Karnataka High Court
Basavaraddy Venkaraddy Lingadal vs The State Of Karnataka on 27 February, 2025
Author: Hemant Chandangoudar
Bench: Hemant Chandangoudar
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC-D:3964
CRL.A No. 100113 of 2020
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH
DATED THIS THE 27TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 100113 OF 2020 (C)
BETWEEN:
BASAVARADDY VENKARADDY LINGADAL
AGED ABOUT 66 YEARS,
OCC: RETD DY.SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE,
R/AT: SAMPIGE NAGAR, 1ST CROSS, DHARWAD.
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI. SANDESH CHOUTE, SENIOR COUNSEL FOR
SRI. B.V.SOMAPUR AND SRI. V.M.BANAKAR, ADVOCATES)
AND:
THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
KARNATAKA LOKAYUKTHA POLICE,
R/BY LOKAYUKTA SPL.P.P.,
HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
DHARWAD BENCH.
...RESPONDENT
(BY SRI. G.I.GACHCHINAMATH, SPP)
Digitally signed by THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL IS FILED U/SEC.374(2) OF CR.P.C.,
R HEMALATHA PRAYING TO, CALL FOR THE RECORDS AND TO ALLOW THE
Location: HIGH APPEAL AND SET-ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND ORDER OF
COURT OF
KARNATAKA CONVICTION DATED 18.02.2020 PASSED BY THE III ADDL.
DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE (SPECIAL COURT FOR KLA/ACT
& CBI CASES) DHARWAD IN SPL.KLA. C.C. NO.4/2013 (ANNEXURE-
A) CONVICTING THE APPELLANT FOR THE OFFENCES P/U/
SEC.13(1)(e) R/W SEC.13(2) OF THE PREVENTION OF
CORRUPTION ACT, 1988 SENTENCING HIM TO UNDERGO
RIGOROUS IMPRISONMENT FOR A PERIOD OF THREE YEARS AND
TO PAY FINE OF RS.1,00,000/-, IN DEFAULT TO PAY THE FINE
AMOUNT TO UNDERGO RI FOR ONE YEAR VIS-A-VIS THE ORDER
OF FORFEITING THE AMOUNT OF RS.44,06,882/- THAT IS ALLEGED
TO BE DISPROPORTIONATE.
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC-D:3964
CRL.A No. 100113 of 2020
THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING, THIS DAY,
JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR
ORAL JUDGMENT
The appellant has been convicted of an offence under Section 13(1)(e) read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, and has been sentenced to three years' imprisonment.
2. The prosecution alleges that during his tenure as a government servant from 1981 to 2009, the accused amassed substantial assets in his name, as well as in the names of his wife, children, and relatives, by engaging in criminal misconduct. The investigating agency valued the properties acquired during the relevant period at Rs.1,10,75,375, while the expenditure incurred during that period was calculated at Rs.42,25,712. The known income of the accused for the same period was determined to be Rs.74,20,354, resulting in an excess of Rs.78,80,733, which amounts to 106.20% more than his known income.
3. In support of its case, the prosecution examined 53 witnesses (PW.1 to PW.53), produced documents marked Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.162, and identified 37 material objects. In response, the defense examined 22 witnesses (DW.1 to DW.22) and produced documents marked Ex.D.1 to Ex.D.80.
4. After framing points for consideration and reviewing the evidence on record, the Trial Court held that "the prosecution has established the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable -3- NC: 2025:KHC-D:3964 CRL.A No. 100113 of 2020 doubt" and passed the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence.
5. Shri Sandesh Chouta, learned senior counsel for the appellant, argued as follows:
5.1. The investigating officers, during cross-examination, admitted that they did not calculate the income, expenditure, and assets of the accused for the relevant period, nor did they verify the genuineness of the documents collected during the investigation.
Notably, the computerized documents were not supported by a certificate under Section 65(B) of the Indian Evidence Act. Consequently, in the absence of any substantial evidence corroborating the alleged discrepancy between the accused's assets and his known sources of income, the conviction based solely on the charge-sheet material is arbitrary, illegal, and not legally sustainable.
5.2. Additionally, the learned counsel submitted that DW.17, the Assistant Director of Agriculture, had submitted a report stating that the agricultural income of the accused and his family members was approximately Rs.1,00,00,000. However, this report was not cited as evidence by the prosecution, nor was it produced in court. Instead, the prosecution relied on a report submitted by PW.24, which stated that the agricultural income of the accused and his family members was only around Rs.32,00,000.
