Karnataka High Court
Vithal S/O Hanmanthappa Agharkhede vs The State Of Karnataka on 27 June, 2025
Author: V Srishananda
Bench: V Srishananda
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC-K:3484
CRL.A No. 200152 of 2016
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
KALABURAGI BENCH
DATED THIS THE 27TH DAY OF JUNE, 2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V SRISHANANDA
CRIMINAL APPEAL No.200152 OF 2016
(374(Cr.PC)/415(BNSS))
BETWEEN:
1. VITHAL S/O HANMANTHAPPA AGHARKHEDE,
AGE:75 YEARS, OCC:RTD. GOVT.SERVANT,
IRRIGATION DEPARTMENT,
H.NO. 1-9-28:4, KHUBA PLOT,
GULBARGA.
1A) SMT. INDIRABAI W/O VITHAL AGHARKHED,
AGE:70 YEARS,
OCC: HOUSE HOLD AND AGRICULTURE,
R/O. HO.NO.1-9-28:4 KHUBA PLOT,
Digitally signed GULBARGA.
by SUMITRA
SHERIGAR 1B) VEERENDRA S/O VITHAL AGHARKHED,
Location: HIGH AGE:52 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE,
COURT OF
KARNATAKA R/O. HO.NO.1-9-28:4 KHUBA PLOT,
GULBARGA.
1C) SMT. SHAILAJA W/O SIDDESHE KAROOR,
AGE:51 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD,
R/O. SHRE NAGAR VIJYAPUR.
1D) SMT. SUMANGALA R. KULKARNI,
AGE:48 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD,
R/O. S.B.I. COLONY, KALABURAGI.
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC-K:3484
CRL.A No. 200152 of 2016
HC-KAR
1E) SMT. JAYASHREE W/O SIDRAM PATIL,
AGE:46 YEARS, OCC: HOUSE WIFE,
R/O. ANAND NAGAR KALABURAGI.
1F) SHARANRAJ S/O VITHAL AGHARKHED,
AGE:43 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE,
R/O. H.NO.1-9-28:4 KHUBA PLOT,
GULBARGA.
...APPELLANTS
(BY SRI. T.G.ANANDSHETTI, ADVOCATE)
AND:
THE STATE OF KARNATAKA,
THROUGH THE POLICE LOKAYUKTA POLICE BIDAR,
REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
KALABURAGI.
...RESPONDENT
(BY SRI. SUBHASH MALLAPUR, SPL.PP FOR LOKAYUKTA)
THIS CRL.A. IS FILED U/S. 374 (2) OF CR.P.C PRAYING
TO, ALLOW THE APPEAL AND SET ASIDE THE IMPUGNED
JUDGMENT AND ORDER OF SENTENCE PASSED BY THE
PRINCIPAL DISTRICT & SESSIONS JUDGE, AT BIDAR IN SPL.
CASE NO.3/2004 DATED:29.09.2016 AND 04.10.2016 AND
ACQUIT THE ACCUSED/APPELLANT FROM THE CHARGES
PUNISHABLE U/S 13(1)(e) R/W Sec. 13(2) OF P.C. ACT 1988.
THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR FURTHER HEARING, THIS
DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V SRISHANANDA
-3-
NC: 2025:KHC-K:3484
CRL.A No. 200152 of 2016
HC-KAR
ORAL JUDGMENT
(PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V SRISHANANDA) Heard Sri T.G.Anandashetti, learned counsel for the appellants and Sri Subhash Mallapur, learned counsel for the respondent.
2. The present appeal is filed by the accused who suffered an order of conviction in Special Case (Disproportionate) No.3/2004) for the offence punishable under Section 13(1)(e) of the Prevention of Corruption Act by the judgment dated 04.10.2016 on the file of the Prl. District and Sessions Judge and Special Judge, Bidar.
3. By the impugned judgment, accused has been sentenced as under:
(i) The accused Vithal, S/o Hanmanthappa Agharkhede, aged 74 years, retired Superintendent Engineer, Irrigation Department, R/o H.No.1-9-28:4 Khuba Plot, Gulbarga, since he is convicted for the offence punishable under Section 13(1)(e) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 r/w Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, is ordered to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of three years and also this -4- NC: 2025:KHC-K:3484 CRL.A No. 200152 of 2016 HC-KAR Court imposed fine of Rs.35,00,000/- (Rupees Thirty five lakhs only).
(ii) In default to pay fine amount, the accused shall undergo further simple imprisonment for a period of one year.
(iii) Since the accused had not at all undergo judicial custody during the investigation, inquiry or trial, therefore, there is no question of giving benefit under Section 428 of Cr.P.C.
