- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-K:3391 CRL.A No. 200223 of 2021 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, KALABURAGI BENCH DATED THIS THE 25TH DAY OF JUNE, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V SRISHANANDA CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 200223 OF 2021 (378(Cr.PC)/419(BNSS)) BETWEEN: THE STATE OF KARNATAKA, THROUGH LOKAYUKTA POLICE STATION, REP. BY SPECIAL PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, KALABURAGI. …APPELLANT (BY SRI SUBHASH MALLAPUR, ADVOCATE) AND: DR. PRATAP SINGH S/O KUNDAN SINGH TIWARI, AGE:63 YEARS, OCC: DIRECTOR, PHYSICAL EDUCATION DEPARTMENT, GULBARGA UNIVERSITY, KALABURAGI, AT PRESENT: DIRECTOR, PHYSICAL EDUCATION DEPARTMENT, KARNATAKA UNIVERSITY, DHARWAD, R/O. H.NO.2-910/65/185, GANGAMRUTHA NIVAS, BADEPUR COLONY, SEDAM ROAD, KALABURAGI. …RESPONDENT (BY SRI. VISHAL PRATAP SINGH, ADVOCATE) Digitally signed by RENUKA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-K:3391 CRL.A No. 200223 of 2021 THIS CRL.A. IS FILED UNDER SECTION 378 (1) AND (3) OF THE CR.P.C PRAYING TO A) GRANT LEAVE TO THE APPEAL AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND ORDER OF ACQUITTAL DATED 05.01.2021 IN SPL.CASE NO.19/2015, PASSED BY THE PRINCIPAL SESSIONS JUDGE AND SPL. JUDGE (LOKAYUKTA), KALABURAGI FOR THE OFFENCE PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTION 13(i)(e) R/W SEC.13(2) OF PREVENTION OF CORRUPTION ACT- 1988. B) SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND ORDER OF ACQUITTAL DATED 05.01.2021 IN SPL. CASE NO.19/2015, PASSED BY THE PRINCIPAL SESSIONS JUDGE AND SPL. JUDGE (LOKAYUKTA), KALABURAGI FOR THE OFFENCES PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTION 13(i)(e) R/W SEC.13(2) OF PREVENTION OF CORRUPTION ACT-1988. C) CONVICT AND SENTENCE THE RESPONDENT/ACCUSED FOR THE OFFENCE U/SEC. 13(i)(e) R/W SEC.13(2) OF PREVENTION OF CORRUPTION ACT-1988. THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR FURTHER HEARING, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V SRISHANANDA ORAL JUDGMENT (PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V SRISHANANDA) Heard Sri. Subhash Mallapur, learned counsel for the appellant and Sri. Vishal Pratap Singh, learned counsel for the respondent. 2. This appeal is by the Lokayukta challenging the order of acquittal passed in Special Case No.19/2015 dated 05.01.2021. - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-K:3391 CRL.A No. 200223 of 2021 3. Facts which are utmost necessary for disposal of the present appeal are as under: 3.1. The respondent was Physical Cultural Instructor promoted to different cadres in the Office of Directorate of Physical Education, Gulabarga University, Kalaburagi. Finally he was promoted as Director of Physical Education. Based on source information, he was observed by the Lokayukta in the check period of 12.10.1981 to 13.12.2009 and as per the prosecution, following is the assets, expenditure etc., Total assets of the accused during the check period from 12.10.1981 to 30.12.2009 Rs.1,27,90,624/- Total expenditure of the accused during the check period Rs.1,97,01,822/- Total Assets and Expenditure Rs.3,24,92,446/- Estimated total income Rs.1,81,67,442/- Total disproportionate Assets and Expenditure of the accused during the check period Rs.1,43,24,804/- 3.2. Charge-sheet came to be filed and after due trial in Special Case No.19/2015 accused was acquitted. The learned trial Judge, however, noted that, the total disproportionate assets and expenditure during the cheque - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-K:3391 CRL.A No. 200223 of 2021 period is to the tune of Rs.27,14,044/- which is in excess of 11.6%. 4. Learned trial Judge, however wrongly relied on the Judgment of Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of State of Maharastra Vs. Pollonji Darabshaw Daruwalla, reported in AIR 1988 SC 88, is of the opinion that, the excess assets held by him is within permissible limit and acquitted the accused. 5. This Court in the light of the arguments advanced on behalf of the appellant, perused the Judgment rendered by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of State of Maharastra Vs. Pollonji Darabshaw Daruwalla, referred supra, in detail. The reasons accorded by the learned trial Judge to give the benefit of acquittal are not found in the said Judgment. 6. Therefore, a case is made out by the appellant for reversing the Judgment. - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-K:3391 CRL.A No. 200223 of 2021 7. However, Sri. Vishal Pratap Singh, contended that, an opportunity be provide to explain the excess amount in the light of Judgments rendered by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Krishnananda Agnihotri Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh, reported in (1977) 1 SCC 816 and in the case of B.C.Chaturvedi Vs. Union of India and others, reported in (1995) 6 SCC 749. 8. The submission made on behalf of the respondent-accused has got sufficient substance, inasmuch as, it is the offence under Section 13(i)(e) of Prevention of Corruption Act, gets completed when accused is unable to satisfactorily account for the excess amount as determined by the prosecution. 9. Therefore, a case is made out to set aside the impugned Judgment and remit the matter to the trial Judge, affording the parties to address the arguments afresh in accordance with law. 10. Hence, the following order: - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-K:3391 CRL.A No. 200223 of 2021 ORDER (i) The appeal is allowed; (ii) The impugned Judgment dated 05.01.2021 in Special Case No.19/2015 (Lokayukta) passed by the Principal Sessions Judge and Special Judge at Kalaburagi, is hereby set aside; (iii) The matter is remitted to the learned Special Judge for fresh disposal in accordance with law, from the stage of arguments. Sd/- (V SRISHANANDA) JUDGE SVH List No.: 1 Sl No.: 41 CT:PK