The prosecution failed to establish guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, reinforcing the acquittal of the accused, emphasizing the requirement for cogent evidence in corruption cases.

JUDGMENT :

V. SRISHANANDA, J.

1. Heard Sri Subhash Mallapur, learned counsel, for the appellant-Lokayukta and Sri Sharanagouda Patil and Sri Basavaraj Kareddy, learned counsels, for the respondents-accused.

2. This appeal by the Lokayukta challenging the order of acquittal in Special (Lok) Case No.13/2012 dated 10.03.2020 on the file of the Special Judge, Vijayapura.

3. Facts in the brief, which are utmost necessary for the disposal of the present appeal, are as under:

3.1 A charge-sheet came to be filed by the Lokayukta Police against the respondents-accused for the offences under Section 13 (1)(c) read with Section 13 (2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act (for short P.C. Act) and Sections 468 and 201 read Section 34 IPC.

3.2 The charge-sheet materials would disclose that the respondent Nos.1 to 4 being the public servants working as Executive Engineer, Assistant Executive Engineer, Assistant Engineer and Accounts Superintendent in Public Works Department, respectively, and accused No.5 being the Class-I Contractor colluded with each other and without carrying out the work of strengthening and asphalting the road from 36.5 kilometre to 47 kilometre on Devarahipparagi to Talikoti Road, created false documents as if the work is completed and committed forgery in the month of March-2008 and got released a sum of Rs.83,30,729/- from the Government and in that respect, a complaint was lodged against them on 06.06.2008.

3.3 On 11.06.2008, Chief Engineer (Technical and Audit Cell) Karnataka Lokayukta, Bangalore, visited the spot, conducted the inspection and gave a report to the effect that work is still under progress and about non-completion of work and there is a misappropriation of the amount to the tune of Rs.17,07,451/- till date and therefore, the charge-sheet came to be filed.

4. Charges were framed. Before trial Court, accused persons pleaded not guilty, therefore trial was held.

5. In order to bring home the guilty of the accused persons, 22 witnesses were examined on behalf of the Lokayukta as PW1 to PW22 and 73 documentary evidence were placed on record to substantiate the charges, which are exhibited and marked as Exs.P1 to P73.

6. After the conclusion of the recording of evidence, accused statement as is contemplated under Section 313 of Cr.P.C., was recorded, wherein, accused persons denied the incriminating circumstances found against them.

7. On behalf of the accused, Chandramouli S/o Ganganayak, R. Rudrayya S/o Late Rudrayya and Sadashivreddy B. Patil were examined as DW1 to DW3 and 08 documents were marked as Exs.D1 to D8.

8. Thereafter, learned Trial Judge heard the arguments of the parties in detail and on commutative consideration of the oral and documentary evidence placed on record, acquitted the accused persons for the aforesaid offences.

9. Being aggrieved by the same, Lokayukta has filed the present appeal on following grounds:

(cid:1) Judgment passed by the Hon'ble Court is contrary to the facts of the case as well as law besides further erroneous hence the impugned order deserves to be set aside.

(cid:1) The Trial Court without proper appreciation of the facts of the case and evidence lodged by the prosecution has examined 15 witnesses and got marked23 documents.

(cid:1) That the Trial Court ha