(iv) It is further ordered that, necessary direction shall be issued to the concerned banks to remit the proceeds of the Fixed Deposits and the cash balance standing to the credit of the accused in his bank account and the proceeds thereof shall be appropriated and adjusted towards the fine amounts.
(v) If after adjustment, still the fine falls short, the gold and silver ornaments seized and produced before the Court as observed in the body of the judgment shall be sold to the Reserve Bank of India or State Bank of India or by public auction to make deficit of fine amount good.
The rest of the gold, silver and jewellery shall be confiscated to the Government of Karnataka.
(vi) It is ordered that even after taking auction for recovery of fine amount as per clauses 4 and 5 above stated and falls short of recovery of fine amount, then the Superintendent of Police, Lokayukta, Bidar, and Deputy Superintendent of Police, Lokayukta, Bidar, are directed to make arrangement by approaching Deputy -5- NC: 2025:KHC-K:3484 CRL.A No. 200152 of 2016 HC-KAR Commissioner, Bidar, of auctioning immovable properties viz., house and landed properties of the accused to recovery of fine amount in its full extent as ordered above.
(vii) All the immovable properties agricultural lands situated at Karajgi village, Tq.Afzalpur and Mannur village, described in detailed in the body of the judgment shall be confiscated to the Government of Karnataka as per Section 452 of Cr.P.C.
(viii) The bail bonds and surety bonds of the accused shall stand cancelled.
(ix) M.O.3 to M.O.28 are ordered to be confiscated in favour of the Government of Karnataka.
(x) M.O.1, M.O.2, M.O.29 to M.O.37 are ordered to be returned to the accused, since they are photographs of the accused and his wife and family members and toys."
4. Being aggrieved by the same, present appeal has been preferred by the accused. During pendency of the present appeal, accused died. To contest the veracity of imposition of fine of Rs.35,00,000/- by the learned Trial Judge, legal representatives of the accused viz., wife and children have come on record as dependents of the original accused.
5. Facts of the case in brief which are utmost necessary for disposal of the present appeal are as under: -6-
NC: 2025:KHC-K:3484 CRL.A No. 200152 of 2016 HC-KAR The accused entered into service as a public servant in the post of Junior Engineer on 17.06.1968 in Karnataka State Irrigation Department. He was promoted to the post of Assistant Engineer in the year 1976-1978 and thereafter as Assistant Executive Engineer in the year 1992. He was also promoted as Executive Engineer in the year 1997 and ultimately as a last promotion, he was promoted as Superintendent Engineer in the year 1998. His areas of service included Kalaburagi, Santhpur, Afzalpur, Chittapur, Kallur, Vanadurga, Aurad-B, Humnabad, Krishnapur and Bidar.
6. Accused has a wife by name Indirabai and five children of which two are sons and three are daughters. Accused possessed ancestral properties by way of agricultural land in Mannur village in Sy.No.363(E) measuring 7 acres 12 guntas and he possessed agricultural land of his own in Sy.No.363(A) measuring 14 acres 2 guntas in the name of his son Veerendra and another son Sharana Raj measuring 7 acres 10 guntas. It is also contended that the accused was in possession of movable and immovable ancestral properties. -7-
NC: 2025:KHC-K:3484 CRL.A No. 200152 of 2016 HC-KAR
7. Since the Lokayukta entertained a suspicion that assets of the accused were not in consonance with the income he had derived, he was closely observed in the check period from 17.06.1968 to 31.03.2001. After so observing the financial assets of the accused, prima facie, prosecution noted that accused was possessing the assets to the tune of Rs.1,16,79,500/-, disproportionate to his income.
8. Based on the same, FIR came to be lodged under Section 13(1)(e) of the Prevention of Corruption Act and after thorough investigation, charge sheet came to be filed against the accused for the aforesaid offence.
9. Presence of the accused was secured before the learned Special Judge and after completing necessary formalities, charge was framed for the offence punishable under Section 13(1)(e) of the Prevention of Corruption Act.
10. The accused pleaded not guilty and therefore, trial was held.
11. In order to prove the guilt of the accused, prosecution placed on record the oral evidence of 32 witnesses who are -8- NC: 2025:KHC-K:3484 CRL.A No. 200152 of 2016 HC-KAR examined as P.W.1 to P.W.32 and documentary evidence are exhibited and marked as Exs.P.1 to P.102 apart from placing on record 37 Material Objects, comprising of gold and silver ornaments, photo album, currency notes cassettes, etc.
12. On conclusion of recording of prosecution evidence, learned Trial Judge recorded the accused statement as is contemplated under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, wherein, accused denied possessing the assets disproportionate to his income.
