Karnataka High Court
The State Of Karnataka vs Ramesh Dhareppa Kattimani And Ors on 2 July, 2025
Author: V. Srishananda
Bench: V. Srishananda
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC-K:3606
CRL.A No. 200077 of 2021
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
KALABURAGI BENCH
DATED THIS THE 2ND DAY OF JULY, 2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V. SRISHANANDA
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.200077 OF 2021
(378(Cr.PC)/419(BNSS))
BETWEEN:
THE STATE OF KARNATAKA,
THROUGH LOKAYUKTA POLICE STATION,
REP. BY SPECIAL PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
KALABURAGI-585107.
...APPELLANT
Digitally signed
by SUMITRA (BY SRI SUBHASH MALLAPUR, ADVOCATE)
SHERIGAR
Location: HIGH
COURT OF
KARNATAKA AND:
1. RAMESH DHAREPPA KATTIMANI,
AGE: MAJOR,
OCC: EXECUTIVE ENGINEER P.W.D.,
VIJAYAPURA,
R/O. MULLAGASI, SAMAGAR ONI,
TQ. & DIST.VIJAYAPURA-586101.
2. AMARAPPA IRAPPA NAGOOR
AGE: MAJOR,
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC-K:3606
CRL.A No. 200077 of 2021
HC-KAR
OCC: ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER,
P.W.D. SINDAGI,
R/O. K.C. NAGAR,
SOLAPUR ROAD,
TQ. & DIST. VIJAYAPURA-586101.
3. PRAKASH MARTANDRAO KULKARNI,
AGE: MAJOR,
OCC: ASSISTANT ENGINEER, OFFICE OF
ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER,
P.W.D. SINDAGI,
R/O. VIDYASHREE COLONY,
TQ. BASAVAKALYAN,
DIST. BIDAR-585401.
4. DHANYAKUMAR BHIMARAO BIRADAR,
AGE: MAJOR,
OCC: ACCOUNT SUPERINTENDENT,
OFFICE OF THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER,
P.W.D. VIJAYAPURA,
R/O. PADAGANOOR,
TQ. SINDAGI,
DIST. VIJAYAPURA-586101.
5. NEELKANTH SHAMBHURAO DESHMUKH
AGE: MAJOR, OCC:CLASS I CONTRACTOR,
R/O. KUNCHAGANOOR, TQ. MUDDEBIHAL,
DIST. VIJAYAPURA-586101.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI SHARANAGOUDA PATIL, ADVOCATE, FOR R2;
SRI BASAVARAJ KAREDDY, ADVOCATE, FOR R3 TO R5;
R1-V/O DTD. 10.02.2023 APPEAL DISMISSED AS ABATED)
THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION
378 (1) AND (3) OF THE CR.P.C., PRAYING TO:
-3-
NC: 2025:KHC-K:3606
CRL.A No. 200077 of 2021
HC-KAR
A) GRANT LEAVE TO THE APPEAL AGAINST THE
JUDGMENT AND ORDER OF ACQUITTAL DATED
10.03.2020 IN SPL. CASE NO.13/2012, PASSED BY THE
PRINCIPAL SESSIONS JUDGE AND SPL. JUDGE
(LOKAYUKTA), VIJAYAPURA, FOR THE OFFENCE UNDER
SECTION 13(1)(C) R/W. SECTION 13(2) OF P.C. ACT AND
UNDER SECTIONS 468 AND 201 R/W. SECTION 34 OF IPC.
B) SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND ORDER OF
ACQUITTAL DATED 10.03.2020, IN SPL. CASE
NO.13/2012, PASSED BY THE PRINCIPAL SESSIONS
JUDGE AND SPL. JUDGE (LOKAYUKTA), VIJAYAPURA, FOR
THE OFFENCE UNDER SECTION 13(1)(C) R/W. SECTION
13(2) OF P.C. ACT AND UNDER SECTIONS 468 AND 201
R/W. SECTION 34 OF IPC.
C) CONVICT AND SENTENCE THE
RESPONDENT/ACCUSED FOR THE OFFENCE PUNISHABLE
UNDER SECTION 13(1)(C) R/W. SECTION 13(2) OF P.C.
