Sekharayya Puttayya Hiremath vs State Of Karnataka By on 9 July, 2008

[Cites 0, Cited by 1]

Karnataka High Court

Sekharayya Puttayya Hiremath vs State Of Karnataka By on 9 July, 2008

Bench: Jawad Rahim

:3: THE HIGH COURT 0? KARNATAKA AT BAIKEGALORE
DATED THIS THE 9"' DAY OF JULY, 2008
BEFORE »
THE HOWBLE MRJUSTICE mwrm RA:»-:;;g2'i'f  'j«. "-.

CRIMINAL APPEAL E\3C}.836/2OG2~:_ "  "
BEYWEEN:  
1. SEKHARAYYA ::>m'TAWA :~:1REMA:;g @  V  g 
5.9 HEREMATH, spa LATE PUTTAYYA H;R§M;:xTH,'~. " _
OCC: LECTURER ms CHE§'»'1IS?R'z',,  
KARNATAKA SCIENCE COLLEGE} 

R/O SHIRAHATTIKAWS CC)!'/§PC}L}¥\é'E),"*~.

MALMADQI, DHARWAD.  --

2, gm. LEELAVATHI S. 'H.I_§)"3M;--¥;TH,,  ~   ._
W/O SHEKHARAYYA PUWTAWA H':§.Ez:«<:A'_fH,.  " .
R/O SHIRAHI'-\TE"§KAR'S CQ,M_ré_C>uND_,  « -  .. 

MALMADDI, DHARW'§_®t f :AP?Ei_L;'-\|\§TS

(BY SR:r§»1';5;'r\:'J*L%::jisg§TH§§§. §:0§?;"i'~»%./SEIVAVHESH & co. ADVS.)

ﬁ3xf\¥D:

THE asmwfa 0% %<,¢\R53}5xT:5§F:A av

 V. '_ CEr§;'§%';<A},k as ,9REAu"'o:~f<..r.:x2AvESTEGATIGm
"(C831, Bm~:Gzs!,_©R§ M 2. RESPONDENT

L...{'a:f. "sJ§«:Ij;"::%z.,%,<:.'%'$315595 ma saxaaswex H§fxR£%f%éAHALLI§ my'; C%€_:L..ﬁ;.' VFI%_E§ ugs. rm CRRQ ASEEXEEKEST "%"?%E 3T%_£BGE?4E%'-§T =._m?§L">g ::.§.4 G2 mggga av ma gm". juma {F3R§...S=3,:::§ §:,r%%««éVT§:ﬁ;Ra;%;;:'::a H»; §PL.{C§E} QC. fxiﬁfifﬁé £C}%é¥§CTE§a§G mg _ ~._';;aa®?§;.:;;x§~a§*:"$ ; §aCCU$E§ aéilé 5; $ FGR Q?!F£%é{iE Wzjxg; 423? K. '453,-.455 maze 4?: SF Tag ZPC ETQ This apgeaé CQE"°E'1§§"%§ en fr)? hearing ihis ﬁay, the Court 2 Mc'*}'eIia.rere<:i the foliowmg:

\'\f }U{3G¥ViENT Convicted accused are in appeaé against the judgement in a Spl.(CBE) C.C. No.1/84 on the fi'!veV_:'e.f7E§pE. Judge, Dharwad, passed an 16.4.82 c;0nvictieg_.-éeeéia'V;5i'§s--e'£ie.r§t,9 / accused for offence punishabiemuﬁder_-t'he"'-§§':o§i'siVons Sectiges 429,. 468,, 455 and 471 eVf,the"IP:C. '» ' V

2. The materiat prc;[;3_vd::§tioa*~a"en th'e'eAa7s._:j_g:.,1eof-Vwheci-:.%' the appetlant / accused w_e.re~».__t:*%.ed .z9e'su}'?;AinVgf§ in their conviction are:

One T.L.E\_.'A;- _F.>rasa'd"'(r\:'i:} aIj'd_'F&.eg.,§fe§'e (A2) were the Branch ManeVg"e.r"V._eed'"»(iav5_hie-'r--<:um Cterk in Dena Bank, Dharwa€i'*--3_'raecﬁ"d{iEgEra»g::":.heVyear 1980-81. They entered in Cr§g1'f%&§'réVa:EA. Cgesbisjeiey with Shivayye Shidiingayya Hiremath (£3) enireri ES:-3..kharayya Puttayya Hiremath {first appenazztja .35r':' :§__«i;ee'¥'e.x,{e'€§§'E S. Hiremath {sewed appeiiani) 3% we CE2 .end;<'e§s?:éW'i<ha§ Bengeregea Getadkéﬁéﬁ ﬁe cheaﬁ ﬁene 52% -3 mm ef RS,2i,5€%§f". in étézég regerg it $3 eﬁeged 'me eeczgsee Nagwﬁi 4 end 5 named ebeve p.¥'8§a%"8§ V' '" eepE%c:ai:ien$ fer ieerz fer purchase of Ewe steak iike gears arm ﬁx' Malatesh Nagaepa Ketti and Semeshekhar Vijjeepa Kegineiii respectively and sanctioned Rs.2,S0O;'-- to Mehan MVa.3Ve}te.ppa Gundi. Thereafter; they transferred the £oeh_;'_"e'm«e_utzt.e_ sanctioned in the name ef fictitious persens.te»u Account ftaduientiy opened in theraaimseflef-td9th.ese4'fieteitiegte persons and withdrew the amount"th'e'msei;xee'V_sfsjem_T§$t£Ch':°. 8.8' Accounts by forging theV'x't's:.i§r:eture"et:tsL:ch'gﬁctitieus acceunt holders, It'tf$""%«.alie.§eed.Avt"tE:et_i"'t.hey withdrew the amount through 5.8. 'e~n.d":1i_-974 pertaining tg Sri. Nagaraj