13. Accused took the responsibility of accounting the assets as is detailed out by the prosecution in various items which has been discussed in detail by the learned Trial Judge in the impugned judgment vide item Nos.1 to 29 and in that regard, accused placed on record the defense evidence by way of examining himself as D.W-10 and nine witnesses as D.Ws. 1 to 9. He also placed on record 26 documents which were exhibited and marked as Exs.D.1 to D.26.
14. Thereafter, learned Trial Judge heard the arguments of both sides and by the impugned judgment convicted the accused and sentenced him as referred to supra. -9-
NC: 2025:KHC-K:3484 CRL.A No. 200152 of 2016 HC-KAR
15. Being aggrieved by the same, original accused filed the present appeal on the following grounds:
"That, the impugned judgment and order is illegal and against the material on record.
That, the Trial Court has not properly and Judiciously appreciated the evidence on record, hence it has come to a wrong conclusion.
That, the prosecution has examined PW-1 to PW. 32 and got marked Ex. P-1 to Ex. P-102 and closed its side. The defense has examined DW-1 to DW-10 and got marked Ex. D-1 to D-26.
That, the PW-1 Anilkumar S/o. Mallikarjun Konappa F.D.A. Gulaburga has deposed about the Panchnama at Ex. P-1 to P-4 where as Ex. P-1 is Panchnama and PW-1 clearly admitted that, the Valuation of all the articles in Panchnama is as per the valuation made by the Police and not of the Pancha's and this has not been considered by the Trial Court. Further, the accused has produced the valuation of the household Articles as on that date. But the Trial Court failed to consider the defense evidence of the accused. The Trial Court ought to have considered the statement of valuation of the articles and also reasons shown by the accused, why it is to be accepted by the Trial Court.
That, the PW-2 Ashok S/o Ambaji SDA- RTO officer Bidar has been examined. But nothing is elucidated about the valuation of the articles in the home office at Bidar.
- 10 -
NC: 2025:KHC-K:3484 CRL.A No. 200152 of 2016 HC-KAR But the Trial Court wrongly accepted the valuation made by the I.O. That the valuation of Articles of Rs. 26,400-00 at Ex.t P-9 was to be omitted as the prosecution has failed to prove the same that the said Articles belongs to the accused.
PW-3 the prosecution has examined the goldsmith as PW-3 and nothing has been elucidated.
PW-4 The Manger D.C.C. Bank has been examined by the prosecution and has deposed and got marked exhibit P-10 bank extract submitted by him about the A.G.O.'s wife's SB A/c No.9629 of 5/3/2001 of Rs.1420-15.
PW-5 the Baburao S/o Kasinath Pattar the FDC of P.L.D Bank of Afzalapur has been examined and got marked Ex. P-11 about tractor loan of Rs. 301121-00 which is taken in 10 A/c.
PW-6 Sharanappa S/o. Bimanna Giri the director Laxmi Pattina Sahakar Sangh Gulburga has been examined and got marked Ex. P-12 the report about membership and shares held by the family of A.G.O. and is taken in to account.
PW-7 Naganna S/o. Sanganna Rudraxi The manager of Basaveshwar Sahakari Sangh has been examined about the shares purchased and loan of Rs. 25000/- taken and returned in 1996 by the A.G.O. is marked at Ex. P-13.
PW-8 Basavaraj S/o Sharanappa Sumbad AEE City Corporation Gulburga has been examined about permission
- 11 -
NC: 2025:KHC-K:3484 CRL.A No. 200152 of 2016 HC-KAR taken by the A.G.O. to construct house in 2001-2002 which is contrary to the document issued by the city corporation Gulburga which is marked at Ex. D-26.
PW-9 Shankar S/o. Bheemsen the revenue inspector in city Corporation Gulburga has been examined about the tax fixed to the building at Khuba layout of A.G.O. and nothing is elucidated.
PW-10 Shamrao S/o. Shankar Rao Bandewale the retired sub registrar Afzalpur has been examined and got marked Ex. P-14 & P-15 the encumbrance certificates and nothing has been elucidated about Ex. P-14 & P-15.
PW-11 Shivasharanappa S/o Shivalingappa the accountant in Veerashaiva Kalayanmantappa Gulburga and got marked the letter at Ex. P-16 and the receipts at Ex. No. P-17 to P-19 and he is clearly stated in his evidence that he has collected. 5000 and 6000 as rent for the marriage hall and this has to be omitted as it is included in the marriage expenses amount of Rs. 2,50,000-00 so the trial court has erred in taking this amount twice.