ACT AND UNDER SECTIONS 468 AND 201 R/W SECTION
34 OF IPC, IN SPL. CASE NO.13/2012.
THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR FINAL 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)
1. Heard Sri Subhash Mallapur, learned counsel, for the appellant-Lokayukta and Sri Sharanagouda Patil -4- NC: 2025:KHC-K:3606 CRL.A No. 200077 of 2021 HC-KAR and Sri Basavaraj Kareddy, learned counsels, for the respondents-accused.
2. This appeal by the Lokayukta challenging the order of acquittal in Special (Lok) Case No.13/2012 dated 10.03.2020 on the file of the Special Judge, Vijayapura.
3. Facts in the brief, which are utmost necessary for the disposal of the present appeal, are as under:
3.1 A charge-sheet came to be filed by the Lokayukta Police against the respondents-accused for the offences under Section 13(1)(c) read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act (for short P.C. Act) and Sections 468 and 201 read Section 34 IPC.
3.2 The charge-sheet materials would disclose that the respondent Nos.1 to 4 being the public servants working as Executive Engineer, Assistant Executive Engineer, Assistant Engineer and Accounts Superintendent in Public Works Department, respectively, and accused -5- NC: 2025:KHC-K:3606 CRL.A No. 200077 of 2021 HC-KAR No.5 being the Class-I Contractor colluded with each other and without carrying out the work of strengthening and asphalting the road from 36.5 kilometre to 47 kilometre on Devarahipparagi to Talikoti Road, created false documents as if the work is completed and committed forgery in the month of March-2008 and got released a sum of Rs.83,30,729/- from the Government and in that respect, a complaint was lodged against them on 06.06.2008.
3.3 On 11.06.2008, Chief Engineer (Technical and Audit Cell) Karnataka Lokayukta, Bangalore, visited the spot, conducted the inspection and gave a report to the effect that work is still under progress and about non-
completion of work and there is a misappropriation of the amount to the tune of Rs.17,07,451/- till date and therefore, the charge-sheet came to be filed.
4. Charges were framed. Before trial Court, accused persons pleaded not guilty, therefore trial was held.
-6-
NC: 2025:KHC-K:3606 CRL.A No. 200077 of 2021 HC-KAR
5. In order to bring home the guilty of the accused persons, 22 witnesses were examined on behalf of the Lokayukta as PW1 to PW22 and 73 documentary evidence were placed on record to substantiate the charges, which are exhibited and marked as Exs.P1 to P73.
6. After the conclusion of the recording of evidence, accused statement as is contemplated under Section 313 of Cr.P.C., was recorded, wherein, accused persons denied the incriminating circumstances found against them.
7. On behalf of the accused, Chandramouli S/o. Ganganayak, R. Rudrayya S/o Late Rudrayya and Sadashivreddy B. Patil were examined as DW1 to DW3 and 08 documents were marked as Exs.D1 to D8.
8. Thereafter, learned Trial Judge heard the arguments of the parties in detail and on commutative consideration of the oral and documentary evidence placed -7- NC: 2025:KHC-K:3606 CRL.A No. 200077 of 2021 HC-KAR on record, acquitted the accused persons for the aforesaid offences.
9. Being aggrieved by the same, Lokayukta has filed the present appeal on following grounds:
Judgment passed by the Hon'ble Court is contrary to the facts of the case as well as law besides further erroneous hence the impugned order deserves to be set aside.
The Trial Court without proper appreciation of the facts of the case and evidence lodged by the prosecution has examined 15 witnesses and got marked 23 documents.
That the Trial Court has not considered the corroborative evidence of P.W.1 to P.W.7 and P.W.14 to P.W.22 in respect of the pot visit by the investigation officer and also further investigation done by him in the presence of the witnesses and panch witnesses.
That the Trial Court has not considered the Ex.P-49, the report submitted by the -8- NC: 2025:KHC-K:3606 CRL.A No. 200077 of 2021 HC-KAR Chief Engineer who has been examined as P.W.-15 wherein he has stated that his spot visit on 11.06.2008 and on inspection of 36.47 k.m. to 38 k.m. he found that the road work was not done, but the record showed that the payment of the bill was made.