3., .... =._dwéit'h-----....regarding offence was initiatedora the registered by Sﬁhaekaran Kutti, PW--u2.1-Mtheti as the Petite inspector in CBI, Beegeiere Bratic:E'1,._f_rf_;};3'a December 1989 te 1984. Suréng thVe--»cou,r_s'ee 'ef""Er_1vestigatien, he verified the bank acceunts '-;~*:';fe§x2:Ve'<V.*'E"."L':ieeeteeets reiatieg to the senttiee ef the tear:

-V eee.4£«»'§.t%'2V{§tetea§ ef the 3¥"{'2§U{'tE free": the SE' ﬁzﬁtatiﬂh Gr:

'ftt%e"--~ees§s ef tee metetéet se eefiecteef charge was éete egeétist the eeceeed tor the eftenee Eedieetee eeeve end they were subjected to trial. During triai, the eresecution .-a.' 't E .2' examined ie an 21 witnesses and pieced reliaece on 123 documents.

4. The accused had deemed te Read any eeicience in defence. Therefore, considering the evidence the learned Judge found that it éncuéeates er"-.*§ y:"' and does uot cenviecéegty estab%Es:i1""i'heA ch:ar<__:;iej'segefr1st. the accused Neal, 2, 3 end 6. They The cenvicted accused are iri a.;:j"§3~eaE a.gjaVi_eSt_'d":eVjue'gefueni:."' '

5. I have heer_d':%'--Sr§7:§~'%eV--ejLu'n,atV§§"(3., ieamed eeunseE for the appe%Ean_t_ and for Sri. Ashek Harenahatli, 3._.'%ea§1is*s1ed.vV:'--écdu%§se§_"A._fer"'*-the respondent, in suppieme'ntatidufee.E1:.e4 m__a'te'riaE on record. ge, '4}%s.sAa:'E'ia'ag judgement the accused centend :he'tV.fée§3En'§e..ef guviéfééecerded by the Eeareeel Teak Eudge is I .ee<.r_eiriee'usv"ae;e.uunsustaénaeiec Tees; eentene that the entire eAre.sec;_;tie;e~"eee the iriaé ceeeueteci egaiest teem is eiueted see ti:.ev..c'herge framee egeiesi tee eeeuseé _;" epeeééenie age " --..fee%..i'eeeE§ eue the eetuee e? effeeee aiéeeee Se E":eve been 1' _..ceu'"sF':":%t'cee_ "ﬂee chaege was vegee; eereﬁ: ef meieréeé partécuiars as a consequence ef which they have been deprived at buiiditzg a vaiid defence. With regard te eiiegetéon that they had Coehived with or eetered into eriminai conspiracy with A1 and AZ, it is urged Jtha-t:_:'ti:}ey were in no way respehsibie fer either Sebmisséo:§'?df*«t_rie__Eee_?*s' _ appiicatiohs or grant of the lean, Aigand A2'pveéfi'e>r'n<ten;e,d:df*~» » efféciai duty received aee saric:t;%c:)ri.ed :hte3§ee.e' é.t":V"-vi$tti{t:t§if:_,'*t;i'>.e appeiﬁaet had no reie to ;3ia:mﬂ xfhe aiiegatie;r.i'v:"ti§%eti_vthe}; set up fictitious persons te e\4/aritéeae E§'\Ari_theui: basis as there was he evideece'--«.ie*d_'h';{ tij_iei'.;§-r_os'e'cr,;tieh to Show that the persons named in the.ag)piEcat§oh§V_vireé:e'"fictitEous. ,ﬂf'f€)V.:T'_"'¥'C\'.3.'r1(_:i."VVfVl"1VEiiI the reﬁance pieced by the teamed 'Tr_E'2'z!':"~JLJdgVét'a._.er:_. the evidence of PW--3',8 -- K. Mayappa;-e%:iedid'~ hézx?e.-- aeteaiiy reseitee in their aeeuittai as PW~;3;8 had itxadera eateeoric statement that he had verifiee ttze_j;§ec;e.tdeAand'tt;e*'~aepiicatioe et Geerewa M, ﬁaéeeeté wee ' iEV'§<'r,PV.S;--.1V"~%b'e?e:e reeemezeedieg eeeetier": ef Eeaet Thie e*QE.§1gh'::eV"_~e_§:e%:3':*§tee te the eeeetieete eeeeétiee teem ef the c§2*a_tgev_,~s'etViE§.eAr thee iricuieates them: they fetttzer cerzteed that e_ee~exateieat§orz of Stem Sevak whe is said to have verified the correctness of the ihforrnation reiatihg to the aepiicants was émpczrtant witness, The prosecution has net explained why he was not examined and hence, adverse inference needs to be drawn that had he been exarjntned, the prosecutien case weuid have iost the feotéhg 3l.'iCj~V.,:§..*i"!7:":(s'.3"<.~'_E'tfd innocence of the appeiiants.

