Karnataka High Court
Shashidhaar S Bilekal vs The State Of Karnataka on 8 January, 2026
Author: V.Srishananda
Bench: V.Srishananda
-1-
NC: 2026:KHC-D:190
CRL.A No. 100083 of 2015
C/W CRL.A No. 100028 of 2015
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,AT DHARWAD
DATED THIS THE 8TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2026
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V.SRISHANANDA
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 100083 OF 2015 (C)
C/W
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 100028 OF 2015
IN CRL.A NO.100083/2015
BETWEEN:
GIRISH S. BILEKAL,
S/O P. SHANKARAPPA ELLAPPA BILEKAL,
AGE:44 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS,
R/O: AMRESHWAR LINGARAJ NAGAR,
NORTH UNKAL, HUBLI-31, DIST: DHARWAD.
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI. GANAPATI M. BHAT, ADVOCATE)
AND:
Digitally signed by
CHANDRASHEKAR
LAXMAN
KATTIMANI THE STATE OF KARNATAKA,
Location: High
Court of Karnataka,
Dharwad Bench
BY CENTRAL BUREAU OF
INVESTIGATION, BENGALURU,
BY ITS SPECIAL PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, DHARWAD,
HIGH COURT BUILDING, DHARWAD.
...RESPONDENT
(BY SRI. NEELENDRA D. GUNDE, ADVOCATE)
THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 374 (2)
OF CR.P.C. PRAYING TO CALL FOR RECORDS AND SET-ASIDE
JUDGMENT AND ORDER OF CONVICTION DATED: 09/04/2015
PASSED THE COURT OF THE III ADDL. DIST. AND SESSIONS &
SPECIAL JUDGE,AT: DHARWAD IN SPECIAL C.B.I.C.C.NO.
-2-
NC: 2026:KHC-D:190
CRL.A No. 100083 of 2015
C/W CRL.A No. 100028 of 2015
HC-KAR
02/2015 FOR AN OFFENCE PUNISHABLE U/SECS. 468, 471 AND
420 OF I.P.C. AND ACQUIT THE APPELLANT FOR CHARGE
LEVELLED AGAINST HIM, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE.
IN CRL.A NO.100028/2015
BETWEEN:
SHASHIDHAAR S. BILEKAL
S/O P. SHANKARAPPA ELLAPPA BILEKAL,
HOUSE NO.3552/3+5,
SHIRUR PARK, NEAR KHODAY HOSTEL,
VIDYA NAGAR, HUBLI-31.
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI. D.L. LADKHAN, ADVOCATE)
AND:
THE STATE OF KARNATAKA,
CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION
REPRESENTED BY SPECIAL PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
AND PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
DHARWAD BENCH.
...RESPONDENT
(BY SRI. NEELENDRA D. GUNDE, ADVOCATE)
THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL IS FILED U/S 374(2) OF CR.P.C.
PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT OF CONVICTION AND
ORDER OF SENTENCE PASSED AGAINST ACCUSED NO.3 IN SPL.
(CBI).C.C.NO.9/2013 ON THE FILE OF THE III-ADDL. DIST. &
SESSIONS & SPL. JUDGE, DHARWAD, ON 12.01.2015, IN UNDER
SECTIONS 468, 471, 420 OF IPC, ACQUIT ACCUSED NO.3 OF
THE OFFENCE PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTION. 468,471, 420
I.P.C. AND SET ASIDE THE ORDER OF SENTENCE TO UNDERGO
SIMPLE IMPRISONMENT AND PAYMENT OF FINE OF RS.5000/-
EACH FOR THE OFFENCES UNDER SECTION 468, 471, 420 OF
I.P.C, IN DEFAULT TO UNDERGO 2 MONTHS SIMPLE
IMPRISONMENT.
THESE APPEALS, COMING ON FOR FURTER HEARING, THIS
DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
-3-
NC: 2026:KHC-D:190
CRL.A No. 100083 of 2015
C/W CRL.A No. 100028 of 2015
HC-KAR
ORAL ORDER
(PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V.SRISHANANDA)
1. Heard Sri Ganapati M. Bhat and Sri D. L. Ladkhan, learned counsel for the appellants, and Sri Neelendra D. Gunde, learned counsel for the respondents.
2. In these two matters, the appellants are accused Nos.2, and 3, who were convicted in Special (CBI) C.C.No.2/2015 on the file of the III Additional District Sessions and special Judge, Dharwad.
