Crl.R.P.No.100013/2020 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 28TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE J.M.KHAZI CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO.100013 OF 2020 BETWEEN: SRI. RAMAPPA S/O CHENNAPPA BIRADAR AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS OCC: GOVT. SERVANT R/AT KUBKADDI TQ:BASAVANA BAGEWADI DIST: VIJAYPURA – 586 203. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. SRINAND A. PACHHAPURE, ADVOCATE) AND: STATE OF KARNATAKA BY BELAGAVI LOKAYUKTA SPECIAL PUBLIC PROCECUTOR DHARWAD HIGH COURT …RESPONDENT (BY SRI. SANTOSH B. MALAGOUDAR, SPL.PP) THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 397 R/W 401 OF CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE, PRAYING TO CALL FOR THE ENTIRE RECORDS IN SPECIAL CASE NO.36/2016 ON THE FILE OF IV ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE & SPECIAL JUDGE (PCA) BELAGAVI AND PERUSE THE LEGALITY AND CORRECTNESS OF THE IMPUGNED ORDER AT ANNEXURE-F DATED 25.10.2019 AND TO QUASH THE SAME AND TO DISCHARGE THE PETITIONER/ACCUSED NO.3 OF THE CHARGES LEVELED AGAINST HIM FOR THE OFFENCES PUNISHABLE UNDER Digitally signed by MALLIKARJUN RUDRAYYA KALMATH Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA Crl.R.P.No.100013/2020 2 SECTIONS 7, 13(1)(C) AND 13(2) OF PREVENTION OF CORRUPTION ACT AND ALSO UNDER SECTIONS 420, 465, 468, 409, 471, 477A AND 120(B) READ WITH SECTION 34 OF IPC. THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION, HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED ON 27.09.2024., COMING ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT OF ORDER THIS DAY, THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: CORAM: THE HON’BLE MS. JUSTICE J.M.KHAZI CAV ORDER (PER: THE HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE J.M.KHAZI) For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to by their ranks in the charge-sheet. 2. Petitioner who is arraigned as accused No.3 has filed this petition under Section 397 read with Section 401 of the Cr.P.C. to set aside the order dated 25.10.2019 and discharge him for the offences punishable under Sections 7, 13(1)(c), 13(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act (for short, ‘the P.C. Act’) and Sections 420, 465, 468, 409, 471, 477(A), 120(B) read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code (for short, ‘the IPC’). Crl.R.P.No.100013/2020 3 3. In support of the petition, petitioner has contended that the impugned order rejecting the application filed by the petitioner seeking discharge is illegal and not sustainable under law. The FSL report dated 26.08.2013 unfurl the fact that the Investigating Officer has sought clarification regarding Q-1 to Q-5. Further, it finds a place the said report that the obligatory writings involved in the said questions are deciphered and it was mentioned as what finds therein. However, it is relevant to state that the said report does not point out at the petitioner in any way and the same is not considered by the Trial Court. 3.1. The second FSL report dated 31.03.2015 unveils the fact that the Investigating Officer has sent the admitted writings of the petitioner marked as S-1 To S-16 and R-9 to R-12 along with two sheets of order copy pertaining to “Upa Vibhagadikarigalu, Bailhongal, Sub-Division, Bailhongal” (G¥À «¨sÁUÁ¢üPÁjUÀ¼ÀÄ, ¨ÉÊ®ºÉÆAUÀ¯ï ¸À¨ï r«d£ï, ¨ÉÊ®ºÉÆAUÀ¯ï) which is marked as Q-5 by the Investigating Officer as well as the Scientific Officer and “dt 05/06/2023” which is marked as Crl.R.P.No.100013/2020 4 Q-6 by Investigating Officer as well as the Scientific Officer. The Scientific Officer has opined that the person, who has written the writings at S-1 to S-16 and R-9 to R-12 has written the writings Q-5 and Q-6. It is accentuated that even the writings at S-1 to S-16 and original writings Q-5 and Q-6 were admittedly written by the petitioner while working in the land Tribunal, Ramdurga as S.D.C. Hence, it is very much cardinal to state that even the second FSL report dated 31.03.2015 does not play even an infinitesimal role implicating the petitioner in the commission of the offences, which has gone out of the sight of the Trial Court. 3.2. In all perspective, upon peering into the both the FSL reports dated 26.08.2013 and 31.03.2015, there does not find even petite incriminatory evidence against the petitioner as to whether the writing made upon the original writings of Q-5 and Q-6 are of the writings of the petitioner and rather, the FSL report dated 31.03.2015 spells out to the extent that the original writings of Q-5 and Q-6 are of the petitioner who has admittedly written the original writings of Q-5 and Q-6 Crl.R.P.No.100013/2020 5 and hence, both FSL reports dated 26.08.2013 and 31.03.2013 do not implicate the petitioner which is not fathomed by the Trial Court. 