8. Partécutar reference Es»~~nf:a€ie tio"'=.ihfo'rn9_tat%o_h it mentioned in Ex.P.81 the a;3;)i:'E1r;at:éor':'iv Haiepeti which has been verihedd-i..and c'or2reCte'd_ "Grams Sevak and the Biock ;_.Deveieip-rnlen.t'"-Qfficef;---_Th.ey further contend that the i"<:tt1V:ttiV:d*t-_VPW--21, despite such slerietisVaviiecjeetEo.n:"niié'de "against: the accused, did not examine VGo.draviJa "H:aiepeti the appiicant in appiécatien i'\Eo_;E§; ahdVhehce,it_h_evinvestégatien itself was not done in a ifair,ve':a_vnr'ie':t,A""vTfhey further eentend that the ieamed "Mai ;i--:;eee eotntjnititeci a senses error in receiving in ewdence the soe4t:érfnVeh séighature of the secend aeeeéiaht Leetaeathé aha ' eeténg aeeh it he centraeentéee ef §ECZE§E"'3 25 at the Eziéeenee Qgettii they weeid fetther cehtead that eve-21; he has het Wseekeh te aheut seizere at the specimen signature of the .'/2%'? ' second appeliarit and therefore, it was introduced at e Eater stage and hence, sought to be eschewed from Consideration. In short, the assertive centeetionef the appeiiaets ceuesei is that the appeiiarzts victimised by the LG. and the Triai Court'::has.éd:'f.e:'th.'et ignored the evidence on record-I'a'ti2£E.Aw--%fon_,gi§rf'<€:eVriv§'¢tevd them. They therefore, seek to irztekfetet impugned.

9. Per Contra;_SrE.D;'G.--.i:Hegs£:fe, ie'a'i*ne-"d Counsei appearing for the respoedeiat'we.jV1'C:en_t'rdeiffs3tmfernment, wouid contend"hatdtfhieigjtmge-rije.etA'impugned is based on rnateriai evidence the"'if'ri.ai'eCe'e__%t" has assigned sufficient reasons for ac<:ept'ir~...gA s:;e'i"i-__e§r_idefi'Ce. That the accused have faiied te_"e>r:p__ieih% o%""«s_h.e.w the ieeriménating eircemstences ';'i?epear»i.gi'gi 5_a=gein_et them is either false or Created" He weuid e"eeEer":dV 'i:AE;ié.:__i"Vg'¥;i?ée epeeiients aeteittediy have eeespiree Witt:

ﬁx: e:1.,dV'%3;_2hV4ee'£ the §3'%3j'«.'}i' eeie eéayee in Cheating tee eenk is A eéee-ed eriéy by the eeeeiientst Fietitéees petsee ﬁeurewe iieieeeti was get tie ey ﬁe ene A5. A5 is by meme 'Leeiavathi but she Emperscmated as Geurawa M, Haieeeté '52 .

end sigﬁed the aepiicatéoh, misiee the autherity eerrieiy, the Block Deveiopment Officer threugh the Gram Se§1':i.'§é'»s.and others. The 1.0' has investigated to find out Geuravva M. Haieeeti appiicaht and ie utiiised the postaé service by aadregsrsg known addresses. Eviee"m:ege.f_ the"'pe'stmeh.v*"3f..the 'pe"Site'i"~tV éepartmerat weeid shew that teiit-heievderlessies they found that the perseris4_"i';«am:.§timiie':t«¥:;_e,.vVvt'a-pp!icatéees were met resident at thatpartictziiwagfi'egicivreisﬂs existence itseif was d0uE:Jtfi,ii?_{: 2-erriiaeaed Lmimeeached and even evidence brought on recore not questioned by the ai::<::;sexr:§'.__ " even Crosswexamination the izaeewrit§hg" experts "teasing the evideeee encentrovertee. SLi'{:h éiérideeee shveeéiithet the appiécetion ﬂied purpertihg te ttiat':'ef"<§§;u:'r~avx:a Mt Heiapetti was actuaéiy signed by A5 se§:e~r:e}'a:epee§§ant end ée View ef such €§%i'i<.":§":é§'t§ evidence _thLe euﬁee tree eetueiiy seiftee en the amused tie exeéeie A' --..V:§*re_..:':%reems%:enees. tie seemits that ﬁe is her hesbeee eeé V. ._..i:herefere; tee ereximate reéetéoeshie étseét rezreeis that M» 35/ ..., 4:'-'r ,.

12' had utitésed the fifth accused to achieve the ebject at defrauding the bank. As regards other accused are concerned, he submits that the evidence against them was also sufficient to cenvict them but the Ttiai Ceett has imjustifiably acquitted them. He does not dispute:

erder of ecquittai recorded against there has ehaiieeged by the ptosectstieh.

