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