3. The facts, in a nutshell, which are necessary for the disposal of these two appeals, are as under:
A charge sheet came to be filed by the Police Inspector, CBI, Bangalore, for the offences punishable under Section 120-B read with Sections 420, 468, and 471 of the Indian Penal Code (for short, "the IPC") and under Sections 13(1)(d) and 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (for short, 'the P.C.Act'), against accused Nos.1 to 3.
Accused No. 1, being the Bank Manager and a public -4- NC: 2026:KHC-D:190 CRL.A No. 100083 of 2015 C/W CRL.A No. 100028 of 2015 HC-KAR servant, was acquitted. The present appellants have been convicted for the offences punishable under Sections 468, 471, and 420 of the IPC by the impugned judgments.
4. The operative portions of the impugned judgments are extracted hereunder in both the cases for ready reference.
"In Crl.A.No.100083/2015
ORDER "1. Acting U/Sec. 235(2) of Cr.P.C. A.2 is convicted for the offences punishable U/Secs. 468, 471, 420 I.P.C.
2. Accused No.2 is sentenced to undergo SI for a period of six months for the offence punishable U/Sec.468 I.P.C. and shall pay a fine of Rs.5000/-. In case of default in payment of fine A.2 shall suffer S.1. for a further period of 2 months.
3. Accused No.2 is sentenced to undergo S1 for a period of six months for the offence punishable U/Sec.471 I.P.C. and shall pay a fine of Rs.5000/-. In case of default in payment of fine A shall suffer S.I. for a further period of 2 months.
4. Accused No.2 is sentenced to undergo SI for a period of three months for the offence punishable U/Sec.420 I.P.C. -5-
NC: 2026:KHC-D:190 CRL.A No. 100083 of 2015 C/W CRL.A No. 100028 of 2015 HC-KAR and shall pay a fine of Rs.5000/-. In case of default in payment of fine A.2 shall suffer S.I. for a further period of 2 months.
5. Office to supply the free copy of this judgment to A.2 immediately.
6. All the substantive sentences shall run concurrently." In Crl.A.No.100028/2015
ORDER "1. Acting U/Sec.235(1) of Cr.P.C. A.1 is acquitted for the offences punishable U/Secs.120-B, 468, 471, 420 I.P.C.R/w.Sec.13(1)(d) R/w.Sec.13(2) of P.C.Act, 1988 by extending principle of benefit of doubt.
2. Acting U/Sec. 235(2) of Cr.P.C. A.3 is convicted for the offences punishable U/Secs. 468, 471, 420 L.P.C.
3. Accused No.3 is sentenced to undergo SI for a period of six months for the offence punishable U/Sec.468 L.P.C. and shall pay a fine of Rs.5000/-. In case of default in payment of fine A.3 shall suffer S.I. for a further period of 2 months.
4. Accused No.3 is sentenced to undergo SI for a period of six months for the offence punishable U/Sec.471 LP.C. and shall pay a fine of Rs.5000/-. In case of default in payment of fine A.3 shall suffer S.I. for a further period of 2 months.
5. Accused No.3 is sentenced to undergo SI for a period of three months for the offence punishable U/Sec.420 I.P.C. -6-
NC: 2026:KHC-D:190 CRL.A No. 100083 of 2015 C/W CRL.A No. 100028 of 2015 HC-KAR and shall pay a fine of Rs.5000/-. In case of default in payment of fine A.3 shall suffer S.I. for a further period of 2 months.
6. Office to supply the free copy of this judgment to A.3 immediately.
7. All the substantive sentences shall run concurrently."
5. At the outset, learned counsel for the appellants would submit that since accused No.1 has been acquitted, the appellants are entitled to an order of acquittal for the remaining offences, namely, the offences under Sections 468, 471, and 420 of the IPC.
6. Alternatively, Sri Ganapati M. Bhat and Sri D. L. Ladkhan would contend that, in the event this Court confirms the judgment of the trial Court, leniency may be shown having regard to the advanced age and health conditions of the appellants by imposing a reasonable fine and reducing the period of imprisonment.
7. The same is opposed by Sri.Neelendra D. Gunde, learned counsel for the respondents, who supports the impugned judgment.
-7-
NC: 2026:KHC-D:190 CRL.A No. 100083 of 2015 C/W CRL.A No. 100028 of 2015 HC-KAR
8. From the charge-sheet materials, it is found that during the period from 09.05.2002 to 28.10.2002, accused No.1 was working as the Branch Manager of UCO Bank, Hubli Branch.