That the Trial Court has not considered the said Ex.P-49 wherein the observation mentioned by the said P.W.-15 that the road work from 38.0 k.m. to 39 k.m. only one side tar road was done while the other side was not done, likewise from 36 k.m. to 47 k.m. the development work on both sides of the road was not done. On verification of the documents it was revealed that the work of value of Rs.17,07,451/- was not carried out and the concerned was not entered in the M.B. Book is also not considered by the Hon'ble Court. That the Trial Court has failed to come to the conclusion that when there is no road work, incomplete road work and partly road work, generally there is likelihood of chances of committing the -9- NC: 2025:KHC-K:3606 CRL.A No. 200077 of 2021 HC-KAR misappropriation of the sanctioned amount.
The Trial Court has failed to come to the conclusion that when there is no work, incomplete and partly work and misappropriation of the amount then also there is possibilities or chances of forging of the bills.
The Trial Court has not considered the report of the P.W.-16 which is marked as Ex.P-50 wherein the observation made by the said witness that there is irregularities in road work and he found that the major work of the Devarahipparagi-Talikoti road construction was not done but the bill amount was paid to the concerned contractor.
The Trial Court has not considered the sanction issued by the P.W.-18 as per Ex.P-51 for the prosecution of the Accused no.1 and Accused no.2 and also the sanction issued by the P.W.-19 as per Ex.P-52 for the prosecution of the Accused no.3 and Accused no.4 on verifying the concerned documents
- 10 -
NC: 2025:KHC-K:3606 CRL.A No. 200077 of 2021 HC-KAR confirming that there is materials and prima facie case is there against the said accused persons.
The Trial Court has not considered the fact that the investigation office, P.W.21 visited the Talikote-Devarahipparagi road spot and made preliminary enquiries and collected the concerned documents and conducted a detailed panchanama in presence of the panch witnesses, visited the office of the Executive Engineer, P.W.D. and Assistant Executive Engineer, Sindagi and collected the documents relating to the said work and conducted the panchanama and submitted the report in this aspect.
10. Learned counsel Sri Subhash Mallapur representing the appellant reiterating the grounds urged in the appeal memorandum, vehemently contended that the learned Trial Judge failed to properly appreciate the material evidence on record and wrongly acquitted the accused persons resulting in miscarriage of justice and sought for allowing the appeal.
- 11 -
NC: 2025:KHC-K:3606 CRL.A No. 200077 of 2021 HC-KAR
11. He would further contend that the report given by the Chief Engineer (Technical and Audit Cell) Karnataka, Lokayaukta, Bangalore, who visited the project site and thereafter noted that work was still in progress and despite the same, Completion Certificate was concocted and to the extent of pending asphalting of the road, there was a misappropriation to the tune of Rs.17,07,451/- and the said report is totally ignored by the learned Trial Judge while passing the impugned judgment and thus sought for allowing the appeal.
12. Per contra, Sri Basavaraj Kareddy, learned counsel representing respondent Nos.3 to 5 supports the impugned judgment.
13. Respondent No.1 died and therefore, appeal against the respondent No.1 stood abated.
14. Sri Basavaraj Kareddy further contended that the cross-examination of the prosecution witnesses and the answers elicited in such cross-examination would
- 12 -
NC: 2025:KHC-K:3606 CRL.A No. 200077 of 2021 HC-KAR make it clear that there was no misappropriation of the money to the extent of Rs.83,30,729/- as is contended by the prosecution in the teeth of the report given by the Chief Engineer, wherein, the misappropriation amount is estimated to the tune of Rs.17,07,451/-.
15. He would further contend that there was no collusion as is alleged among the Public Servants and Class-I Contractor, who was accused No.5 and there is no material evidence placed on record in this regard. Mere producing the photographs and contending that there was no completion of the work is not the proof of the allegations leveled against the accused persons.
16. He further contended that the question of forging the documents did not arise at all in view of fact that the writing and signature found in the Measurement Book and sample signatures of the accused did not tally and therefore, respondents are not responsible for the forging of the any of the entries.
- 13 -
NC: 2025:KHC-K:3606 CRL.A No. 200077 of 2021 HC-KAR
17. Sri Basavaraj Kareddy would also invite the attention of the Court to the documents placed on record in the form of Exs.D1 to D8, wherein, the proceedings held with regard to the inspection meeting and proceedings of the Government of Karnataka, report of the Superintendent Engineer as to the satisfactory completion of the work would falsify the report of the Chief Engineer of Lokayukta, who gave a report that there is a misappropriation to the extent of Rs.17,07,451/- and thus, sought for dismissal of the appeal.