4. The FSL report does not state whether the scientific officer has examined in whose hand writing the writing made on the original writing at Q5 and Q6 after applying whitener and whether it is compared with the admitted handwriting of petitioner. 5. Admittedly, at the relevant point of time petitioner was working at Gokak taluk office. None of the witnesses state how he had access to the records of Ramdurg taluk office. 6. The complainant has not made any allegations against petitioner, but the Investigating Officer has falsely implicated him. The charge sheet does not make any prima facie case against the petitioner. In his statement, under Section 161 Cr.P.C. CW.16 is not implicating the petitioner. Even if the entire charge sheet is taken into consideration there is not even maniscal evidence to implicate the petitioner. Crl.R.P.No.100013/2020 6 The sanction order issued against the petitioner is bad in law and pray to allow the petition and quash the criminal proceedings against the petitioner and discharge him. 7. In support of his arguments, learned counsel representing the accused No.3-Ramappa S/o Chennappa Biradar has relied upon the following decisions: 1) State of Maharashtra vs. Ishwar Piraji Kalpatri (Ishwar Piraji)1 2) State by Karnataka Lokayukta, Police Station, Bengaluru vs. M.R.Hiremath (M.R.Hiremath)2 3) State through Deputy Superintendent of Police vs. R. Soundirarasu Etc. (Soundirarasu)3 8. Learned Special Public Prosecutor representing respondent/Karnataka Lokayukta submitted oral objections stating that agriculture land in Sy.No.9 of Kallolli village, Gokak taluka measuring 3 acres 36 guntas was granted in 1 (1996) 1 SCC 542 2 (2019) 7 SCC 515 3 AIR Online 2022 SC 281 Crl.R.P.No.100013/2020 7 favour of Sri.Kalmeshwar Bhoodh Shripadh as per re-grant order dated 30.12.1958. It was acquired for broadening of Jath-Jamboti road and construction of barrage and compensation was paid. After the acquisition the land was standing in the name of Executive Engineer, PWD. 9. One Sabanna Khanagoudar, a social worker and resident of Kallolli village filed a complaint under Section 200 Cr.P.C. before the Spl. Court, Belagavi, alleging that during the year 2003 accused Nos.1 and 2 colluding with accused No.5-who is non charge sheeted and cited as CW.8 has passed an illegal order No.PÀ.¨sÀÆ.¸ÀÄ./7A:98-99 dated 05.06.2003 granting 2 acres 26 guntas out of Sy.No.9 in favour of accused Nos.1 and 2 of Kallolli village. After the said order, for 2 acres 26 guntas accused Nos.1 and 2 got entered their names in the revenue records from that of Executive Engineer, PWD, Chikkodi. By this way accused Nos.1, 2 and 5 have caused loss to the public. Even though the complainant and other villagers approached the Karnataka Lokayukta, Belagavi and reported the matter and they have failed to take any action Crl.R.P.No.100013/2020 8 and therefore without any alternative private complaint is filed. 9.1. The said complaint was referred for investigation to the Lokayukta police under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. Initially the case was registered in Crime No.4/2013 of Lokayukta P.S. Belagavi against accused Nos.1, 2 and 5 (wherein accused No.5 was arraigned as accused No.3). After detailed investigation, charge sheet came to be filed against accused Nos.1 to 4. In the charge sheet, original accused No.3 was shown as accused No.5 and he has been non charge sheeted. He is also cited as CW.8. 9.2. The charge sheet reveal that, despite the acquisition of Sy.No.9 measuring 3 acre 36 guntas of Kallolli village, the father of accused Nos.1 and 2 by name Shivappa Belakod filed Form No.7A. The then Deputy Tahsildar submitted report stating that Balappa Ningappa Belakod the father of Shivappa Belakod had applied Form No.7A during the year 1999-2000 seeking re-grant and therefore it is not open Crl.R.P.No.100013/2020 9 to his son Shivappa Belakod to once again claim re-grant and as such, his application was rejected. 9.3. However, in order to facilitate accused Nos.1 and 2 to make illegal claim against the said land, accused Nos.3 and 4 colluded with them. Despite the fact that earlier report was given that the application in Form No.7A given by father of accused Nos.1 and 2 is not maintainable, accused No.4 submitted a false report stating that the father of accused No. 1 and 2 was in possession and cultivation of 2 acres 26 guntas in Sy.No.9 of Kallolli village and there is no impediment to grant the same in favour of accused Nos.1 and 2. He has also concocted mahazar and other documents and submitted report. 