9. During the said period, accused No.1 entered into a criminal conspiracy with the appellants herein, who are private persons, to cheat UCO Bank in respect of the sanction of a loan of Rs.25,00,000/- granted to M/s.Sonia Caters, a fictitious partnership firm of which accused Nos.2 and 3 and the wife of accused No.2, namely Smt.Paramajith shashidhar, were shown as partners.
10. It is also alleged that, in furtherance of the said criminal conspiracy, on 22.03.2002, a current account bearing No.1177 was opened in the UCO Bank branch by the present appellants.
11. The said account was opened by the appellants without proper introduction, without the signature of the Branch Manager on the account opening form, and without obtaining the specimen signatures of the account holders. -8-
NC: 2026:KHC-D:190 CRL.A No. 100083 of 2015 C/W CRL.A No. 100028 of 2015 HC-KAR Thereafter, the loan application was processed and the amount was sanctioned by accused No.1.
12. When the account became irregular, a detailed enquiry was conducted and an internal report was prepared. Subsequently, a criminal case was registered against the Branch Manager as well as the appellants herein.
13. The learned Trial Judge, after taking cognizance of the offences alleged in the charge sheet, took cognizance of the aforesaid offences, including the offences under Sections 13(1)(d) and 13(2) of the P.C. Act, as against accused No.1 and framed the charges.
14. The accused pleaded not guilty; therefore, the trial was held.
15. During the trial, in order to prove the case of the prosecution in both the cases, as many as 31 witnesses were examined on behalf of the prosecution, and documentary evidence was placed on record and marked as Exhibits P1 to P149.
-9-
NC: 2026:KHC-D:190 CRL.A No. 100083 of 2015 C/W CRL.A No. 100028 of 2015 HC-KAR
16. The detailed cross-examination of the prosecution witnesses did not yield any positive material to disprove the case of the prosecution.
17. Admittedly, there was no partnership concern in existence in the name of M/s. Sonia Caters, and it was a fictitious partnership firm created only for the purpose of obtaining a loan from the bank.
18. Upon conclusion of the recording of evidence, the learned Trial Judge recorded the statements of the accused, wherein no proper explanation was offered for the incriminating material placed on record by the prosecution. However, for reasons best known to the accused, no defence evidence was adduced.
19. Thereafter, the learned Trial Judge heard the arguments of the parties, acquitted accused No.1, and convicted the present appellants for the offences punishable under Sections 468, 471, and 420 of the IPC, sentencing them as referred to supra.
- 10 -
NC: 2026:KHC-D:190 CRL.A No. 100083 of 2015 C/W CRL.A No. 100028 of 2015 HC-KAR
20. Being aggrieved by the same, the appellants are before this Court.
21. Sri Ganapati Bhat and Sri D. L. Ladkhan, reiterating the grounds set out in the appeal memorandum as aforesaid, contended that leniency may be shown in the event of this Court upholding the order of conviction.
22. Sri Ganapati Bhat and Sri D. L. Ladkhan would also submit that the entire civil liability has been cleared before the Debt Recovery Tribunal, and the same may be taken note of while showing leniency to the appellants.
23. In that regard, they have filed a memo. The memo reads as under:
"MEMO FOR DOCUMENTS It is submitted that, when above appeal has been pending consideration, the UCO Bank offered OTS scheme to NPA Account M/s: Sonia Caterers, Hubballi where appellant is one partner and notice dt: 17/09/2019 issued to the appellant herein for Rs.5,13,053-00/-. And subsequently matter settled through compromise and that payment has been received and account has been closed on 21/11/2019 in terms of the approved compromise. Hence NO DUE CERTIFICATE dt:04/12/2019 in No.BANAMB/2019- 20/167 issued by the AGM of UCO BANK, BANGALORE.
- 11 -
NC: 2026:KHC-D:190 CRL.A No. 100083 of 2015 C/W CRL.A No. 100028 of 2015 HC-KAR Hence producing copies of OTS notice and No due certificate for kind perusal of the Hon'ble High Court, in the interest of justice and equity."
24. Per contra, Sri Neelendra D. Gunde, learned counsel would contend that if any leniency is shown to persons like the appellants, it would not only result in a miscarriage of justice but also encourage similar perpetrators of crime, and therefore sought dismissal of the appeal.