PW-12 Praveen S/o. Vijayrao Deshpande Age. 55 Occ. Manager Bank of Maharastra has been deposed regarding A/c No. 2220 with balance Rs. 862-00 of A.G.O. and the letter and account extract are marked at Ex. P-20 and P-21.
PW-13 Mohammad Abbas S/o. Mohmmad Kasimsha Asst. Commissioner in city corporation Gulburga has been examined regarding the tax assessment and payment of
- 12 -
NC: 2025:KHC-K:3484 CRL.A No. 200152 of 2016 HC-KAR A.G.O's house and he got marked Ex. P-22 and Katha Extract is marked at Ex. P-23.
PW-14 Shankarappa S/o. Chandrappa Manager State Bank of Mysore has been examined about the SB A/c. of A.G.O. and Katha extract is marked at Ex P-24 and is taken into account.
PW-15 Shrikanth S/o. Dharmanna Manager LIC housing finance Gulburga has been examined and the letter is marked Ex. P-25 regarding housing loan for Rs. 5 Lakhs & 2.50,000 and is taken in to account.
PW-16 Vikar Ahmed Shaik S/o. Chandsab Manager Bank of Maharastra has been examined about A.G.O's SB A/c No. 3203 balance amount for Rs. 10,289-00 and further A.G.O's Son Veeranna was holding SB. A/c No. 5241 with Balance of Rs. 12,439-00 and the account extract has been marked at Ex. P-26 and P-27 and the same is taken in to account.
PW-17 Shivaputrappa S/o. Chandrashaker has been examined about the salary of A.G.O. from 10-12-1993 to 30-6-1996 and the same is marked at Ex. P-29.
PW-18 Ramappa S/o Basappa Kudhari AEE Gulbarga has been examined regarding salary details of A.G.O. from August 1975 to July 1983.
PW-19 Krishana S/o. Vithalrao itnal the Branch manager of 1.1K Gulburga has been examined about the A.G.O. and his family members having 19 policies and in the cross examination he has admitted that the premium
- 13 -
NC: 2025:KHC-K:3484 CRL.A No. 200152 of 2016 HC-KAR amount of Rs. 2.84,543-00 for 12 policies is directly paid by the A.G.O. and the remaining 7 policies premium amount is deducted from the salary of A.GO. the letter produced by him is marked at Ex. P-31.
P.W.-20 Shri. D. G. Hiremath S/o. Gurusiddappa the Chif Accountant has deposed that he has dispersed the salary of A.GO. from 08-07-1992 to 17-6-1993 and the details of salary list is marked at Ex. P-32.
P.W-21 Madhuramani S/o. Mariyappan Rtd. A/c Officer, BSNL Office Gulburga has been examined about the telephone security deposit of Rs 750/- and telephone Bill Payment particulars from 21-06-1991 to 18-04-2001 where has check period is 18-02-2001. Hence the total Pavment is Rs. 17,403-00 and the same is taken in to account. The list is marked at Ex. P-33.
PW-22 Sayyad Ahmmed Ulla S/o. Sayyad Asadulla Age. 55 years Occ. Sub Treasury Officer Aurad. Deposed about salary details of A.G.O. from 27-07-1993 to 19-06- 1996 and 01-05-1995 to 30-09-1996 the Letter is marked at Ex. P-34.
PW-23 Shivasharanappa S/o. Bhemrao the managing partner of Sangmeshwar Finance bank has deposed that the A.G.O. had taken loan of Rs. 20,000-00 in 1994 and Rs 20000-00 in 1995 and the document about this is marked at Ex. P-35.
PW-24 Shivaputrappa S/o Siddanna the Tahasildar Afzalpur has deposed that he was asked to produce Agriculture income from 1885-86 to 1995-96 which was to
- 14 -
NC: 2025:KHC-K:3484 CRL.A No. 200152 of 2016 HC-KAR be from 1968-69 to 1985-86 and this was submitted to the Lokayuktha Police and this was not available so the Trial Court observed that this document is not produced by the 10 at the time of Chargsheet though it was produced by the PW-24, in this regard the A.G.O. has produced Ex.D-15 about his Agriculture income of Rs. 6,50,655-00 during that period. The Trial Court has not considered as it is produced in 2006 and is created.
PW-25 B. P. Potddar S/o. Pandit Rao Potddar Asst. Director of Agriculture Afralpur has been examined about the agriculture income of the A.G.O. about the lands held at Karajgi he has given details of income from 1985-86 to 1999-2000 as Rs. 25,70,000-00 and the agriculture income from 2000 to 2001 bf Rs.6,18,150-00 and said documents are marked at Ex. P-36 and P-37. Further in the cross examination PW-25 will not deny the agriculture income of Rs. 15.00,000-00 to Rs 20,00.000-00 from 1968-69 το 1984-85 This fact is admitted and considered the meome of AGO. comes to Rs. 6,50,655-00 as his share as clucidated by DW-3 and Ex. D-15 This material aspect is wrongly presumed by the Trial Court as created one.