18. 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 in this appeal:
1. Whether the material evidence placed on record is sufficient enough to bring home the guilt of the accused persons for the offence under Section 13(1)(c) read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption
- 14 -
NC: 2025:KHC-K:3606 CRL.A No. 200077 of 2021 HC-KAR Act and Sections 468 and 201 read with Section 34 of the IPC on re-appreciation?
2. Whether the impugned judgment is suffering from legal infirmity or perversity, thus calls for interference?
3) If answer to the point Nos.1 and 2 as above what is the appropriate sentence?
4) What order?
Regarding point Nos.1 and 2:-
19. In the case on hand, accused No.5 being allotted the work of asphalting from 36.5 kilometers to 47 kilometers on Devarahipparagi to Talikoti Road is not in dispute. The same was approved and work order was issued. Even as per the report of Chief Engineer - PW14 - Prabhakar Hanamantappa Chini work has progressed to considerable extent and as on the date of his inspection, there was still work pending and the amount that has been drawn as per the records to the incomplete work and
- 15 -
NC: 2025:KHC-K:3606 CRL.A No. 200077 of 2021 HC-KAR which is the amount of misappropriation is to the tune of Rs.17,07,451/-.
20. His cross-examination coupled with the defence evidence was considered by the learned Trial Judge in Paragraph Nos.31 and 32 as under:
"31. Considering the evidence of DWs-1 to 3 and cross-examination of PW-1, 6, 7, 14 to 16, 18 to 22 and considering Ex.D-1 to D-8 and Ex.P-32 to P-35 and P-49 it clearly indicates that the tender work order has been given to A-5 in the month of January 2008 and the work was completed and thereafter, bill was submitted to the concerned Treasury Office and cheque was handed over to the A-5 and there are no materials to show that the A-1 to 5 have forged the bills and other documents and presented before the Treasury and enhanced the amount and dishonestly fraudulently misappropriated Rs.17,07,451/- by using the same for their own use though being government servants as alleged by the prosecution. Considering the evidence, there are two views with regard to the completion of the work. When two views are possible brought in the evidence of prosecution witnesses the view in favour of the
- 16 -
NC: 2025:KHC-K:3606 CRL.A No. 200077 of 2021 HC-KAR accused can be taken in to consideration is a well established position of law and the benefit of doubt shall be extended to the accused. Here in this case, PWs-21 and 22 have not fairly conducted the investigation and chargesheet was submitted without verifying the records and the report submitted by the public authorities, which can not be ruled out. Therefore, the prosecution has failed to prove the ingredients of the offence U/s.468 r/w.Sec.34 of IPC and U/s.13(1)(c) r/w. Sec.13 (2) of the Act as alleged by the prosecution through a cogent and convincing evidence. There are several discrepancies in the evidence of PW-1, 6, 7, 14 to 22, which affects the case of the prosecution. On the other hand, PW-14 and 15 have categorically admitted that there is a work completion report and it is brought to their notice and they have admitted the same during the course of their cross- examination, which creates a doubt with regard to the case of the prosecution.
32. Upon examining the entire evidence of the prosecution witnesses, it appears to me that the evidence of PWs-1 to 22 are not cogent, clear and corroborative to show that in furtherance of the common intention, the A-2 to A-4 being the public servants working as Assistant Executive Engineer, Assistant Engineer and Accountant Superintendent
- 17 -
NC: 2025:KHC-K:3606 CRL.A No. 200077 of 2021 HC-KAR in Public Works Department respectively and A-5 being the Class-I Contract colluding with the abated A-1 got released Rs.83,30,729/- from the government in the month of March 2008 without doing the work of strengthening and tarring the road from 36.5 km to 47 km on Devarahipparagi - Talikoti by creating the false documents to the effect that the said work was completed and committed forgery and have dishonestly misappropriated Rs.17,07,451/- and also committed a sum of a criminal misconduct by abusing their position as alleged by the prosecution. There are no positive, satisfactory and sufficient evidence to establish the ingredients of the offences alleged against the accused. For the foregoing reasons, I hold that the prosecution has failed to prove its case against the accused through a cogent and corroborative evidence and also beyond all reasonable doubt. Hence, I answer the above point accordingly."
