Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2025 Supreme(Online)(KAR) 665

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
MR. JUSTICE V. SRISHANANDA, J
Shivalingegowda S/o Late Muddegowda – Appellant
Versus
State By Inspector Of Police – Respondent
CRL.A.NO.653/2011 C/W CRL.A.NO.587/2011 C/W CRL.A.NO.596/2011 C/W CRL.A.NO.598/2011 C/W CRL.A.NO.611/2011 C/W CRL.A.NO.666/2011

Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant :SRI KIRAN S. JAVALI, SR. COUNSEL A/W SRI CHANDRASHEKARA.K, ADVOCATE
For the Respondent:SRI P. PRASANNA KUMAR, ADVOCATE

Public servants can be convicted for conspiracy and forgery under IPC despite absence of financial loss, as criminal conspiracy can be inferred from circumstantial evidence.

Headnote:(A) Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 - Section 13(1)(d) r/w Section 13(2) - Indian Penal Code - Sections 120B, 420, 468, 471, 477A - Conviction of public servants for conspiracy and forgery related to loan applications under the IRDP scheme resulting in financial loss to the bank - Accused convicted for multiple offences with sentences of simple imprisonment and fines imposed - Court ruled that mere absence of financial loss does not negate the offence under IPC. (Paras 64, 70)

(B) Criminal Conspiracy - The existence of criminal conspiracy can be inferred from the circumstances and evidence presented, without needing direct evidence of agreement among conspirators. (Paras 54)

Facts of the case:
Accused persons, including public servants, were involved in a conspiracy to forge documents for loan applications under the IRDP scheme, resulting in financial loss to the bank. They were convicted based on the evidence presented during trial. (Paras 4-8)

Findings of Court:
While maintaining convictions for IPC offences, the court set aside convictions under the Prevention of Corruption Act due to insufficient evidence of pecuniary advantage. (Paras 64, 70)

Issues: Whether the evidence was sufficient to uphold the convictions for the offences charged, and whether the sentences imposed were appropriate given the circumstances. (Paras 37, 70)

Ratio Decidendi: The court determined that public servants' failure to exercise diligence in loan processing constituted sufficient grounds for their conviction under IPC, despite arguments regarding the absence of financial loss. (Paras 60, 64)

Result: Appeals allowed in part; convictions maintained for IPC offences; acquitted of offences under the Prevention of Corruption Act; modified sentences imposed. (Paras 70)

CAV JUDGMENT

(PER: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE V SRISHANANDA)

Accused persons convicted in Special C.C.No.45/2004, on the file of City Civil and Sessions Judge and Special Judge for CBI Cases (CCH-34), who have been convicted by judgment dated 06.06.2011 are the appellants.

2. The rank of the accused persons and their appeal, conviction recorded by the trial Court for the offences in respect of accused persons and sentence ordered against them are tabulated hereunder for ready reference.

Name of the accused	Rank before Spl. Court.	Spl. C.C. No.	Criminal Appeal No. before this Court	Conviction for the offence p/u/s	Sentence passed
Shivalinge Gowda	Accused No.4	45/2004	653/2011	120B,	SI for one year
				468, 471, 477A, 420 IPC, 13(1) (d) r/w Section 13(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act.	SI for one year, and fine of Rs.5,000/- in default, SI for six months, for each of the offences.
N.Shantharaj	Accused No.1	45/2004	587/2011	120B,	SI for one year
				468, 471, 477A, 420 IPC, 13(1) (d) r/w Section 13(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act.	SI for one year and fine of Rs.5,000/- in default, SI for six months, for each of the offences.
Krishnan Naik	Accused No.2	45/2004	596/2011	120B,	SI for one year
				468, 471, 477A, 420 IPC, 13(1) (d) r/w Section 13(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act.	SI for one year and fine of Rs.5,000/- in default, SI for six months, for each of the offences.

P.Krishnappa	Accused No.7	45/2004	598/2011	120B,	SI for one year
				468, 471, 477A, 420 IPC.	SI for one year and fine of Rs.5,000/- in default, SI for six months, for each of the offences.
Dr. A.N.Keshava murthy	Accused No.6	45/2004	611/2011	120B,	SI for one year
				468, 471, 477A, 420 IPC, 13(1) (d) r/w Section 13(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act.	SI for one year and fine of Rs.5,000/- in default, SI for six months, for each of the offences.
K.V.Viveka- nanda	Accused No.8	45/2004	666/2011	120B,	SI for one year
				468, 471, 477A, 420 IPC.	SI for one year and fine of Rs.5,000/- in default, SI for six months, for each of the offences.

Note: (i) Accused No.3 had filed a separate appeal in Crl.A.No.597/2011. For his non appearance, warrant came to be issued and the same is delinked from the above appeals.

(ii) Appeal filed by accused No.5 came namely Jayaramu stood dismissed as abated on account of his death.

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

According to the case of the prosecution, accused No.1 N.Shantharaj, was the Manager, State Bank of Mysore, Gandhinagar Branch, Bangalore, accused No.2 Krishna Naik, was the cashier cum clerk, State Bank of Mysore, Mandi Mohalla Branch, Mysore, accused No.3 H.S. Umesh was the cashier-cum-godown keeper, State Bank of Mysore, Haveri Branch, accused No.4 M. Shivalinge Gowda, Executive Officer, Taluk Panchayath, Krishnaraj Pet, Mandya District, accused No.6 A.N. Keshava Murthy, Retired Assistant Director, Animal Husbandry and Veterinery Services (for short ‘AH & VS’), being the public servants, who were functioning in the aforesaid capacities.

4. Prosecution case further alleges that they all entered into criminal conspiracy with P. Krishnappa (accused No.7), K.V. Vivekananda (accused No.8), both are from Kyathanahali Post, Pandavapura Taluk, Mandya District, during the year 1994. They have agreed to commit the illegal act of cheating, forging documents and by using such forged documents, they represented that they are genuine documents, in regard to sanctioning of loans in ATL/7/54, ATL/7/36, TL/SBF/59, ATL/7/55, ATL/7/56, ATL/7/78, TL/SBF/67, ATL/7/75, ATL/7/77, AtL/7/74, ATL/7/81, ATL/7/87, TL/70, ATL/7/34, ATL/7/76, ATL/5/40 and ATL/5/41, under Integrated Rural Development Program (for short ‘IRDP’) scheme to the tune of Rs.1,26,300/-.

5. Prosecution further alleged that in furtherance of such criminal conspiracy, there were forged thumb impressions of the borrowers on the loan applications and those forged thumb impressions were attested dishonestly and fraudulently.

Forged quotations and receipts pertaining to bullock tyre carts by removing the photog

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2025 Supreme(Online)(KAR) 665

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURUMR. JUSTICE V. SRISHANANDA, JShivalingegowda S/o Late Muddegowda – AppellantVersusState By Inspector Of Police – RespondentCRL.A.NO.653/2011 C/W CRL.A.NO.587/2011 C/W CRL.A.NO.596/2011 C/W CRL.A.NO.598/2011 C/W CRL.A.NO.611/2011 C/W CRL.A.NO.666/2011

Public servants can be convicted for conspiracy and forgery under IPC despite absence of financial loss, as criminal conspiracy can be inferred from circumstantial evidence.