYUKTA,
HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
KALABURAGI-585 102.
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI SUBHASH MALLAPUR, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. KADAPPA JAKKAPPA KAMBLE,
Digitally signed
by LUCYGRACE TALUKA SOCIAL WELFARE OFFICER,
Location: HIGH VIJAYAPURA-586 101.
COURT OF
KARNATAKA
2. SAYYADSA SULEMAN AVATI,
HEAD MASTER, ASHRAM SCHOOL,
SOLAPUR ROAD, VIJAYAPURA.
3. SHRISHAILA GURAPPA PUJARI
DAILY WAGES TEACHER,
R/O INCHAGERI TANDA,
TQ. & DIST. VIJAYAPURA-586 101.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI SANJAY A. PATIL, ADVOCATE FOR R1 & R2;
SRI S.S. MAMADAPUR, ADVOCATE FOR R3)
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC-K:4532
CRL.A No. 200138 of 2019
HC-KAR
THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 378
(1) AND (3) OF THE CR.P.C. (OLD), SECTION 419 OF BNSS,
2023 (NEW), PRAYING TO, (A) GRANT LEAVE TO THE APPEAL
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND ORDER OF ACQUITTAL DATED
11.01.2019 IN SPECIAL CASE NO.01/2012 PASSED BY THE
PRINCIPAL SESSIONS JUDGE AND SPECIAL JUDGE
(LOKAYUKTA), VIJAYAPURA, FOR THE OFFENCE U/S. 13(1) (C)
R/W SEC. 13(2) OF THE PREVENTION OF CORRUPTION ACT,
1988 AND ETC.
THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR FURTHER 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 of Karnataka through Lokayukta police has preferred this appeal impugning the judgment of acquittal dated 11.01.2019 passed in Special (Lok) Case No.01/2012 on the file of learned Principal Sessions Judge/Special Judge, Vijayapura, acquitting the accused for the offences punishable under Section 13(1)(c) R/w Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act (for short 'PC Act') and Section 468 R/w Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short 'IPC'). -3-
NC: 2025:KHC-K:4532 CRL.A No. 200138 of 2019 HC-KAR
2. It is the contention of the prosecution that, PW.1, the Lokayukta Police Inspector held an inspection in Ashram School, Vijayapura and found that there were very few students who attended the school when compared to the students shown in the attendance register. Therefore, a suo moto complaint was registered and the inspection was undertaken. Finally, the charge sheet came to be filed to contend that, accused No.1 being the Taluka Social Welfare Officer, accused No.2 being the Head Master of the Ashram School, Vijayapura and accused No.3 being the daily wage teacher working under accused No.2, dishonestly and fraudulently concocted the attendance register in the Ashram School in respect of 49 students for the period from June 2005 to January 2006 and misappropriated an amount of Rs.1,37,200/-. Thereby, they have committed the offence punishable under Sections 13(1)(c) R/w Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act and Section 468 of IPC.
-4-
NC: 2025:KHC-K:4532 CRL.A No. 200138 of 2019 HC-KAR
3. The Trial Court took cognizance of the offence and summoned the accused. The accused have appeared before the Trial Court and pleaded not guilty. The prosecution has examined PWs.1 to 32 and got marked Exs.P1 to P41 in support of its contention. The accused have denied all the incriminating materials available on record, but have not led any evidence in support of their 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 and accordingly acquitted the accused. Being aggrieved by the impugned judgment of acquittal passed by the Trial Court, the Lokayukta has preferred this appeal.
4. Heard Sri Subhash Mallapur, learned Special Public Prosecutor for the appellant-Lokayukta, Sri Sanjay A. Patil, learned counsel for respondent Nos.1 and 2 and Sri S.S. Mamadapur, learned counsel for respondent No.3. Perused the materials, including the Trial Court records. -5-
NC: 2025:KHC-K:4532 CRL.A No. 200138 of 2019 HC-KAR
5. In view of the rival contentions urged by the learned counsel for both the parties, the point that would arise for my consideration is:
"Whether the impugned judgment and order acquitting the accused passed by the Trial Court suffers from infirmities and calls for interference by this Court?"
My answer to the above point is in the 'Negative' for the following:
REASONS
6. It is the specific contention of the prosecution that, accused No.1 being the Taluka Social Welfare Officer, accused No.2 being the Head Master of Ashram School and accused No.3 being the daily wage teacher working under accused No.2, fabricated and concocted the attendance register in respect of 49 students from June 2005 to January 2006, misappropriated an amount of Rs.1,37,200/- and thereby, committed the aforesaid offence. In order to prove this contention, the prosecution -6- NC: 2025:KHC-K:4532 CRL.A No. 200138 of 2019 HC-KAR has examined PW.1-the informant, who conducted inspection in the school and seized the records said to have been concocted and forged by the accused. This witness in his evidence specifically states that, only 125 students were studying in the school at the time when he inspected the school. But, as per the attendance register, 250 students were shown to be attending the school from June 2005 to January 2006. But, in the month of February 2006, it was shown that 57 students were absent and 173 students have attended the school. There were several corrections in the attendance register. When he verified the vouchers, it was found that the school was charging Rs.350/- per month, per student for their food and maintenance. Therefore, it is his contention that, the accused have committed the aforesaid offence.