9.4. In order to help accused Nos.1 and 2, accused No.3 created a fake grant order by utilizing grant order dated 05.06.2003 passed by Assistant Commissioner, Bailhongal, Sub-Division at Ramdurga in favour of CW.13- Irappa Shivappa Kalli, by applying whitener on the place where names of the grantee, father’s name and details of Crl.R.P.No.100013/2020 10 properties were written and typing the name of accused Nos.1 and 2 and details of property as though grant is made in their favour in respect of Sy.No.9 measuring 2 acres 26 guntas. After the said order, the accused Nos.1 and 2 have got entered their names to an extent of 2 acres 26 guntas and the name of Executive Engineer, PWD was continued only for remaining extent of 1 acre and thereby accused Nos.1 to 4 have committed the offences punishable under Sections 420, 465, 468, 471, 477-A and 120-B IPC. 9.5. Though the complaint was filed against accused Nos.1, 2 and 5/CW.8, wherein accused No.5/CW.8 was shown as accused No.3, during the investigation, it came to light that he is not involved in the creation of fake document in question and that the original order dated 05.06.2003 passed by him in favour of CW.13/Irappa Shivappa Kalli was used for creating fake document and therefore he is shown as accused No.5 and non charge sheeted. He is also cited as CW.8. Based on his statement when detailed investigation was conducted and the fake document in favour of accused Nos.1 and 2 was got Crl.R.P.No.100013/2020 11 examined by the hand writing expert, the involvement of accused Nos.3 and 4 was revealed and accordingly charge sheet is filed against accused Nos.1 to 4. There is prima facie material to frame charge against all the accused persons including the petitioner/accused No.3. Rightly the Trial Court has rejected the application filed by him under Section 227 of Cr.P.C. and pray to reject this petition also. 10. Heard arguments and perused the record. 11. The undisputed facts are that, Sy.No.9 measuring 3 acres 36 guntas of Kallolli village was acquired for broadening Jath-Jamboti road and construction of barrage and after the acquisition, khata was made out in the name of Executive Engineer, PWD. After finding that out of 3 acres 36 guntas, khata is made out in respect of 2 acres 26 guntas in the name of accused Nos.1 and 2, a private complaint came to be filed by CW.1-Sabanna Khangoudar alleging that in collusion with accused No.5/CW.8 (S.M.Sonnada), who has served as Assistant commissioner, Bailhongal, accused Nos.1 and 2 have Crl.R.P.No.100013/2020 12 got some documents concocted and based on it got khata to an extent of 2 acres 26 guntas. 12. It is pertinent to note that the concocted order dated 05.06.2003 is purported to have been passed by Sri S.M.Sonnad, the then Assistant Commissioner, Bailhongal at Gokak. During investigation, the Investigating Officer has recorded his statement i.e. accused No.5/CW.8, wherein, after verifying the records, he has stated that though in the alleged order dated 05.06.2003, his signature is forthcoming, on that day he did not work at Gokak. As per the daily diary maintained by him during the period when he served as Assistant Commissioner, Bailhongal, which is available in the said office, on 05.06.2003 he went to the office of Tahsildar, Ramdurga and verified the work of the Tahsildar office. He also disposed of few applications in Form No.7A under Section 77-A. Later he traveled to Yallamma Temple at Yallammana gudda, opened the hundi and counted money. As it was late he stayed there itself. Crl.R.P.No.100013/2020 13 12.1 He has specifically stated that on 05.06.2003 he has not passed any order granting 2 acres 26 guntas in Sy.No.9 of Kallolli village in favour of accused Nos.1 and 2. On the face of the said order one could make out that on the hand written portion of the some other order whitener is applied and the name of the father of accused Nos.1 and 2 and other details are typed. Similarly, on the hand written portion of the names to whom the copies are sent is also typed after applying whitener. It appears using an order passed by him on 05.06.2003 the order in question is concocted. 12.2 Accused No.5/CW.8 has further stated that when he examined the file pertaining to Sy.No.9 of Kallolli village he found that there was no scope for granting the said land as Form No.7A was already rejected. After his transfer the document in question appears to have been concocted. Even in the concerned register wherein the earlier application was rejected, some portions are scored of to conceal what was written earlier. In the file notice of hearing of Form No.7A is not forthcoming. Despite the same in the order sheet it is Crl.R.P.No.100013/2020 14 stated that hearing is fixed on 23.04.2003 and adjournments were entered on 30.04.2003, 07.05.2003, 14.05.2003, 21.05.2003, 28.05.2003. Though on these days seal is affixed, but signature of the officer who passed the order is not forthcoming. 