- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:1894 CRL.A No. 100202 of 2014 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 30TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 100202 OF 2014 (A) BETWEEN: THE STATE OF KARNATAKA, REPRESENTED BY SPECIAL PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, KARNATAKA LOKAYUKTA POLICE, HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, BENCH AT DHARWAD, DHARWAD, (LOKAYUKTA POLICE BELGAUM). … APPELLANT (BY SRI. G.I. GACHCHINAMATH, SPP) AND: NISARAHMAD BABUBAI KHOJA, RETIRED EXCISE DEPUTY SUPERINTENDENT, R/O: SADASHIV NAGAR, BELGUAM. … RESPONDENT (BY SMT. SHRIVIDYA ZIRALI AND SRI. A.R. PATIL, ADVOCATES) THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL IS FILED U/S 378(1) AND (3) OF CR.P.C. PRAYING TO I) GRANT LEAVE TO APPEAL AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND ORDER OF ACQUITTAL PASSED BY THE IV ADDL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS & SPECIAL JUDGE (PCA), AT BELGAUM DATED 24/06/2014 IN SPECIAL CRIMINAL CASE NO.58/2006. II) SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND ORDER OF ACQUITTAL PASSED BY THE IV ADDL. DISTRICT AND SESSIONS & SPECIAL JUDGE (PCA), BELGAUM DATED 24/06/2014 IN SPECIAL CRIMINAL CASE NO.58/2006. III) CONVICT AND SENTENCE THE RESPONDENT/ACCUSED PERSON FOR THE OFFENCES PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTION 13(1)(E) R/W SECTION 13(2) OF PREVENTION OF CORRUPTION ACT, 1988. THIS APPEAL IS COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: B K MAHENDRAKUMAR Digitally signed by B K MAHENDRAKUMAR Location: High Court of Karnataka, Dharwad Bench Date: 2025.02.06 11:20:49 +0530 - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:1894 CRL.A No. 100202 of 2014 CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR ORAL JUDGMENT 1. The appellant/Lokayukta challenges the judgment passed by the trial court, wherein the accused was acquitted of the offences punishable under Sections 13(1)(e) read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. 2. The case of the prosecution is that the accused, while working as an Excise Inspector during the relevant period, amassed wealth disproportionate to his known source of income. The alleged disproportionate wealth was accumulated between 03.02.1975 and 14.07.1997, amounting to 57.21%. 3. To prove its case, the prosecution examined P.Ws.1 to 7, exhibited documents as Exs.P.1 to P.74, and marked objects as M.O. Nos.1 to 5. The accused examined D.W.1 and D.W.3, and exhibited documents as Exs.D.1 to D.2. 4. The trial court, after appreciating the evidence on record and considering the arguments of both parties, framed points for consideration and held: “The prosecution has not established the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubt, and thus, the impugned judgment acquits the accused.” 5. Learned counsel for the appellant-Lokayukta submitted that the trial court erred in concluding that the properties mentioned in Schedule-A are the absolute properties of the father of the accused. He argued that the evidence on record clearly establishes - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:1894 CRL.A No. 100202 of 2014 that these properties were purchased by the accused in his father’s name. Therefore, the impugned judgment of acquittal is legally unsustainable. 6. He further submitted that the accused has failed to provide cogent evidence to substantiate his claim that he borrowed a hand loan from his brother, and that his wife independently earned income. 7. Learned counsel for the accused argued that the trial court, after properly appreciating the evidence on record, rightly concluded that item Nos.3, 5, and 19 of Schedule-A and item Nos.4 and 18 of Schedule-B are the absolute properties of the father of the accused, as he had sufficient income to purchase these properties. Additionally, he submitted that the trial court did not take into account the income earned by other family members. 8. After carefully considering the arguments advanced by both parties and thoroughly reviewing the trial court records, the only point for consideration is: “Whether the prosecution has established that the accused holds assets disproportionate to his known source of income, and whether the impugned judgment passed by the trial court is legally sustainable.” 9. The trial court observed that item Nos.3, 5, and 19 of Schedule-A were deleted, finding them to be the properties of the accused’s father. To substantiate this, the accused produced a sale deed in his father’s name, and it was determined that his father had - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:1894 CRL.A No. 100202 of 2014 sufficient income from other properties to purchase these assets. The prosecution failed to produce any evidence to substantiate that these properties were purchased by the accused in his father’s name. Similarly, the trial court deleted item Nos.4 and 18 of Schedule-B, concluding that these properties were purchased by the father of the accused from his own income. 10. The prosecution did not produce substantial evidence to prove that these properties were purchased by the accused in his father’s name. The trial court accepted the income of the accused’s wife as Rs.2,40,000/- for the check period, based on her income tax returns. 11. The investigating officer admitted that the accused had declared agricultural income of Rs.10,00,000/- in his Assets and Liabilities statement, which was corroborated by the information provided by the Horticultural Officer. Therefore, the investigating officer erred in assessing the agricultural income of the accused at Rs.4,16,000/- instead of the declared Rs.10,00,000/-. The accused also claimed that he borrowed Rs.4,50,000/- from his brothers, sisters, and brother-in-law, but the investigating officer assessed the loan amount at Rs.1,51,321/-. Additionally, the accused stated that he had gifted Rs.2,00,000/- to his children, which was also reflected in his Assets and Liabilities statement. 12. The prosecution assessed the rental income from property bearing CTS No.3723 at Rs.1,66,800/-, while the accused claimed the rental income was Rs.3,41,560/-. He supported this - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:1894 CRL.A No. 100202 of 2014 claim with documents from his Assets and Liabilities statement from 1985. 13. The investigating officer did not accept the income of the accused’s wife as Rs.2,40,000/-, stating that she had not obtained a Sales Tax License. However, it was admitted that the accused had provided details of his wife’s independent income from 1991, and she had paid income tax under Section 10 of the Karnataka Sales Tax Act. Since her total turnover was less than Rs.2,00,000/-, she was not required to obtain a Sales Tax License, which implies that the wife had an independent income of Rs.2,40,000/-. 14. After considering the income and expenses, the trial court concluded that the accused’s income during the check period, amounting to Rs.10,40,273/-, was greater than the properties held by him during that time. In the absence of any perversity or illegality in the trial court’s order, I find no grounds to interfere with the same. The appeal is devoid of merit. Accordingly, I pas the following: ORDER a. The appeal is dismissed. Sd/- (HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR) JUDGE AC CT:BCK LIST NO.: 1 SL NO.: 114