10. Having heard both sides 0h"--pvAei-tzvsai evidence on record, we heticetghe_VfeiEdwt_ng:7:

The charge against theVAia--eeAi;ts.e'd~..gE\ies.i' te. 6/show that A1 and A2 had Censpited'_swit'E1_VVig? E6i:é'\€3V:'i'f?.vdefati§tEE1g Dena Bank!7..ADhatwVa"ci'if-Bre,h'c-h receiving and [DI'OCeSSii"t9 appEicatieVhs_4ihi:1 t'heV'thaefi.es of fictitious persons namely, £§<3vtt;~;§§§§.f~.fe;: F\'E.V"i4E'e§_ev_p_et.E_, i'~'i.N. Nijagenif Chermayya Irayya t$eege:tA_h:.et¥:i;"*viiélaiatesh Nagappa Ketti and Sdmashekher "'=ait:j§.e;§ea'i9f'_e.géAi:%e'ii% and §"§Q§"'§3§'i Maiekapee Genet. as regetes g A4 fet;.d""e,S.'eire ceeceteeei whe ate aepeiiaets in this apeeeig tite-geiteeatteh is that the eetseh sttee-se as Seeevite tat ktigeiéeeeti was fietétéees end in fact it is the fifth eceesed {Eé's!§'iG "ts the epeeiiaht §"i€f"€3§i"'i) had seeteitted the apeiteetéee te the bank. This is sought to be established through the evidence of the beak efficiais.

11. It is matetiai to note that amongst 21 witeésses examined by the presecution, except a few, a_1%"'*ateV.offEoiew!. witnesses. PW-1 -- Ramatao Shyamarao..Ke'1:ke%éT§:'wee'a._ "

t:ashier~cum««c:1erk of Sena Bank; Dherwé'r3 1Q75--83. and he has been exTa':*t;_iz":edé'to"show account if': Dena Bank, DheL'ra.§{ad_ Bt'an.ch"V'eh.o:§ he had ietroéoced A3 to oper::_th_e has Qiudentified the signature of A3 in form Ex.P1.

However, th§$'V"admi't«t-3 t1".e:t':-Vhe...k.§§ows nothing about personal affair"'of'-A3.voaroheboot is avecatiorx. He has no personat e;<_p er,ieV:V"2ce'o_f"g.o.it'ng through the Correspondence of é_ A3;'5--Ihetefere}"th,e,___e3xi,den<:e of this witness in no way refers 'toany-.,;::"%rt:iha§.__cendt.:<:t of any of the accused. Even about "~:3'§%V'vt'tée'jt~. Vtftestzee steteé is he twee éhtreeueee him fer oeeoégzigefye 38, account.

32, Mattesh téegeegoe Kate ene ef the eereeee .,._.§howe es the féctétéeee eeteee is exeméeee as ;9'»£te'~2t Hie "*2, : _;

§ evideeee shows that he knew one Saenamant who was residing near his house and he introduced A3 to him to obtain heip for getting finaneéai assistance as E':'e'7v.vas uriemeioyed. PW-2 has eieariy deposed that banks are giving man for the unempioyssztd"Eitéd--d.:ad_vised--. that ioae for goat. rearing can be taken.:,4aad"'he':

the bank through BBCVS effiee. Ti":;i_s*-is becaasve obtained signature on the a;3i3'i'§t't:.:a_tion and he identified hand\MfitV§'%i't;}"',.Cf he had not obtained any ioan fremVV_the._ a't-ted' signed any papers. He He also denies sigeiegroitVE§<'..:i?i5V of cheque. AH that his eviderzoe us§*:o*i/vs having submitted the aepEi;::ati_on sanction of ioan. Be that as it té=i's ezxidencieiiiiiat the most may preve that :33 had r-..ei::i;!:-atiheidstgeV'a.tt_é~~te oe E><tP2 the toast aeettcatéon and A1 had sae.et§oee:tV%'ejthde ioae. Since the ieareee 'feat joege has .'"""«__V"-aeouittest' tee other aettasea aed otesecottee has sot A'-.Ae'%:--a%_iA'eegea their aeeeéttaé teat eazieeeee is of no t _,,_t':eeseaeeeee as fat as tee apeetéaets are {i$F§C€§'ﬁ@<Z§.

13. PW--3 Parameshwatappa Niegappa Saanamani is aiso examined to speak to the acts cf A3. ACC02'diﬂg«tOb PW-

3, A3 was working as a LIC Agent and he had poiicy from him. PW-2 Maitesh is his eretherie' had submitted an appiécatien to D'éha'«F3ar'§_E< for ' sanction of loan for purchasegof gd:ats:§*-ta this _:eg.ar=d visited Dena Bank to make 'e4'n"q.;;ir§e"s Vre1a.tt:fa_gVx'tt§"grant gf' loan to Maltesh andvhad met' ttwho was"-thee: manager working in the said braneh_}' is totaiiy contrary to the evidern-be':-.0f denied of having submittedSthafati';3E'i?V:;ati'dV;:..$52:,_P;_2';"._\fé.;<tt,aaliy evidence of PW~3 nL£HEfit%35 the denies having submitted the applwitatiovnx"fgt'.'1_d'an"'..'t' But the evidence is tmiy with revgardv to A: nat:"d.;i§;_3g_4and net the appeﬂantst " Basavanneepa Raegaepa Magalmané wee