7. During cross-examination, witness states that, there were 123 students in the school when he visited. He seized the vouchers, attendance register, etc. He examined several parents, who have admitted their wards -7- NC: 2025:KHC-K:4532 CRL.A No. 200138 of 2019 HC-KAR to the school and recorded their statements. The witness stated that, the name of accused No.3 was not found during his investigation. He visited and inspected the school and verified the documents on 22.02.2006 and filed the complaint on 25.03.2006 as per Ex.P2.
8. PW.2 is the mahazar witness to the seizure mahazar, whereunder Exs.P1 to P3 were seized. PWs.3 and 4 are the Assistant Teachers, who are formal witnesses. PWs.5 to 15 are the Head Masters in different schools, who deposed that the children who are admitted in Ashram school were also admitted in their respective schools and they have given certificates as per Exs.P22 to P31. As per these documents, only the name of the student with date of birth is mentioned to be the student studying in their respective schools. In the absence of the names and other details of the parents including the address, these particulars found in Exs.P22 to P31 cannot be compared with the school attendance register-Ex.P10 to support the contention of the prosecution that the -8- NC: 2025:KHC-K:4532 CRL.A No. 200138 of 2019 HC-KAR students referred to in Exs.P22-P31 were also found in Ex.P10 being the students at Ashram school.
9. PW.16 is the District Treasury Officer, who states that the bills pertaining to Ashram school for having supplied the food grains were being considered by him and he used to pass them.
10. PW.17 was supplying the food grains to the school, as he has taken the tender for such supply for the academic year 2006-2006. Witness stated that he used to receive the cheques towards the food grains supplied. He states that, he never paid any amount either to accused No.1 or to accused No.2 from out of the amount received by him. Witness further stated that, as per the tender accepted for supply of the food grains for the entire academic year, indent was being placed and accordingly he used to supply the food grains and used to get cheque from the treasury.
-9-
NC: 2025:KHC-K:4532 CRL.A No. 200138 of 2019 HC-KAR
11. PWs.18 to 23 and 25 to 29 are the parents of the various students, who have studied in Ashram school at one point of time and later they left the school. PW.24 is the Manger of the HOPCOMS, who was having the tender to supply milk and vegetables to the school and used to get the cheque from the treasury towards such supply. PWs.30 and 31 are the sanctioning authorities, who have accorded sanction to prosecute the accused. Strangely, these witnesses have categorically stated that they never accorded sanction after being satisfied with the prima facie materials against the accused, but the witnesses were never treated hostile and no departmental enquiry appears to have been initiated against them. PW.32 is the Investigating Officer, who filed the charge sheet against the accused.
12. If these materials are taken into consideration, obtaining sanction for prosecuting the accused itself is in serious doubt. There is no explanation as to why PWs.30 and 31 have turned hostile to the case of the prosecution
- 10 -
NC: 2025:KHC-K:4532 CRL.A No. 200138 of 2019 HC-KAR and still they have not been treated hostile by the Public Prosecutor.
13. As per the charge framed by the Trial Court, it is alleged that, the accused have concocted false attendance register in respect of 49 students for the period from June 2005 to January 2006. But, the evidence of PW.1 as referred to above is that, when he visited the school, he found 125 students studying in it. During his further examination, he stated that there were 123 students. As per the final report filed by the Investigating Officer, there were 173 students out of 250 students. Contrary to all these evidences, the charge is that, fake and false attendance register was registered in respect of 49 students. Therefore, the prosecution itself is not sure about its contention against the accused as to how many students were short of the total number of students shown in the attendance register. There is no reasonable explanation as to why such glaring inconsistency is found in the case of the prosecution.
- 11 -
NC: 2025:KHC-K:4532 CRL.A No. 200138 of 2019 HC-KAR
14. From the materials on record, it is clear that PWs.17 and 24 are the highest bidders having tender to supply the food grains, milk and vegetables against the indent that was placed with them. It is their evidence that they used to supply the materials as per the indent and used to claim the amount from the treasury. They were being paid the amount through cheques and they never paid anything to the accused. When such being the evidence led by the prosecution, it is not made clear as to how the accused by manipulating or concocting the attendance register could either misappropriate any amount or take any illegal advantage from out of the bill submitted for supply of the materials. From the materials on record, I am of the opinion that a very shabby investigation and trial was conducted, where the prosecution has made of an attempt to make out a case against the accused, but it has miserably failed to prove the guilt of the accused for the above stated offences
- 12 -
NC: 2025:KHC-K:4532 CRL.A No. 200138 of 2019 HC-KAR beyond reasonable doubt and therefore, the accused are entitled for acquittal.
15. I have gone through the impugned judgment of acquittal passed by the Trial Court. The Trial Court has taken into consideration all the materials that are placed before it and has arrived at the right conclusion. I do not find any reason to interfere with the same.
16. Accordingly, I answer the above point in the negative and proceed to pass the following:
ORDER The appeal is dismissed.
Sd/-
(M G UMA) JUDGE LG List No.: 1 Sl No.: 25