SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Article Pause Article
judgment-img

2023 Supreme(Online)(Kar) 34611

1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

KALABURAGI BENCH

DATED THIS THE 24TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2023

BEFORE

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE V. SRISHANANDA

CRIMINAL APPEAL No.200041/2015

BETWEEN:

KADAPPA S/O JAKKAPPA KAMBLE

AGE: 63 YEARS, OCC: RETIRED TALUKA

SOCIAL WELFARE OFFICER,

R/O SHAIKH COLONY, VIJAYAPUR

… APPELLANT

(BY SRI R.S.LAGALI, ADVOCATE)

AND:

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA

REPRESENTED BY THE P.I.,

VIJAYAPUR LOKAYUKTA P.S.,

… RESPONDENT

(BY SRI SUBHASH MALLAPUR, SPL. PP)

THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 374(2)

CR.P.C., PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND ORDER

OF CONVICTION DATED 25.03.2015 PASSED BY THE PRINCIPAL

SESSIONS JUDGE/SPECIAL JUDGE, VIJAYPUR, IN SPECIAL CASE

(LOK) NO.6/2010 AND ACQUIT THE APPELLANT.

THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR HEARING, THIS DAY, THE

COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

2

Heard Sri R.S.Lagali, learned counsel for the

appellant and Sri Subhash Mallapur, learned Special

Public Prosecutor for the respondent-Lokayukta.

2.

The present appeal is directed against the

judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed

in Special Case (LOK) No.6/2010 dated 25.03.2015 on

the file of Principal Sessions Judge/Special Judge,

Vijayapur.

3.

Facts in brief for disposal of the present

appeal are as under:

Complaint came to be lodged with Lokayukta

Police, Vijayapur, by the complainant Sri Ramappa

Kempanna Patil (PW.2) stating that on 22.02.2006

when he paid surprise visit to the Government Ashram

School at Kannal village run by Social Welfare

Department, Vijayapur, he noticed that only 20

3

students were present out of 125 students said to

have been admitted in the school. On further enquiry

and on verification of the attendance register, he

noticed that accused No.2 being the Head Master of

the school was not present and cupboard was kept

under lock and key.

Thereafter, he was able to secure further

relevant records of Ashram School from the office of

Social Welfare Department, Vijayapur and in the

inspection, he noticed that in June, 2005, admission

was shown of 125 students and their presence was

also shown from June 2005 to January 2006. Out of

125 students, 54 names have been shown in addition

who are not at all studying in the said residential

school and they were not inmates of the hostel.

On further verification of the records, it is

noticed that only 41 students were present and 83

4

students were shown as absent. Likewise, for the

month of March, 2006, the records displayed that 74

students were shown to be present, but 51 students

were shown to be absent. He also noticed many

alterations being carried in the attendance register

regarding the presence of the students in the Ashram

School. The complainant also noticed several other

irregularities and the amount was drawn from the

Social Welfare Department at the rate of Rs.350/- per

month per student for a period of eight months

resulting in loss to the tune Rs.1,51,200/- in respect

of 54 students, though they were studying in different

schools and thereby lodged complaint.

4.

On receipt of complaint, the Lokayukta

Police registered a case in Crime No.4/2006 for the

offence punishable under Section 13(1)(c) r/w Section

13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (for

short, hereinafter referred to as ‘PC Act’) along with

5

Section 468 r/w Section 34 of IPC against the

appellant, second accused who is the Head Master and

cook by name Vijaysing.

5.

After detailed investigation, the Lokayukta

Police filed charge sheet for the aforesaid offences

against the appellant and two other persons.

6.

Gist of the charge sheet material reveal

that such 54 students though were studying in

different schools in Vijayapur, a sum of Rs.350/- per

month per student was drawn from the Social Welfare

Department to the tune of Rs.1,51,200/- as if they

were studying in Ashram School and the bill was

prepared to that extent, but the bill was not paid for

want of funds.

7.

In the charge sheet, the role that was

assigned to the appellant is that he being the Taluka

Social Welfare Officer was required to verify the

6

correctness of the bill furnished by the second

accused/Head Master, sign the same and send it for

counter signature of the higher officials of the Social

Welfare Department in drawing the bill amount.

8.

On receipt of charge sheet, the presence of

the accused persons were secured before the Special

Court and the charges were framed for the aforesaid

offences.

The

accused

pleaded

not

guilty

and

therefore, trial was held.

9.

In

order

to

prove

the

case

of

the

prosecution, in all, 32 witnesses were examined on

behalf of the prosecution as PWs.1 to 32 and 57

documentary evidence were relied upon by the

prosecution which were exhibited and marked as

Exs.P1 to P57

10.

On conclusion of the prosecution evidence,

the accused statement as contemplated under Section

7

313

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top