21. In other words, the entire case hinges whether as on the date of furnishing the final bill and drawing of the amount, the asphalting work was completed or not. According to the prosecution, without completing the
- 18 -
NC: 2025:KHC-K:3606 CRL.A No. 200077 of 2021 HC-KAR work, the amounts were drawn by forging the documents. To establish the forgery there is no material evidence placed on record.
22. Further, the documents relied on by the accused, especially, Exs.D1 to D4 would make it clear that there was an inspection conducted by the higher officials of the Public Work Department, whereunder, there is a Satisfaction Report recorded with regard to the work that has been completed and thereafter, bills have been processed.
23. Admittedly, the persons who are signatory to the said Satisfactory Report are not examined as witnesses nor they have been shown as the accused persons, if there is misappropriation that has taken place. Further, noting all these aspects of the matter, when the Lokayukta sought for sanction order to prosecute the public servants, i.e., accused Nos.1 to 4, after verifying the records, initially the higher officials of the Public Works
- 19 -
NC: 2025:KHC-K:3606 CRL.A No. 200077 of 2021 HC-KAR Department refused to accord the sanction to prosecute vide Ex.D5.
24. Ex.D7, which is the report of PW.21 to Lokayukta Police also helps the accused persons rather than the prosecution. In the teeth of such material evidence placed on record, very filing of the charge-sheet itself is not supported by proper material evidence on record.
25. Report marked at Ex.D4 and the report issued by PW.15 marked at Ex.P49 are contradictory to each other. If Ex.D4 is a false report that has been obtained by the PWD officials and processed the final bill based on the concocted documents, what is the action taken by the Secretary of PWD Department insofar as the other erring officials, is not forthcoming on record.
26. Perhaps the report at Ex.D4 is satisfactory and therefore, there was no sanction order accorded to prosecute accused Nos.1 to 4 at the first instance. Anyway, such doubts, which are in the case of the
- 20 -
NC: 2025:KHC-K:3606 CRL.A No. 200077 of 2021 HC-KAR prosecution should always enure to the benefit of the accused.
27. Further, proof that is required to be placed on record by the Lokayukta to substantiate the allegation, especially under Section 13(1)(c) of the P.C.Act, is exclusively on the Lokayukta. PW.21 has given a report vide Ex.D7, which is confronted to the witness and admitted by the witness. The same is marked as Ex.D7. Even in such report, the work is shown to be completed, which also finds place in Ex.P51.
28. Taking note of these aspects of the matter, even after re-appreciation of the material on record, this Court does not find any compelling material evidence, which has been ignored by the learned Trial Judge so as to form a different opinion.
29. Further, it is settled principles of law and requires no emphasis that when there is an order of acquittal passed by the duly constituted Court after due trial, the innocence of the accused gets reinforced.
- 21 -
NC: 2025:KHC-K:3606 CRL.A No. 200077 of 2021 HC-KAR
30. Yet another celebrated criminal jurisprudence is that if two views are permissible on same set of facts, the view that is favourable to the accused must be preferred.
31. With regard to the degree of proof, it is settled principles of law that prosecution has to travel a long distance between the mere suspicion and actual proof.
32. Applying these principles to the case on hand, this Court is of the considered opinion that the order passed by the learned Trial Judge requires no interference even after re-appreciation of the material evidence on record.
33. In view of the foregoing discussion, point Nos.1 and 2 are answered in the negative. Regarding point No.3:
34. In view of finding of this Court on point Nos.1 and 2 in the negative, this point would not arise for consideration.
- 22 -
NC: 2025:KHC-K:3606 CRL.A No. 200077 of 2021 HC-KAR Regarding point No.4:
35. From the foregoing discussion and the finding recorded by this Court on point Nos.1 to 3 as above, following order is passed:
ORDER Appeal is meritless and hereby dismissed.
Bail bonds, if any, stand discharged.
Sd/-
(V. SRISHANANDA) JUDGE SBS/SRT List No.: 1 Sl No.: 57 CT:PK