12.3 Accused No.5/CW.8 has further stated that in the said file a requisition given by accused No.1 is forthcoming, stating that instead of his father he should be allowed to appear. In this requisition the reference number is given as ¸ÀA:PÀæ:PÀ¨sÀƸÀÄ:7C:«ªÀ:1:98-99 Kallolli village dated 10.04.2007. However, after the signature, the date is mentioned as 4-2007 and the numeral ‘7’ is corrected as ‘3’. However, in the reference the date continued remain 10.04.2007. If the notice is given for appearance on 10.04.2007, how can the accused No.1 give request letter in the month of April 2003. This also goes to show that the document is created. 12.4 In his statement accused No.5/CW.8 has further stated that earlier with respect to Form No.7A filed by the father of accused Nos.1 and 2 Deputy Tahsildar, Arebhavi had Crl.R.P.No.100013/2020 15 given report and it is forwarded by Tahsildar, Gokak on 31.03.2000 stating that the Form No.7A is liable to be rejected. Despite the same, accused No.4 has given a report that accused Nos.1 and 2 are cultivating the said land. 13. In the light of statement of accused No.5/CW.8, Investigating Officer sent the document in question along with the Form No.7A filed by father of accused Nos.1 and 2 for scientific examination to FSL. In Form No.7A the scored off portion is marked as Q1, Q2 and Q3. In the requisition letter dated 10.04.2007 given by accused No.1 the numeral which is tampered as 3 is marked as Q4 and in the tampered order the obliterated portion is marked as Q5. The hand written date 5-6-2003 in the tampered order is marked as Q6. 14. The scientific expert has given report stating that:- i) The obliterated portion marked as Q1 is deciphered as “2.05.2007”. ii) The obliterated writing marked as Q2 is deciphered as “wgÀ¸ÀÌj¸À¯Á¬ÄvÀÄ”. Crl.R.P.No.100013/2020 16 iii) The obliterated writing marked as Q3 is deciphered as “rejected”. iv) The original year in the tampered portion marked as Q4 is 2007 and numeral ‘7’ is overwritten as “3”. v) The obliterated writing in the enclosed portion marked as Q5 is deciphered as “FgÀ¥Àà ²ªÀ¥Àà PÀ½î, ¸ÁQ£À ¨É¸É® PÀnÖ. gÁªÀÄzÀÄUÀð”. 15. With this information based on scientific analysis and after preliminary investigation, realizing that accused No.5/CW.8 is not involved in the creation of the document in question, the Investigating Officer has collected information that the following were the persons who were working in land reforms branch and collected their sample request hand writing and marked them in ‘R’ series as under: i) Siddappa Kallappa Harake (R1 to 4) ii) Parasappa Lakshman Bhajantri (R5 to 8) iii) Ramappa Chennappa Biradar (accused No.3) (R9 to 12) Crl.R.P.No.100013/2020 17 16. The Investigating Officer also collected 5 files of grant orders, passed in favour of the following grantees: i) Shankrappa Veerbhadrappa Meti (±ÀAPÀæ¥Àà «ÃgÀ¨sÀzÀæ¥Àà ªÉÄÃn) dated 5-6-2003 ii) Channappa Shidagireppa Huddar (ZÀ£ÀߥÀà ²zÀVgÉ¥Àà ºÀÄzÁÝgÀ) dated 22-5-2003 iii) Smt. Uddavva Kariyappa Katakol (²æêÀÄw GzÀݪÀé PÀjAiÀÄ¥Àà PÀlPÉÆüÀ) dated 5-6-2003 iv) Maharudrappa Parappa Kalli (ªÀĺÁgÀÄzÀæ¥Àà ¥ÀgÀ¥Àà PÀ½î) dated 5-6-2003 v) Irappa Shivappa Kalli (FgÀ¥Àà ²ªÀ¥Àà PÀ½î) dated 5-6-2003 17. The investigation officer observed that in the files at Sl.No.1 to 4 the original grant orders were available. However in respect of file at Sl.No.5 pertaining to ªÀĺÁgÀÄzÀæ¥Àà ¥ÀgÀ¥Àà PÀ½î the original grant order is not found. 18. In order to ascertain as to who worked in the office of Assistant Commissioner, Bailhongal on 05.06.2003 the hand writing found in the grant orders in the said files are marked Crl.R.P.No.100013/2020 18 as S1 to S16. He sent these files along with the request hand writings at R1 to 12 to the FSL and requested the hand writing expert to examine and report as to in whose hand writing S1 to 16 are and whether the hand written date 5-6-2003 at Q6 matches with any of these writings. 19. The hand writing expert has given report stating that the person who wrote standard writing S1 to 16, R9 to 12 (accused No.3-Ramappa Biradar) also wrote the question writing at Q5 and Q6. It means that at the relevant point of time accused No.3 was the concerned clerk working in the land reforms branch and was dealing with the concerned files including the original order passed in favour of Irappa Shivappa Kalli, which was found missing and used for tampering and creating the grant order in favour of accused Nos.1 and 2. 