PW-26 Shamrao S/o. Nagappa the sub post master Santapur has deposed that he avas asked to submit the details about the deposits in N.SC from the year from 1991 to 1993 and the information list furnished by him is marked at Ex. P-38. Further in the cross examination he admits that the deposit amount after maturity doubles the deposit amount for every period of 6 years. Admittedly the deposit from 1984 to 1986 is of Rs. 3350-00 which is initial
- 15 -
NC: 2025:KHC-K:3484 CRL.A No. 200152 of 2016 HC-KAR investment and the same is periodically accumulated and the said amount is considered as deposit and new numbers assigned so the initial investment is only Rs.3350-00 and not Rs 14800-00 as shown by the LO and this has been wrongly considered by the Trial Court as the investment is Rs. 14.800-00.
PW-27 Gopal S/o Shantacharya Gooli the St. Superintendent of post office Gulburga has dipossd that he has submitted the details of NSC deposits by the AG.O. and the letter is marked at Ex. P-39 the amount in the list of NSC in the year 1994 shown as Rs. 14,800-00 cannot be considered as movable asset as the movable asset remains Rs.3350-00. But the Trial Court has not considered this.
PW-28 Jayadev Pranesh Sto. Gurunajundya the Joint Director statical Dept. deposed that the food expenses of the A.G.O. family from 17-6-1968 to 31-3- 2001 is of Rs. 6,20,553-00, Further he is omitted to take the agricultural produce of A.G.O. family and also the family of A G.O. was consisted of mother brother and his wife and their income. Admittedly the A.G.O. and his brother who was acting as Kartha of the family have got agriculture lands and he was also in Govt. job and naturally their contribution to the family was to be taken up to 1985-86 and this material illegality committed by the PW-28 is elucidated in the cross examination but the trial court straight way accepted the report of the PW-28 and overlooked the Ex. D-18 and this material illegality has caused grater injustice to the A.G.O. Appellant.
- 16 -
NC: 2025:KHC-K:3484 CRL.A No. 200152 of 2016 HC-KAR PW-29 Praneshkumar S/o Laxman Asst. Engineer Technical wing Lokayuktha Banglore from 2001 to 2013 has examined regarding the valuation of the house property of A.G.O in Kubha layout Gulburga at its 35,44.000-00 without any material evidence and this has been accepted by the Trial Court and the Ex. D-10 and the defense evidence of the A.GO. declared in the APR is not accepted under wrong presumption and this has caused grater injustice to the appellant accused.
PW-30 Dwarkanath S/o. Kushappa Thoravi the Police Inspector Gulburga examined that he has searched the office of the A.G.O. at Bidar and no records are found In the cross examination he has admitted the Ex. D-5 with reference to an amount of Rs 40,000-00 kept for purchasing submersible pump at Banglore.
PW-31 Venkanouda Sio Nagangouda Patil Police inspector deposed that he took up the further investigation and submitted the chargesheet to the court stating that the assets of the A.G.O. is 63.98% more then his income and in the cross examination he has admitted that material discrepancy and his report is not supported by any documentary evidence and apparently imaginary figures have been put to boost the value of the asset and expenditure to make it disproportionate and to involve him in this case and this has been glucidated in the cross examination where in he has clearly admitted that the lack of evidence in arriving at the disproportionate of income Still then the Trial Court has relied on the evidence of 10
- 17 -
NC: 2025:KHC-K:3484 CRL.A No. 200152 of 2016 HC-KAR and disbelieved the defense evidence and has come to the wrong conclusion in convicting the A.G.O with fing.
PW-3 (hannappa 5/o. Hanamanthgouda Malipatil DYSP Gulburga has deposed that he has collected the information on Bathna and prepared the source report which is based with no documentary evidence and shown the disproportionate income to the extent of 449.21% of income and asset than his income from known source and got registered the case on permission by superintendent of Police Lokayuktha and conducted the raid on the house of accused in the presence of Pancha's. And seized the entire documents kept in Blue file marked at Ix. P-4.
