Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2018 Supreme(SC) 625

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
N.V. RAMANA, S. ABDUL NAZEER, JJ.
SHARANAPPA - Appellant
Versus
STATE OF KARNATAKA - Respondent
CRIMINAL APPEAL NOS. 1102-1104 OF 2009
Decided on : 15-02-2018

Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant : Mr. Basava Prabhu S. Patil, Mr. Chinmay Deshpande, Mr. Sharangowda Patil, Mr. G.R. Ahujaj, Mr. S.K. Kulkarni, Mr. M. Gireesh Kumar, Mr. Ankur S. Kulkarni, Adv.
For the Respondent: Mr. Joseph Aristotle, Mrs. Priya Aristotle, Mr. Ashish Yadav, Ms. Anitha Shenoy, Adv.

IMPORTANT POINT
Unless there is a clear finding of guilt of the accused on basis of material on record, the accused cannot be convicted.

Headnote:Criminal jurisprudence – Appellant convicted for issued two cheques against loan sanctioned for digging of well – Loan sanctioned by Chief Secretary of the Zilla Parishad – Contract and verification report prepared and signed by Junior Engineer – Appellant only issued cheques on basis of such report – Appellant having no role in sanction of loan – Conviction not sustainable. (Para 12)
       Facts of the case:
       under the Government of India’s scheme Jawahar Rojgar Yojana, certain modalities and guidelines were issued by the State of Karnataka by Circular dated 23rd June, 1990 for the effective implementation of Million Wells Scheme.
       One Smt. Devamma (Accused No.1) was granted loan under the million wells scheme for digging a well in her land. Appellant herein, being the BDO, had issued the cheques for the loan amount. She did not dig the well and sold the land to one Devendrappa (complainant) by suppressing the fact of availing the loan facility under the Millions Wells Scheme.
       Devendrappa lodged a complaint before the Mannaekhelli Police Station to the effect that when he approached the concerned authorities for obtaining loan under the Million Wells Scheme, the authorities refused to grant loan to him on the ground that the previous owner (accused No. 1) has already availed loan.
       The appellant was arrayed as Accused No. 4.
       The trial Court convicted the appellant for the offence punishable under Sections 420 and 468 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. He was sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for 2 years with a fine of Rs.1,000/-, in default of payment of fine, to undergo further simple imprisonment for two months for the offences punishable under Sections 420 read with Section 34 of IPC. Again he was handed over same sentence for the offence under Section 468 read with Section 34, IPC also.
       The appellant’s appeal before the District and Sessions Judge as well as his criminal revision petition before the High Court have been dismissed.
       Finding of the Court:
       Conviction of the appellant is not sustainable.
       Result: Appeal nos. 1102-1103 of 2009 allowed. Appeal no. 1104 of 2009 dismissed as abated.

JUDGMENT :

N.V. RAMANA, J.

CRIMINAL APPEAL NOS. 1102-1103 OF 2009

These appeals by special leave are directed against the judgment and final order dated 19.08.2008 and 26.08.2008 passed by the High Court of Karnataka Circuit Bench, Gulbarga in Criminal Revision Petition No. 2440 of 2006, whereby the High Court dismissed the Criminal Revision Petition filed by the appellant herein.

2. Brief history of the case, in a nutshell, is that, under the Government of India’s scheme Jawahar Rojgar Yojana, certain modalities and guidelines were issued by the State of Karnataka by Circular dated 23rd June, 1990 for the effective implementation of Million Wells Scheme. One Smt. Devamma (Accused No.1) filed an application in the year 1992 under the scheme for sanction of loan to dig a well in Survey No. 128/C at Village Mutangi measuring 3 acres 25 guntas stated to be owned by her.

3. On 1.4.1992, the Chief Secretary, Zila Parishad, Bidar, after considering the feasibility report entered into an agreement with Accused No.1 who agreed to dig an open well, as per the Million Well Scheme and sanctioned the loan amount. It appears that later on the said Devamma (Accused No. 1) sold the said land to one Devendrappa (complainant) by suppressing the fact of availing the loan facility under the Millions Wells Scheme.

4. The said Devendrappa lodged a complaint on 7th October, 1993 before the Mannaekhelli Police Station. The complaint was to the effect that when he approached the concerned authorities for obtaining loan under the Million Wells Scheme, the authorities refused to grant loan to him on the ground that the previous owner (accused No. 1) has already availed loan. It was also alleged in the complaint that after availing the loan, accused No. 1 did not dug up the well. After the investigation, charge sheet was filed against six persons including the appellant herein who was Block Development Officer and issued two cheques at the relevant time. The appellant was arrayed as Accused No. 4.

5. The trial Court convicted the accused for the offence punishable under Sections 420 and 468 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. He was sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for 2 years with a fine of Rs.1,000/-, in default of payment of fine, to undergo further simple imprisonment for two months for the offences punishable under Sections 420 read with Section 34 of IPC. Again he was handed over same sentence for the offence under Section 468 read with Section 34, IPC also.

6. Aggrieved by the said order, the appellant filed an appeal before the District and Sessions Judge which came to be dismissed. Then he preferred criminal revision petition before the High Court. The High Court also dismissed the same. Hence, the appellant is before us by way of these appeals.

7. We have heard learned counsel for the parties.

8. The main allegation against the appellant is that he has issued two cheques (Exhibits 43 and 44) in his capacity as Block Development Officer, on the basis of contract certificates (Ext.P17 to P-21) prepared and signed by Junior Engineers (A5 and A6).

9. During the course of arguments, it was brought to the notice of this Court that the predecessor of the office of the appellant, who worked up to 1.9.1992, also charged and convicted with the same offence (Accused No. 3) as that of the appellant. The said officer also, after considering the report (Exts. P-17 to P-21) submitted by Accused No.6—Junior Engineer, issued two cheques to Accused No. 1 (Exts. P41 and P42). When that matter reached up to this Court in an earlier round of litigation in Special Leave Petition (Criminal) No. 612 of 2009, this Court remanded the matter back to the High Court for reconsideration. On such remand, the High Court vide its judgment dated 8th October, 2009, allowed the Revision Petition and set aside the conviction awarded by the trial Court in CC No. 764 of 1998.

10. It has been submitted that the case of the appellant herein also stands on the same footing with

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2018 Supreme(SC) 625

SUPREME COURT OF INDIAN.V. RAMANA, S. ABDUL NAZEER, JJ.SHARANAPPA - AppellantVersusSTATE OF KARNATAKA - RespondentCRIMINAL APPEAL NOS. 1102-1104 OF 2009Decided on : 15-02-2018

IMPORTANT POINTUnless there is a clear finding of guilt of the accused on basis of material on record, the accused cannot be convicted.

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
N.V. RAMANA, S. ABDUL NAZEER, JJ.
SHARANAPPA - Appellant
Versus
STATE OF KARNATAKA - Respondent
CRIMINAL APPEAL NOS. 1102-1104 OF 2009
Decided on : 15-02-2018

IMPORTANT POINT
Unless there is a clear finding of guilt of the accused on basis of material on record, the accused cannot be convicted.