- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:7438 CRL.A No. 124 of 2012 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 18TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE V SRISHANANDA CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 124 OF 2012 BETWEEN: SRI. S.H. SIDDAPPA, S/O ANUMAPPA, OCC: MANAGER, UCO BANK, RAMAMURTHY NAGAR BRANCH, BANGALORE RESIDING AT NO.42, MUNIKALLAPPA LAYOUT, BANASAVADI MAIN ROAD, RAMAMURTHYNAGARA, BANGALORE. …APPELLANT (BY SRI. R. NAGENDRA NAIK, ADVOCATE) AND: STATE BY CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION, BANGALORE. …RESPONDENT (BY SRI. P. PRASANNA KUMAR, ADVOCATE) THIS CRL.A IS FILED U/S.374(2) OF CR.P.C PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED:9.12.11 PASSED BY THE XXXII ADDL.C.C AND S.J., AND SPL.JUDGE FOR CBI CASES, BANGALORE IN SPL.C.C.NO.134/07 - CONVICTING THE APPELLANT/ACCUSED NO.3 FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/S 120(b) R/W 468, 471, 477(A), 420 OF IPC AND P/U/S 13(1)(d) R/W 13(2) OF PREVENTION OF CORRUPTION ACT 1988. THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: Digitally signed by MALATESH K C Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:7438 CRL.A No. 124 of 2012 CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE V SRISHANANDA ORAL JUDGMENT Appellant is present voluntarily. Show cause notice issued to the surety is returned with an endorsement that ‘he is residing in America’. Non bailable warrant issued against the appellant was also not executed. 2. Application is filed seeking recall of non bailable warrant. Same is allowed on payment of entire bond amount. Bond amount is paid and receipt thereof is also furnished. 3. Heard the arguments of learned counsel for both the parties. 4. Learned counsel for the appellant files a memo. Memo reads as under: “The undersigned counsel for the appellant most respectfully submits as follows: It is submitted that this Hon’ble Court had disposed the other connected matters in connection with this case i.e., in Crl.A.No.124/2012, Crl.A.No.125/2012, Crl.A.No.26/2012 and Crl.A.No.04/2012 on 06.02.2025 imposing an enhanced fine amount of Rs.25,000/- on the other appellants in the connected matters. It is hereby requested to this Hon’ble Court to connect this Crl.A.No.124/2012 with the above mentioned connected cases and impose the same fine (enhanced) amount in the interest of justice and equity.” - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:7438 CRL.A No. 124 of 2012 5. Affidavit is also filed by learned counsel for the appellant to facilitate this Court to pass similar orders that of the order passed in Crl.A.Nos.04/2012 connected with Crl.A.Nos.26/2012 and 125/2012. Affidavit reads as under: “I, Shri.H.S Siddappa S/O Hanumappa, Aged about 72 years Residing at Sri. Ramanjaneya krupa, near Durgambika Temple, Nituhalli, davangere-577004, do hereby solemnly affirm and state on oath as follows: 1. It is submitted that the Appellant in this Present Appeal challenged the order of conviction passed by Hon'ble XXII Addl. And Sessions Judge and Spl.Judge For CBI Cases, Bangalore in Spl.C.C.No.134/2007 Convicting The Appellant/Accused No.3 For The Offence punishable under section 13(1)(d) R/W 13(2) of Prevention of corruption act. 2. It is submitted that the Respondent Police have registered a case against the Appellant and other Accused for the offences punishable under Section 120(B), 468, 471, 477A, 420 IPC and Section 13(1)(C) and (d) r/w 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act. 3. The case of the prosecution is the complainant has filed a complaint against the Appellant/Accused No.3 and others. While the Appellant was working as Assistant Manager In UCO Bank, Davangere entered into the criminal conspiracy with the other accused. Between 2002-2005 they agreed to do cause to be done illegal acts of cheating, forging various documents like balance sheet, financial statements, valuation reports of secured immovable properties, Annual returns, using such forged documents as genuine to cheat the bank to falsifying the accounts in connection with sanction and disbursement of several loans. 4. It is submitted that upon filing the chargesheet the Hon'ble trial court has taken cognizance of the offence alleged against the Appellant and prosecution has examined 31 witnesses in support of the prosecution case. After conclusion of the trial the Hon'ble trial court convicted - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:7438 CRL.A No. 124 of 2012 the Appellant for offence punishable under Section 13(1)(C) and (d) r/w 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act. Being aggrieved by the order of conviction dated 09.12.2011 passed by the XXXII Additional City Civil & Sessions Judge and Special Judge for C.B.I. Cases (CCH- 34), Bangalore in Special.C.C.No.134/2007 the present appeal was filed. 5. I submit that after conviction I was terminated from service and issued with an order of dismissal. Due to my old age I have decided to put an end to the litigation. If I am imposed with any punishment without imprisonment I undertake not to claim any terminal benefit from my employer. I submit that the averments made in paragraph 1 to 5 of this affidavit are true to the best of my knowledge, belief and information.” 6. After hearing the arguments, the sole point that would arise for consideration is: Whether the appellant is entitled for acquittal for the offence punishable under Section 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and consequently, sentence needs modification? 7. In the case on hand, since the appellant is not disputing the conviction of the appellant for the offences punishable under the provisions of Indian Penal Code, the material on record is re-appreciated by this Court in the light of grounds urged in the appeal memorandum. - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC:7438 CRL.A No. 124 of 2012 8. Admittedly, prosecution evidence is not sufficient to establish the fact that there was a demand of illegal gratification and acceptance thereof. 9. No doubt, Sri.P.Prasanna Kumar, learned counsel representing CBI contended that in order to prove the offence under Section 13(1)(d) and 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, no direct evidence is available, even after re-appreciating the circumstantial evidence placed on record. But on careful consideration of the evidence on record, material on record is hardly sufficient to have an inferential deduction of the ingredients to attract the offence under Section 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. 10. Therefore, there is sufficient force in the arguments put forward on behalf of the appellant that material on record does not warrant the conviction of the appellant for the offence under Section 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. 11. Accordingly, appellant is entitled for the order of acquittal under Section 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of the - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC:7438 CRL.A No. 124 of 2012 Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. Consequently, sentence of imprisonment for a period of one year for the offence punishable under Section 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 awarded in the impugned judgment needs to be set aside. 12. Accordingly, the following: ORDER i. Appeal is allowed in part. ii. While maintaining the conviction of the appellant for the offence punishable under Section 120-B read with Section 468, 471, 477A and 420 of IPC, appellant is hereby acquitted for the offence under Section 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. iii. Consequently, sentence is modified as under: Simple imprisonment of one year for the offences punishable under Section 120-B, 468, 471, 477A, 420 of IPC is - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC:7438 CRL.A No. 124 of 2012 hereby set aside by enhancing the fine amount in a sum of Rs.25,000/- to be payable on or before 20.03.2025 failing which he shall undergo simple imprisonment for a period of one year. Sd/- (V SRISHANANDA) JUDGE KAV List No.: 1 Sl No.: 7 CT: BHK