DW-1 Shivangouda S/o Basangouda Patil Age 63 years resident of Gulburga has been examined as defense evidence and he deposed that he is the brother of A.G.O.'s wife Indirabai and at the time of her marriage his father has given Gold and Silver ornaments and also house hold articles to her sister and to the A.G.O. Further he deposed about the document Ex. D-13 that is family arrangement deed and D-14 the mutation register extract from village accountant Gulburga regarding Survey No. 291/2 9 acres 36 guntas which was standing in the name of his mother Smt. Balabai and the same is transferred in the name of W/o A.G.O. as per family arrangement deed Ex. D-13 but the trial court did not accept this documentary evidence under wrong presumption and the cost of the land of Rs. 48000-00 is wrongly included to the income of A.G() DW-2 Veerashetty S/o Veerabasappa Mange the civil engineer and registered approved value is examined
- 18 -
NC: 2025:KHC-K:3484 CRL.A No. 200152 of 2016 HC-KAR as defense witness about the construction of house in Cuba Layout Guburga and the same submitted to the Income Tax office ward No. 2 on 17-11-1999 itself and is marked at Ex. D-11 but this reverent evidence is not considered by the trial court under wrong presumption though the value of the building is declared in the APR 2001 including the value of the plot.
DW- Annarso No Apparso Hiradhar retired Agriculture Office has been examined about the agriculture income of A. G.) during the period of 1968-69 to 1985-86 and got marked ix. D-15. This material evidence is not considered by the trial court under wrong presumption that it is created. The trial court odd to have accepted this evidence with reference to the prosecution witness PW-24.
DW-4 M A. Anil Kumar S/o. Apparao the Income Tax officer has been examined regarding the submission of valuation report of immovable property to the income tax officer as on 7-11-1999 and the said valuation report is not accepted by the trial court under wrong presumption and the trial court has relied on the valuation report submitted by the Asst. Engineer Lokayuktha technical wing who is not competent to give the report about the valuation of the immovable property of the A.GO.
DW-5 Allauddin S/o. Nabhilal Patel has been examined regarding purchase of Jali wood by him for Rs. 22500-00 and this evidence is not considered by the trial court and omitted to take legal income to the family of A.G.O.
- 19 -
NC: 2025:KHC-K:3484 CRL.A No. 200152 of 2016 HC-KAR DW-6 Chidambar S/o. Gurunath Patil has been examined regarding the rent collected from the year 1988 to 1998-99 at the rate of Rs 12000 per month as this was omitted by the IC PW-31 as admitted by him about the let out of the open plot with shed on rental basis to electrical engineering works that is to DW-6 and has also produced the records to shoe that he was running his electric works in Plot No. 22 Cuba layout but the trial court did not considered this legal source of income of Rs 1.44 000-00 only on the ground that it was not declared in the AP.
DW-7 Praveen S/n Vijayaran Deshpande the manager bank of Maharastra has deposed about the loan amount of Rs. 50,000 FD No. 22372ana Rs. 50,000 on FD No 2386 the total Rs 100000 is taken in to account.
DW-8 Mohan the manager State Bank of India station bazaar Kalburgi has been examined about FD No. 61611 of 6-11-1996 for Rs. 40,000. Regarding this amount the prosecution is not disputed hence it is already DW-9 Mahadevappa S/o. Gurusiddappa Kagetti has been examined about Ex. D-20 sale of Jali wood and the receipt written by him for Rs. 22500 and it was received from DW-5 and that amount paid to the W/o A G.O. DW-10 Vital Agarkhed S/o Hanumantappa Agarklied the A.G.O. has been examined to defend himself and has denied all the alleged offences and nothing has been elicited in the cross examination by the prosecution. He deposed regarding income from agriculture from 1968- 69 to 1985-86 with documentary evidence at Ex. D-15
- 20 -
NC: 2025:KHC-K:3484 CRL.A No. 200152 of 2016 HC-KAR marked through the another of the document DW- But this material evidence is rejected by the Trial Court.
Further about this agriculture income the investigation officer himself called upon to produce the Net agricultural income from 1968-69 to 1985-86 and accordingly it was produced by the PAW-24 but it was not made available at the time of 'filing the charge sheet. The Trial Court has observed this but omitted to take this in to account under wrong presumption that Ex. D-15 is created.
The advocate for the accused has submitted his written arguments and he has also given the chart referring to the evidence of the prosecution and particularly relying on Ex. D-11 and D-15 which shows that the accused and the family members did not possess assets in disproportionate to his known sources of income and hence the impugned judgment and order deserves to be interfered by the Hon'ble Court."
16. As referred to supra, during pendency of the appeal, appellant died and his dependents were brought on record as appellant Nos.1(a) to 1(f).
17. Sri T.G.Anandshetti, learned counsel representing the dependents of the original appellant/accused while questioning the validity of the Order of conviction, reiterating the grounds urged in the memorandum of the appeal, argued that the
- 21 -
NC: 2025:KHC-K:3484 CRL.A No. 200152 of 2016 HC-KAR offence punishable under Section 13(1)(e) of the Prevention of Corruption Act would be completed after the accused fails to satisfactorily account for the assets possessed by him which are disproportionate, according to the known source of the prosecution.