2.n§za,a e;<a~e§%4§t.aed te Shaw that §V§Q§'§3E'} Maéiaeaa Sand: Shawn as eneef the aegéieanta was a fictétiees eeracsn. Eat §P's.:'».i~4 3&5 evidence e.ataget%ta§§y statee that he éteees ?*'§{}§"":&?"g ..V___§%\'EaiEapxea Qundi beeaese, bath were merchants' He was a guarantor for ioan granted to Maliappa Niogaopa Nijaguné and Mohao Mailappa Gondi. This wouid cleariy indicaftesthat P\N--<T; Basavanoepoa Raogappa Magalmaoi Mohao Maélappa Gtmdi ﬁﬂd Maliappa Niog_a'p;§.a':.i$t%;§eg€}:--:-§d._' Their names appear in the appticaﬁtonsiihaoVd"«deisct§.:bed_:b§ﬁ_th'e prosecution as fictitious pers_oos."----f§he ev§.o'7te$f§ce' e'f"thi$=.L person actuaiiy Ci.itS at the roo'te»,ofthe p'%'ose'ee-téohhivg eese that the applicants namedzrin t_*ﬁe"'_'Vap"p._%i,t;ué3ti.ons tdiefe fictitious persons. However, he tpfhedL".h'osti1e..Vdé§av€'§;ivdid no good to the prosecution.

is a postman working in Dhar\n}ad"whoVhspie-ajks.V4o'te._de|i'vering post in the Hosayaiiapur area. Hefhas xbee'n_"e:>;&.:am';ned to show that E><.P.13 «~ oo*st::r\;e'd VVteois"tere_do.postal cover addressed to Matéeppa ' V:NEj3§U.§fiV§';. fw{a's ._he.ndied by him He has made endorsement "oe"'~the %e.'g--isfieVreo* {over that the addressee was not §<t'E%§;*\!§"'§ add ..%tW;»:oVs returned tmseweo, Exﬁio and P513 are the nr7eo.§ste:"ed {Z§'2!@%"S sent by "registered met to toeétesh dﬁxteshgeope Ketté and fjoenoayya Eirayya ﬁeogatémattst Exﬁﬁﬁ is a registered cove: addressed to Goorawa M. Haiepeté. f1»§"*~§ I According to him, he had carried the respective posts shown on the cover. He found they were not available. Thekefore, it is sees": that the purpose of examining PW-5 §.z\z.a'4s»Vto<s:4s;h:o*{v that the persons iike Maitesh eiagappe 5<.e'tt';-ii:

Irayya Barigarimath and Gouravikeuii ._H~eie-:;3eit:§" not feund when he visited the add;'ess'wsh"o,i.i\:r: o.:f§_"_itAhe f:eVv<.ei~.fo;g deiivery. Such evieieece woi1«icf"i.ehiy sti¢i;~i:sf':;hét;§«}'h'eri he visited the piece, me.:"§:ti~o'_ned"dneihi' did not find such persons. But that those persons were":Eici:~itio§is.€i'.:'..'Aat this stage is necessary to PW~4 who in his knows Mohae Maiiappa Send: "also vE.'$ieA:!i:i';aio:_p'e_:':LN«i}'eguhi, but he contends that he had:'S'LQAOd §L;.e"ra'e.'tor."'foA::hthem when they eppiied for bank fg}'""obi-%i:*§n§é:~g_ ioani iiii ifhereforef the evidence of Pv'J--4 who is .Vet«.ierVoeeeviiVt:oe-esiiznees is toieiiy in coefiiet with the evideece te'e_,ee:_ed .V§tirgrAi?'i,"=i;'~5 %V;€@{aE)§'E&{:§{,a§:}§3&; the eesteeee, Since .933»?-4'vei"e%ess to have steed guarente: tot seeh eersees, ' --..'€*ee.reiy because that §'s;"':§-§ west te deéiiser the i:§'z2'&?'§; those 1%' :..,$ /'ii ~i '~ "

persons were net found, does net establish that the persens referred thereto were fictitious.

16. PW-7 Ashek, doing pouitry business, in evidence admits of having issued quotations in the names ejF:'fe'ftne.rs iike S.\.1. Kagineiii and M.N. Katti vide E><s.P-;..':1.:'9 Accerding to him, the bank mangei"'o.'«.De*'na Vnadytoid it him that some farmers had ebteiined:=._;joeittn;sioavitis coiiid heie them by issuing=§'u~:>tatii5ii~s§V he"? issued those quotatioiis In t:s"o'ss'}fe><V'a~i:a.'ainatien, this witness pleaded ignorance as toiwiio'v.rs1s;'the'iiba»r}1{ -manager of Sena Bank at He admitted categericaiéiy' who was the manager and therefore:i4th%ev.personi}vh_'€§ approached him, he beiieved was a Vtiani{;__fti":ar'ia§e";".«_._I.i_Evs materiai to nete teat: he has named iiene 'o,f'~i"heé:"'eecused as the p€¥'S0i""iS who §"§ad apereached 't*:.i.{*::~;,' e2'<{:.ejpti'i1iVsaying ttiat e eetsen eteiineing as a seek ;naeeg;'e.if ef Dena Bank had eesreeehed niez. §"*i€E"i€Z€_, this A;e%3i'<:§;en<:e is aise ei' tie sseiit 3?. Sirniiar is the esieence sf SU§&§"§§"§ai'E ~» sens is ' eise a peeitry merchant speaks of the fact that as had : 'F 3; , approached him and teak ietter fmm him vide E><.P.21 for sanction of Sean :0 some farmers. He admits that contents of E:-<.P21 are in his handwriting. He has spoken Vh-rgthing about the ether accused except A1 and theretedreji'that evidence is aiso of no help its prosecuticaa' avsﬁ'-a'r' establishing the guilt of the appeiEaht's';«.'