6. In response, the learned counsel for the respondent (Lokayukta) argued that the charge-sheet material, when -4- NC: 2025:KHC-D:3964 CRL.A No. 100113 of 2020 considered together with the testimonies of investigating officers and the evidence of PW.24, clearly indicates that the agricultural income of the accused and his family members was around Rs.32,00,000. Based on this evidence, the learned Trial Court rightly concluded that the appellant was in possession of assets disproportionate to his known sources of income by an excess amount of 106.20%. Therefore, the respondent argued that the impugned judgment of conviction is correct and does not warrant any interference.
6.1. Furthermore, the respondent's learned counsel contended that the documents produced by the accused do not establish that the accused or his family had an agricultural income of Rs.1,00,00,000, thereby supporting the conclusion that the assets were indeed disproportionate to the known income.
7. After carefully considering the arguments advanced by both parties and thoroughly reviewing the trial Court's records, the sole issue for consideration is whether the prosecution has established the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubt and whether the impugned judgment of conviction passed by the trial Court is legally sustainable.
8. The check period is from the year 1981 to 2009. The prosecution, in its charge sheet, alleges that the accused possessed assets disproportionate to his known sources of income by an extent of 106.20%. This allegation is supported by a detailed schedule of the accused's assets, income, and expenditure for that period.
-5-NC: 2025:KHC-D:3964 CRL.A No. 100113 of 2020
9. The prosecution further contends that the agricultural income of the accused and his family members was assessed at Rs.32,00,000. This figure is based on the testimony of PW‑24 and the report he submitted following his inspection of the agricultural land owned by the accused and his family, as documented in Ex.P.62. During cross‑examination, PW‑24 conceded that if complete information were available regarding the irrigation facilities, soil fertility, and the nature of the crops grown, the quantum of agricultural income might have been higher. He further acknowledged that in order to accurately assess the crop yield, it is necessary to adhere to the "Package of Practice" published by the Agriculture University, Dharwad. Without considering these critical factors, it is not possible to precisely calculate the actual expenditure or income.
10. PW‑24 has categorically stated that he was not provided with any information regarding the irrigation facility, nor did he conduct a soil test or record the statements of the residents of the adjacent lands. Therefore, the testimony of PW‑24 and the report he submitted in Exs. P.62 to P.64 cannot be given any evidentiary value.
11. Prior to PW‑24's inspection, D.W.17, who was serving as the Assistant Director of Agriculture at Naragund, conducted an inspection of the agricultural land owned by the accused and his family on the instructions of the Investigating Officer.
-6-NC: 2025:KHC-D:3964 CRL.A No. 100113 of 2020
12. In his examination‑in‑chief, D.W.17 testified that he was requested to furnish an assessment of the agricultural income of the accused for the period from 1981 to 2009. His assessment covered the land measured as follows: Survey No.24/1, comprising 10 acres and 37 guntas; Survey No.181/1, comprising 5 acres; and Survey No.180/1B, comprising 4 acres and 9 guntas.
13. Furthermore, D.W.17 was also required to assess the additional income from adjacent land owned by the brother-in‑law of the accused, as these adjacent properties potentially contributed to the overall agricultural income. Accordingly, he and his assistant visited the adjacent lands, inquired with the neighboring landowners about the nature of crops grown during the relevant period, applied APMC rates, and conducted a crop-cutting experiment to calculate the yield.
14. Additionally, D.W.17 stated that for water supply, there was a pipeline from a nearby canal, and he conducted a soil test to evaluate the fertility of the soil. The report submitted as Ex.P.37 indicated that the agricultural income of the accused was approximately Rs.1,00,00,000. However, during cross‑examination, no evidence was elicited to dispute the authenticity of this report.
15. The accused has tendered his income tax returns which clearly indicate that both he and his wife derived agricultural income as well as the annual property returns submitted as Ex.P.114, covering the entire check period.
-7-NC: 2025:KHC-D:3964 CRL.A No. 100113 of 2020
16. In summary, the prosecution has failed to establish that the agricultural income of the accused for the check period is limited to approximately Rs.32,00,000/- as the report submitted by PW‑24 did not consider all relevant factors such as irrigation facilities, soil fertility, and the yield protocols prescribed by the Agriculture University, Dharwad.
