The prosecution must provide satisfactory evidence beyond reasonable doubt for conviction, and an acquittal reinforces the presumption of innocence in cases of legal infirmity in evidence.

JUDGMENT :

(V. SRISHANANDA, J.)

Heard Sri. Subhash Mallapur, learned Spl. P.P. for Lokayukta/appellant and Sri.Ravi K. Anoor, learned counsel on behalf of Sri. Avinash A. Uploankar, learned counsel for respondent Nos.3 and 4.

2. The present appeal is preferred challenging the order of acquittal recorded by the learned Special Judge in Special Case No.2/2016 by the Judgment dated 29.07.2019, insofar as accused Nos.3 and 4 is concerned.

3. The facts in nutshell which are utmost necessary for disposal of the present appeal are as under :

3.1. A complaint came to be lodged with the Karnataka Lokayukta Police, Kalaburagi that Sri. Shellagi Devendrappa being the representative of All India Anti- Corruption Committee, submitted a representation to the Superintendent of Police, Kalaburagi, and other officers alleging misappropriation of funds of the Government.

3.2. The Superintendent of Police, Kalaburagi, forwarded the representation to the Karnataka Lokayukta and based on the same, a case came to be registered by the Lokayukta department by Sri. T.R.Raghavendra being the Police Inspector of Karnataka Lokayukta. He also conducted preliminary enquiry and submitted a report to the Superintendent of Police, Kalaburagi. After the receipt of the said report, Tammaraya Patil, Police Inspector of Karnataka Lokayukta was directed by the Superintendent of Police, Kalaburagi to register a case and investigate and file necessary charge-sheet.

3.3. Thereafter, the matter was investigated, whereunder, it is noticed that, the taluka Panchayat, Chittapur passed a resolution for repair and improvement of Quarters Nos.2, 4 and 6 and directed to prepare the action plan under the development funds. Accordingly, action plan was prepared, estimated the expenditure in a sum of Rs.3,98,000/- for which, the action plan committee accorded sanction.

3.4. Accused Nos.2 and 4 entrusted the contract work of repairing and upgrading of the Quarters Nos.2, 4 and 6 to accused No.3, who is the contractor in the case. Accused No.3 as per the work order, completed the repair work and development works of Quarters No.2.

3.5. The prosecution case also reveals that, accused No.3 did not undertake any repair work to Quarters Nos.4 and 6, but despite the same, accused Nos.1 to 4 conspired themselves by placing forged and fabricated documents shown that the repair works are carried out in all the Quarters and prepared the bill to the tune of Rs.3,70,006/- and after deducting the tax amount, submitted the bill to sub-treasury for sanction and release of the amount.

3.6. After verification of the work order and conducting the spot inspection, sub-treasury passed the bill and released the amount.

3.7. It is the further case of the prosecution that, Assistant Executive Engineer of P.W.D, Chittapur, by name Ramesh Reddy submitted a report that, repairs and upgrading work of Quarters No.2 was only completed which was to the tune of Rs.1,32,567/- and in respect of Quarters Nos.4 and 6, there are no work undertaken by the accused and there is a misappropriation of the funds of the Government to the tune of Rs.2,37,439/- and they have cheated the Government by furnishing the bogus bills and sought for action against the concerned.

4. On collection of necessary materials, Lokayukta filed necessary charge-sheet after obtaining sanction to prosecute the Government Servants. The presence of the accused persons were secured by the learned Sessions Judge and after compliance of Section 207 of Cr.P.C., charges were framed. Accused persons pleaded not guilty. In the interregnum, accused No.1 filed an application seeking his discharge fro