18. PW--9 Ramachandra isda 1d.acumeg§t"v:r%te*:{"wth'e.VV identified A3 as LIC agent and»..hT"et.speaE<s._efV~.tfi_:exFa4et"that he had approached him askghg hath an aft':da"$:it marked as Ex.P23. But this wouiVds.eré|Ly "Vsho3?:1Dt.,vifa§j"'ty~ge had drafted an affidavit in the-,ﬁ'amé_ ofjmaistésh-.ua"a§'a'ppa Katti, at the instanee no statement about the appe|1an€Vss«--h_Vei<ei:§.._ V' Rah'an3.._Bi'E:aiikhah Pvvwm is a food inspecier at 't%'auer%._'wh<a""vh_ad issued incpme certificate id favour ef 'f«'EaE--?5appaaﬁéagatppa Nijageai aside EXSPESR His eeéaeaee is that §2:es.Vhad eeaauetea enqeirys after making dee enqairy, A%'zfe"4..'i'ssaea eertiféeate E)<.?,2S'. far: e,res$~e:<am§natiee, he A"ads"p§%is that enquiry éhciaded eeréfieatépn at the particaiar tttresidenee and partieaiars of income of ehe said persoa. It is ) -3 ) 1 9,/, 'x./' {X3 not known for what gain the prosecution brought this witness because the evidence of this witness is virtuaiiy against the charge ievelied against the accused.4..fTi'h44ec.fact that Ex.P25 ts issued by this witness after de_e""vét;§s.t_ét.:§t:_ would substantiate that the particuiars; thAe;*eit:».»""'~-- relating to Meiiappa Nagapba twee Therefore, he couid not be e.7fi<:.t.§t£ou's.bersen.'eV's:§_e§i_egVe_;iE

20. Charmayyas ieia witness who identifies A5 --~ Lee-i_ei'JaAti'aﬁiL husband A4. He denies of having the form for opening thee;-..,vbe;iti'i<__._ ijieieiiso ﬁeraies signing of EXS.P.V:3Q"c§BC§ and E><.P.32 the credit chaiian. xHi_Vs vex/Vi'cieVr*ttw::«=;étis'used by the prosecution to show aéftEf2ese"'t7iet;_;,;_;"s:ents are concocted by the accused, ' t;--.eest%:.§e*v.&s whether such evidence is beiievabie. En 'vée"ee' ef't§€[e-- eteédeece aiready eiscuseee, I have no hesitation in 4:49e:;ei"tie§tit;i that ctzeenayye is eet eniy etextmateiy teéated' it AAtet';:¥~ e5 but et the meet be ée; resieiee in the seete tsiééege es he is an ﬁ§F§Ct.§§t§é¥°§S*EE it ie eessibie that ee is mekéeg V "best use ef the opeerteeity te deny tee Eéebiiity to discharge 5"' ' teen. Be that as it may, he only denies tzaving oetained loan from the bank, but has made no reference to A4 aed AS as the persons instremeratai in creating sect: deci;'rnei'its. In other words, nothing has been spoken by incriminate A4 & A5 as the peisens who to 13.32. Therefore, his evidenceiisﬂeise oft"-,eo;4a:i.{aii§_k

21. Anii Kumar PW~1.2_ is a4n--.off.icer e{f.".th'e identifies A1 and A2 as the""i'e::ff§eers ef_V_ttue'.=baeitVVVand he identifies the loan appijiCatioeﬁsiiipiroteslsetl at Bank by A1. He speaks of the detaiis 'of 'the' relating to ioan granted in f;a\2é';j1t'efi=.the: ~p;er'svo:i*is_"--referred to above. His evidence'--re'fers'o:'eh; officiai acts performed by A1 and A2 but he.._§.s siienta\$;ith':_"f'egatd to A4 and AS the appeliants hes~ieirig* I do n'<;t.i{gi_i_sij*.. to teerodece his evidence because he ' hes' :i.eVt'«bee_e~examined to speak er' any incriminating aspect . '--e'5gfeeiest' AS.