18. He would further contend that the accused had taken such a responsibility on him after the prosecution placed evidence on record and in that regard, he has placed on record the oral evidence of ten witnesses including that of accused and placed on record documents which would prima facie establish that the disparity of the values taken by prosecution and original value, especially with regard to the ornaments as well as value of the agricultural land. He also contended that documents are placed on record to establish that two items of the agricultural land were in the exclusive possession of his sons which has been taken as assets of the accused while arriving at disproportionate asset and therefore, sought for allowing the appeal.
19. He would also contend that as on the date of judgment of the learned Trial Judge, accused was aged 74 years and during
- 22 -
NC: 2025:KHC-K:3484 CRL.A No. 200152 of 2016 HC-KAR pendency of the appeal, accused died. As such, dependents of the original accused may not be aware of many of the financial aspects of the accused and to the extent possible and based on the material already placed on record by way of defence documents vide Exs.D.1 to D.26, they are able to establish before the Court that there is no excess assets held by the original accused/appellant and therefore, sought for allowing the appeal.
20. In this regard, an affidavit of elder son of the deceased original accused is filed detailing out the discrepancies found in the calculation recorded by the learned Trial Judge based on the balance sheet filed by the prosecution. The contents of the affidavit are culled out hereunder for ready reference:
"I, Veerendra, S/o Vithal, Age 54 years, Occ: Agriculture, R/o H.No.1-9-28/4, Khuba Plot, Kalaburagi, do hereby solemnly affirms on oath as under:
1. I state that I am appellant late Sri Vithal S/o Hanumanthappa Agarkhed elders son now as per the amendment appeal memo. I am the appellant No.1(B) in the above case, as such I know the facts of the case.
Hence I filed this affidavit. My father died on 21.11.2019 leaving behind him the wife and children appellant
- 23 -
NC: 2025:KHC-K:3484 CRL.A No. 200152 of 2016 HC-KAR No.1(a) to 1(f) on behalf of all appellants today I have filed the affidavit before this Hon'ble High Court.
2. Further I state that, other items calculation can establish to before this Hon'ble Court now my father is no more and to establish the case and information is not available at present all LRs are not known the entire case disputed items information.
3. Further, I submit that as per calculation of AGO and prosecution deference amount arise of Rs.20,00,000/- is ready to pay by the LRs. Some times may be to compliance the order.
4. Hence myself and on behalf of all LRs are submitted that the present appellants are request before this Hon'ble Court appeal of penalty of Rs.35,00,000/- being higher side be reduced of Rs.15,00,000/- the appellants are ready to pay of Rs.20,00,000/- to reasonable one and we are oblige the Court order, in the interest of justice and equity.
Hence, that the contents of this affidavit are true and correct to the best of my knowledge, belief and information."
21. Per contra, after verifying the discrepancies pointed out by learned counsel for the appellant during the course of arguments and in the light of the affidavit filed, Sri Subhash Mallapur, learned counsel for the respondent, files a memo, which reads as under:
- 24 -
NC: 2025:KHC-K:3484 CRL.A No. 200152 of 2016 HC-KAR "In the top noted appeal, the calculation made by the trial Court and the discrepancies therein the final disproportionate assets held by the appellant will be more than 25%. Therefore, it would be just if the fine of Rs.20,00,000/- be imposed by this Hon'ble Court considering the percentage of disproportionate income, in the interest of justice."
22. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties, this Court perused the material on record, meticulously.
23. On such perusal of the material on record, the following points would arise for consideration:
(i) Whether the material on record would be sufficient enough to maintain the conviction of the original accused for the offence punishable under Section 13(1)(e) of the Prevention of Corruption Act?
(ii) Whether the impugned judgment is suffering from legal infirmity or perversity?
(iii) Whether the sentence needs modification?
(iv) What Order? 24. REGARDING POINT Nos.1 to 3: In the light of the
affidavit and memo filed by the parties, this Court is of the considered opinion that even assuming the calculation that has
- 25 -
NC: 2025:KHC-K:3484 CRL.A No. 200152 of 2016 HC-KAR been accepted by the appellant and discrepancies pointed out by the appellant during the course of argument is taken into consideration, there is excess assets held by the accused which is more than 10%.
25. Following the dictum of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Krishnananda Agnihotri vs State of Madhya Pradesh reported in (1977)1 SCC 816 even if this Court gives the margin of 10% assets it cannot be satisfactorily accounted for, then also, there is excess asset held by original appellant which is disproportionate to known source of income.