25. Having heard the arguments of both sides, this Court has meticulously perused the material on record. Upon such perusal, the following points arise for consideration:
i. Whether the prosecution has succeeded in establishing that the appellants are guilty of the offences punishable under Sections 468, 471, and 420 of the IPC?
ii. Whether the appellants have made out a case that the impugned judgment suffers from legal infirmity and perversity?
iii. Whether the sentence imposed is excessive and requires modification?
iv. What order?
- 12 -
NC: 2026:KHC-D:190 CRL.A No. 100083 of 2015 C/W CRL.A No. 100028 of 2015 HC-KAR
26. Regarding Point Nos. 1 and 3: In the case on hand, the signatures of the appellants on the account opening form at UCO Bank, Hubli Branch, are not in dispute. Similarly, the opening of the account in the name of M/s. Sonia Caters, represented by its partners, is also not in dispute.
27. Admittedly, the account opening form did not contain any introduction from the account holders which was mandatory, nor were their signatures properly subscribed. The form also did not bear the signature of the Branch Manager.
28. The said current account, bearing No. 1177 in UCO Bank, Hubli Branch, got credited the loan amount pursuant to the loan application submitted by the appellants, and the funds were withdrawn by them.
29. When the account became irregular, an internal enquiry was conducted, and the fraud came to light. A report was submitted by the officials who conducted the
- 13 -
NC: 2026:KHC-D:190 CRL.A No. 100083 of 2015 C/W CRL.A No. 100028 of 2015 HC-KAR internal enquiry, and the matter was reported to higher authorities.
30. Subsequently, sanction was obtained to prosecute the Branch Manager, accused No.1, as well as the appellants for the aforesaid offences.
31. Based on the complaint, the CBI registered the case and conducted a detailed investigation, inter-alia, statements of the bank officials working at the Hubli Branch at the relevant point of time were recorded, and necessary documents were collected, all of which were placed before the Court.
32. Since there is no dispute regarding the signatures of the appellants on the account opening form, the withdrawal of the amount from the current account, and the default in the loan account, the transaction involving the opening of a current account in a fictitious form fulfills the necessary ingredients for the offences under Sections 468, 471, and 420 of the IPC.
- 14 -
NC: 2026:KHC-D:190 CRL.A No. 100083 of 2015 C/W CRL.A No. 100028 of 2015 HC-KAR
33. In view of the wrongful loss caused to the bank and wrongful gain to the appellants, all ingredients of Section 420 IPC stand established, primarily on the documentary evidence, while the oral evidence placed on record was corroboratory in nature.
34. It was argued on behalf of the appellants that the case is at the most a matter of recovery of money by UCO Bank and that no criminality is involved.
35. Such an argument cannot be countenanced in law, in view of the fact that the very firm, M/s.Sonia Caters, itself did not exist. Therefore, the contention that it was merely a default in repayment of the loan cannot be countenanced in law.
36. However, taking note of the fact that the entire civil liability has been settled before the Debt Recovery Tribunal, as per the memo, and that UCO Bank has issued a No Due Certificate, this Court is of the considered opinion that, at this distance of time, if the appellants are directed to undergo the imprisonment as ordered by the learned
- 15 -
NC: 2026:KHC-D:190 CRL.A No. 100083 of 2015 C/W CRL.A No. 100028 of 2015 HC-KAR Trial Court, it would result in undue harshness to the appellants.
37. Therefore, by enhancing the fine amount, if the appellants are directed to undergo simple imprisonment only for the duration of the day until the rising of the Court, the ends of justice would be met.
38. In view of the foregoing discussion, point No.1 is answered in the affirmative, point No.2 in the negative, and point No. 3 is partly affirmative.
39. In light of the findings of this Court on points Nos.1 to 3, the following:
ORDER i. The Criminal appeal Nos.100083/2015 and 100028/2015 are allowed in part.
ii. The conviction of the appellants for the offences under Sections 468, 471, and 420 IPC is maintained.
- 16 -
NC: 2026:KHC-D:190 CRL.A No. 100083 of 2015 C/W CRL.A No. 100028 of 2015 HC-KAR iii. The sentence is modified by directing the appellants to undergo simple imprisonment for the day till the rising of the Court and by paying an enhanced fine of Rs.1,15,000/-
(Rs.1,00,000/- imposed by this Court plus Rs. 15,000/-) each on or before 31.01.2026 before the Trial Court.
iv. In the event of failure to pay the fine by the said date, the imprisonment as originally ordered by the Trial Court shall stand restored automatically.
Ordered accordingly.
Sd/-
(V.SRISHANANDA) JUDGE AC CT-CMU LIST NO.: 2 SL NO.: 55