a ?\I'ii-13 Reetzetieeete is e eestmen wee seeaks '' Hi-'ieasieg eaeriee registeree eest %,e the eeeress es' texreé Eiiereyegte Gee; em tiiee E><P,92i He eentends that when he . '*2 .4' ; _. '«>"/ visited the piece and verified, he found that the ederessee was net living at the address. This evidence aise dqes net in any way inctiipete A4 & AS. Likewise is the e\.{¥d~ei"€-.ﬁ€--_Gf Sadashiv ii PW414, who refers to i:x.P.e2_('-i:i--) }feg?'e€iii'ii§§' service of notice te Laxmi Nareyene ._(_3i.idij'.§ei".5.fvSe"is;ei':;eu the evidence ef Ashok --~ PW-=-15, az€:Qthi'eri~§jeétm'eii'i Gurupetrappe speaks of iievin.g":ja;rrieAd- the _piotste«ii._'ciev.e--'i videf' Ex.P.9S and feend no 'personAV_asV:A'efientiei'iediin_th,e address. His evidence is aiso notsite-airtstf-.the""es;}iiiei-ieets herein. Pwn 17 Ravikumar4id*eetifies' but does not identify his. iaé»ii;1dii{ii-iinigI_; exs...is;f9iS, i§.'§7 e P38. ' ; Aicee€Ci-~i..fig»i.t;4d*i.;§Pese'cution the important evidence is throuVx"g«h_V%d Kﬂiayappa, the then Block D§"e";"3fiQ[éii'i'1§Fit.'OffiC§if_Of Dhatwed. His evidence is that he V.'-_ §.'Vi3"{§, --i%_e'ee'ixze'd.__ aepiicetioiis for his Consideration for i'eeeieii".n'e--dedi§éIig}V'them greet ef leer: meet the SFDA scheme, "iitie eeeiiievetiene were eeretieieee by Stem Seeae: by eeme i.i;e.,_ Eeeiii and teen, ferwerded te ewee, i.:,i~=ii, Jeetziie aégeeeremeiidetieii ieeiudee the eertitieig meee by hie": eefeie wsiibiieitting such aepiicatiens, He has referred te E><.?.81 . *2 é ,-

-__/ which is one such apgiicatioh and having acceeted V.M. Jashi's repert and recommended it, He has admitted of having issued E><.P,10{} the covering ietter a5-(j':':-{:jf"-«_ti}4¢i,th E><.P.81 recammending grant 91' man. .§5§'miia:'r§:§','*~ identiﬁes E><.P.2 appiicatian pertairarrg.4to i\§'a.§;:a_p'p_a'iV"

Katti which was submitted to hin~égwii:£'h'*'£hé'~.r¢p§§:tj Eoshi and everi identifies E$<.,§'.~V3,_G1 as ;.rr;;:°c;m'a;terraficater7 relating to S.\.!. Kagineiii, iss;;.e-diitmrithe Tahs-iidtatgi Horn his evidence, it is dear R'tEiat~ had ta conduct enquiry about téfre._elig§bi'EVity':}f;>f and during the course oft. sach 51s.er§_Vqi1i4ify.s___"re aseertaén correctness of the particziiars tihe..j"ahs--iidar was required to examine further".Vt_t'i:e 'VishCiime"-~.___""s:3"i.:rce and issue certificate acce:'dihgiyu.'l..VfVQa*'Vap;:§re§raL He therefore, recommended a';$i:}§i.ca~i3:sor£'s..t_of these respective beneficiaries for grant: 0? .ie.ant_' €L§f'{,3$:i§"E%X&F11§f1a§iG?ﬂ, he admits eiearhg that the Starr: $'e;z.a%<had Cemgaiiea with aii the ferrrzaiities ef scrutiny daft th.e=..a'ea§i€:at%arrs and after veréfécatieh ef the address e? A' --..:rie...«A"aa2*%:§es air the three easiieaicéergs reeemmeheed as him .. axeei, 982 am area were after Cerifirmirrg that aii are three aeplicahts are benaféde applicants and beneficiaries. AM the three apbiications were sent to the bank djrectiy from his office for man saectiera under SFDA"~.sbhteme subsidies offered by the Gevemmeht.

ameent is borne by the Gbvernme_h.t..b§yf way?V"O'f' titetd admits that for proper if§'E;jf€I'T1e:F".t€§'E:é'_C')t¥'i':Vaftd "utiiEs'at':"ah"1,bef SFDA, Geverhmeet has fixe'd_v"e.poe'At2~%hVﬁ, .the"te_se-ﬁestébikdity.iL' and duty to ensure st;ccessftstufu,:3ct§_bni:€t;"«0f_?Zh_e scheme. This assertive statemehttof ﬁeyefopmeht Officer establishes suecessfu1tt'y"'»that"the ..'ap,t§E:i'{:at§ohs of three bersens detai'-%.ed5ih_--:'_ ah'dVV'P.96 were received by hint th}~¢ag'a3t thve:d{3ra'rh'_'vSevahwahd the Tahsiidar. He had aiso cohfjr'med' satisfaction he had examined <:0rre--::thess'4"e.t'the b'art§tzaIars and also found that these ab'p1%ta*tti'eri's.._ Wet benaféde and eppiéeants were I beaeef:ei'er§es;'a~.__i~Wheh such categeréc: statement has Ceese fm-;*:ffz_'% ;bjt3eﬁ-'sen whe was at the hem": at affeérs eeeeg" SFBA sehee'ze_,fwe find he reeseh to igeeze such evéeemte, He is a '' --.'g;:es«eeet§ee witness" He has met beer: treetee hestiée 539%" it .. eeihted eat 92* eéécéted er ereved that the recommendations he made vide his letters E><s.?.1OG and 33.101 were without verifying the particulars er at the instance of any of these accused. His further statement that directty free: his office the recommendations were sent to the bank. excludes invoivement 91' third person case, it could be the accused. Thus, alﬁegation named in the appéicatieces were fictitious_-'eat?ifeidse Vteta-iiy"» falis to the ground.