17. In turn, the accused has demonstrated, through the evidence of DW‑17, that the agricultural income for the period is approximately Rs.1,00,00,000/-. Consequently, if the agricultural income is taken as Rs.1,00,00,000/- an additional amount of Rs.68,00,000 must be credited to the income of the accused. This, in turn, establishes that the total assets possessed by the accused are less than his known sources of income.
18. PW.51, the investigating officer who conducted the investigation from 25.05.2009 to 28.09.2010, admitted during cross‑examination that he neither calculated the income, expenditure, nor the assets of the accused for the relevant check period, nor did he compare the copies of documents with the originals to verify their authenticity and accuracy. He further acknowledged that he had not obtained certificates under Section 65(B) of the Indian Evidence Act in respect of the computerized documents.
19. Similarly, PW.52, who conducted investigations from 25.10.2010 to 31.07.2012, categorically admitted in cross‑examination that aside from merely receiving documents -8- NC: 2025:KHC-D:3964 CRL.A No. 100113 of 2020 from various departments, he did not conduct any further inquiry into those documents. He further stated that, for verifying the correctness of any document, evidence must be provided by the officer who originally issued it. This admission emphasises the fact that PW.52 did not undertake any detailed calculation or verification regarding the income, expenditure, and assets of the accused or his family members.
20. In addition, PW.53 - another investigating officer, testified that he did not verify the authenticity of the computerized documents received in this case. He further admitted that he failed to collect the commencement and completion certificates for the construction of a building located at Ramdurga, nor did he obtain any documents indicating the year of construction, except for a valuation report provided by an engineer. PW.53 did not conduct any supplementary investigation with respect to the construction details of the building.
21. PW.53 also acknowledged that he did not visit the properties bearing Survey Nos. 180/1B and 24/1, situated at Hirekoppa village; instead, he merely relied on someone showing him the lands without verifying their actual extent. Moreover, he did not make any inquiries with the Assistant Executive Engineer of the Malaprabha Sub-Division regarding the water sources for the property bearing Survey No. 24/1, nor did he correspond with the income tax or commercial tax authorities to obtain information about the income of the appellant's brother-in-law.
-9-NC: 2025:KHC-D:3964 CRL.A No. 100113 of 2020
22. Furthermore, PW.53 admitted that, except for receiving documents marked as Exs. P.103 to P.104, he did not collect any additional documents or conduct any further investigation.
23. Collectively, the investigating officers PW.51, PW.52, and PW.53 have categorically admitted that they did not verify the genuineness of the documents, nor did they calculate the income, expenditure, and assets of the accused and his family members. They also failed to obtain the necessary certificates under Section 65(B) of the Indian Evidence Act for the computerized records.
24. As a result, the prosecution has failed to establish, on a prima facie basis, that the accused was in possession of assets disproportionate to his known sources of income. Despite this, the Trial Court, rather than appreciating the deficiencies in the evidentiary record, relied on the charge-sheet materials and reached a conclusion that the accused's assets were disproportionate to his income.
24.1. In particular, the statements annexed to the charge sheet (Exs. A to C) lack evidentiary value since the investigating officers have unequivocally admitted that they did not undertake the necessary calculations or verification of the documents.
25. A charge sheet is a formal document prepared by the investigating agencies after completing their investigation. It contains allegations, witness statements, collected evidence, and the legal provisions under which the accused is charged. However, as per established legal principles, a charge sheet itself does not
- 10 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:3964 CRL.A No. 100113 of 2020 constitute substantive evidence and cannot be the sole basis for conviction. The prosecution must prove the allegations beyond a reasonable doubt through legally admissible evidence presented before the court.
26. In the absence of any reliable documentary or oral evidence demonstrating that the accused is in possession of the assets disproportionate to his known source of income, the impugned judgment passed by the Trial Court is legally unsustainable.
27. Accordingly, I pass the following:
ORDER
a) Appeal is allowed.
b) The impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 18.02.2020 passed by the III Additional District and Sessions Judge (Special Judge for KLA/ACB and CBI Cases in Spl.KLA.C.C.No.04/2013 is hereby set-aside;
c) The appellant/accused is acquitted of the aforesaid offences.
d) The bail bonds, if any, stand discharged.
Sd/-
(HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR)
JUDGE
AC,
List No.: 1 Sl No.: 123