20. CW.13-Irappa Shivappa Kalli and CW.14-Rudrappa Shivappa Kalli during the course of their statements they have stated that even though grant order was made in their favour, accused No.3 did not furnish them the copy of grant order and Crl.R.P.No.100013/2020 19 he went on postponing and ultimately they kept quite after getting khata transferred in their names. 21. On 05.06.2003 when accused No.5/CW8 S.M.Sonnad, the then Assistant Commissioner, Bailhongal has not discharged his duties at Gokak and has not passed any grant order in favour of accused Nos.1 and 2, as the official in-charge of the said file, accused No.3 owes and explanation as to how the original order dated 05.06.2003 passed in favour of CW.13 Irappa Shivappa Kalli, pertaining to survey Nos.144/1 measuring 3 acres 26 guntas and 145/1 measuring 5 acres 5 guntas of Kunnal village was utilized and tampered into the grant order in favour of accused Nos.1 and 2. There is a prima-facie material to show that utilizing the original grant order, with the help of false report given by accused No.4, accused No.3 has concocted the order in question. 22. Having regard to the fact that accused No.3 was the custodian of said files, the Investigating Officer has rightly arraigned him as accused and filed the charge sheet. It is true that when the complaint under Section 200 Cr.P.C. was filed, Crl.R.P.No.100013/2020 20 complainant arraigned accused No.5/CW.8 (S.M.Sonnad) as accused since the concocted order bears his signature and he was occupying the post of Assistant Commissioner, Bailhongal and had jurisdiction over the subject matter of the concocted order. Only after detailed investigation and with the help of hand writing expert, the Investigating Officer was able to zero down on accused No.3. Although already the Form No.7A filed by father of accused Nos.1 and 2 rejected, having regard to the fact that accused No.4 has given a false report stating that the father of accused Nos.1 and 2 and after his death accused Nos.1 and 2 are in possession and enjoyment of 2 acres 26 guntas in Sy.No.9, accused No.4 is arraigned as accused. Of course as beneficiaries of the concocted order accused Nos.1 and 2 are rightly arraigned as accused. 23. Taking into consideration the material placed in the charge sheet, the Trial Court has rightly rejected the application filed by accused No.3 under Section 227 of Cr.P.C. The impugned order has not caused gross miscarriage of justice. It does not suffer from any manifest illegality calling Crl.R.P.No.100013/2020 21 for interference by this Court in exercise of revision jurisdiction under Section 397 R/w 401 of Cr.P.C. 24. Before concluding, a piece of advise to be investigating officer in general. When a person is arraigned as accused and given a number, he shall continue to be referred to as such till the end. If any other persons are added as accused they shall be given subsequent numbers. Ultimately, if any of the accused are found not involved and given up i.e. charge sheet is not filed against them, even though their rank is earlier or in between, in the charge sheet, additional charge sheet or split up charge sheet the accused shall be referred to with reference to their original ranking, instead of realigning their rank. It will avoid confusion when they are referred to in the order or judgment. In the present case, initially complaint was filed against accused No.5 showing him as accused No.3. However, while filing the charge sheet he is shown as accused No.5. Two other case workers who were working in the said office are arraigned as accused Nos.3 and 4. It would have been convenient had the original accused No.3 is continued as Crl.R.P.No.100013/2020 22 such and shown his name in column No.13 as accused who are not charge sheeted and the persons who are subsequently arraigned as accused should have been shown as accused No.4 and 5 in column No.12 against whom the charge sheet is filed. 25. In the result, the petition fails and accordingly the following: ORDER 1) The Criminal Revision Petition filed by accused No.3/Ramappa Chennappa Biradar under Section 397 of Cr.P.C. is hereby rejected. 2) The impugned order dated 25.10.2019 passed on application under Section 227 of Cr.P.C. filed by accused No.3/Ramappa Chennappa Biradar in Spl.Case No.36/2016 by the IV-Addl. Dist. & Sessions & Spl. Judge (PCA), Belagavi, vide Annexure-F is hereby confirmed. Crl.R.P.No.100013/2020 23 3) Registry is directed to send a copy of this order to the Trial Court forthwith. Sd/- (J.M.KHAZI) JUDGE sdu/SMP