26. In this regard, to appreciate the rival contentions of the parties, it is necessary for this Court to cull out the Section 13(1)(e) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, which reads as under:
13. Criminal misconduct by a public servant.--(1) A public servant is said to commit the offence of criminal misconduct,--
(a) xxx xxx xxx xxx
(b) xxx xxx xxx xxx
(c) xxx xxx xxx xxx
- 26 -
NC: 2025:KHC-K:3484 CRL.A No. 200152 of 2016 HC-KAR
(d) xxx xxx xxx xxx
(e) if he or any person on his behalf, is in possession or has, at any time during the period of his office, been in possession for which the public servant cannot satisfactorily account, of pecuniary resources or property disproportionate to his known sources of income. "
27. On careful reading of the above provision, it is crystal clear that offence punishable under Section 13(1)(e) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, gets completed only after accused fails to satisfactorily account for the assets which is shown in the charge/balance sheet by the prosecution before the Court.
28. Learned Trial Judge has dealt with each and every item in detail in separate paragraphs in the impugned judgment as to the contentions raised by the parties in the light of the oral and documentary evidence placed on record by both sides.
29. Since the discrepancy now pointed out by the counsel for the appellants is not taken into account by the learned Trial Judge which has been fairly accepted by the learned counsel for Lokayukta, that such discrepancy ought to have been given deduction before the Trial Court.
- 27 -
NC: 2025:KHC-K:3484 CRL.A No. 200152 of 2016 HC-KAR
30. Instead of directing the parties to place additional evidence on record by remitting the matter to the Trial Court, this Court is of the considered opinion that while maintaining the conviction of the accused, if the amount of fine is reduced from Rs.35,00,000/- to Rs.20,00,000/- which is in approximation of about 20% of sum of Rs.1,16,79,500/-, ends of justice would be met.
31. As per charge sheet, prosecution has shown that there is excess assets of 45%, whereas, from the material placed on record, about 25% of the assets is satisfactorily explained by the original accused.
32. However, learned Trial Judge recorded a finding that disproportionate assets held by the accused is to the tune of Rs.25,85,804/- approximately 45.58%. Based on that, fine amount of Rs.35,00,000/- was imposed by the learned Trial Judge in the impugned judgment.
33. Taking note of the fact that while valuing some of the items there is discrepancy, if the dependents of the original accused are directed to pay fine of Rs.20,00,000/- as against Rs.35,00,000/-, ends of justice would be met.
- 28 -
NC: 2025:KHC-K:3484 CRL.A No. 200152 of 2016 HC-KAR
34. At this stage, Sri T.G.Anandashetti, learned counsel for the appellants submits that Rs.5,00,000/- is already paid towards fine and reasonable time may be granted for depositing the balance sum of Rs.15,00,000/-.
35. Sri Subhash Mallapur, learned counsel for the respondent opposes the said submission.
36. Taking note of the fact that it is the legal representatives i.e., the wife and children of the original accused who are required to pay the balance amount, if time is extended till 31.07.2025 to pay the balance fine amount of Rs.15,00,000/- (excluding a sum of Rs.5,00,000/- already deposited), ends of justice would be met.
37. Accordingly, in view of the foregoing discussion, point Nos.1 to 3 are answered partly in the affirmative.
38. REGARDING POINT No.4: In view of the finding of this Court on point Nos.1 to 3 as above, the following:
ORDER
(i) Criminal Appeal is allowed in part.
- 29 -
NC: 2025:KHC-K:3484 CRL.A No. 200152 of 2016 HC-KAR
(ii) While maintaining the conviction of the accused/original appellant (Vithal Hanmanthappa Agharkhed) for the offence punishable under Section 13(1)(e) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, sentence is modified as under:
(a) In view of death of original
appellant/accused, sentence of
imprisonment ordered by the learned Trial Judge has become insignificant.
(b) As against the fine amount of Rs.35,00,000/-, dependents of the original appellant are hereby directed to pay fine amount in a sum of Rs.25,00,000/- on or before 31st July 2025.
(c) Rs.5,00,000/- already deposited by the appellants is taken into account and balance sum of Rs.15,00,000/- is to be paid on or before 31st July 2025.
(d) Failure to pay the fine amount, Lokayukta is at liberty to execute the Order by considering the fine amount as arrears of land revenue.
- 30 -
NC: 2025:KHC-K:3484 CRL.A No. 200152 of 2016 HC-KAR
(e) Office is directed to return the Trial Court Records with copy of this Judgment for issue of modified conviction order.
Sd/-
(V SRISHANANDA) JUDGE kcm List No.: 1 Sl No.: 80 CT:PK