24. Narahari Pw--19'J._i's-....the"'-;>er9€?rg,W%--..:x~:eis charge Biock Development Officer, '=._He had..Vpre_dessed the appiécations of the eth'e:5Tap'p_liéahts:Vf has also made a dear that on the basis of rec0mme"nd_Véti.oh's._amadei' by Gram Sevak and Viiiage Aeceuetant, %:e"'i~ta§i___§ecom:eended the aepiicatéen pertaining ' ..VSe,:jna};,€.s,%"éav .._Ishwereyya Bengar§mat%:(E><.P.102}. He f*:;'t§1erV'stetfe;e 0? having reeeeémended epeiécetéert ef §\£Ejeg;é§:Ae.hV" Since his evéeeece weeée shew that tze 2 Adreeemceeeeee the sate eeeéécetéens fer eterzt ef Eeee etter essteerteining tizet G¥'3E"'§"': Sevek ees dene ereeer scrutiny eee vtttfureéshee the pazticuiars,

26. in examénatien in chief, this witness weeid say that specimen handwriting {if A5 at 3252 and 5.205 were compared with the questioned handwriting and wereﬁiuhd to be written by the same person. Prosecution w.e_ifits'_tej;~;:'seA this evidence. But, in crossexamination!'-.theif_"wEtriesé;_ admits that except for the say of are the specimen ségeateres_ef 2&5?' "there :iA«fa'§3" he 'aoi:'he'r'=, materiai er personal informatiienrte himL"1Et"de'fee'ts the said evidence. This is beta;;se,_«'"A'5"-d4is;5et'es the': 3.202 and 3205 are her sampie dispute is raised by the§~va:éeg_sed,::__the the prosecution to estabiish thiat7Ii:heV:seri*1i;iie_.vV_'handirrriting at ex.i>,119 ($5.202 and S.2t35_)"és speeihfiee'---h'di:divriting of A5. Therefore, this partjof the 'évi,¢ie'ii:e Eiaoiigh ii": the first Eook indicts A5 that .ﬁ"sihei"i«s E'h'e bersen wrote the appiicatien ef Geurawe M. ice be epereeieted ehiy in the Eight ef the ether eeieeeee eh recerd and eeenet be the seie basis fer §$fCfC€$%.Zi'Ci.§ that AS had Emeerseheted Geerewe M, Heéeeeti, '' --..°i"eé<éee the exizreme eese eeee itheegh the eeeeerrétihg is ..._srheem the he that 0? es; she eeeie emit: he the seriee. it K C)\ ceuid Only show that the ehtrées in the aepiicatioh purporting to be that of Gourawa M. Haiepeté were in the handwriting of AS but does not estabiish that Gourawa M. Haiepeti was a fictitious person which was the..VVi::ha.:jge. Hence, the handwriting e><pert's evidence at Show that the handwriting in questiened sample Charged are of the SE3r'i"i€V'.'t:)€f'S€iH'fi:' '*5;§t..'t'hat~"§r..:,'i_.iEv»:.§°§tdt establish that Gouravva M, .i4iarE_epeti"was a fictitriaas tjierseas. set up by A5 itseif.

27. The entire"e\£ijdehce[as'4"t"efei*'r'ed to abeve in the deposité--o--h i3eve'ie'n'r'-nenvtg Officer and handwriting experts o--:':ix,'Vte'te:'*s:'tn»'t'he*co'ncIuct of A1 and A3 but is silent so far A5~w.ar"irifA€5"«-aV%e"'.cohcerned. The evidence is too feehée wheh _t:0vm.r;.sar"e..dA"te the charge iexsehed against the aectisecii. Tfhe h'asév--e----%«::gteéients at the charge need sufficient h%'ewaf"ah'a;'«vé.n"'t_his case, it is Eackéhe. Emeersehatieh is a 'sAeri.ezsVs;'affehj%:Vet the evéeehce that is required tea estahhsh %.:h*e.. sa%__ﬁ'r:h.:arge eaehet he $€3 hght as iee' hr': the éhstaht ease Eh the_E:irct3mstanees, 3% fine that the €8!"W'ECii§£}E'2 teitieteeci V' iaigathst the accused by the ieamee Triai Eudge ﬂeeing them guiity for the offence ueder Sections 420, 468, 465 and 471 of the IEDC is not supperted by any EegaE evideﬁ§:e on record and that conviction appears to be "rhete_:'.Qh misénterpretatieh of the evidence and is thus;:"IiahelTe':.e:'te interfered with. In the circumstah-ces»,«.the--'_4ere"e'rs*e's Li:*§;ed't':.n the appeal are accepted. The appeei

28. The finding of gg::e:t_}ec4ordédebywe {earned Trial"

Judge in Spi. (CB1) Nc.t.'i',z'8n4' e"ge_insttéA4A AS the appeiiants herein, is setes3'i'de;-.iT.*V'1ey:: 'e".te.Leic_c:;eétted of ail the charges I@V€{_§.€'d:+ag.a§i'1:$'t ub'ai"E§ eonds executed by them a:ad~thxe'§.r si§%f:etie'::.Ve-re 0r'dere"d to be cahceiled, ee.%:* A "

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Karnataka High Court