Dismissed¶79

The Karnataka Lokayukta Police v. Ananthaiah @ Anatha Kumar T

Karnataka HC13 Jan 2026CRL.A/117/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Lokayukta Police appeal against acquittal; leave under S.378(1) and (3) Cr.P.C. refused; appeal dismissed; misappropriation of Gram Panchayath public funds; charges under Ss.406, 409, 420, 468, 470, 471, 477, 477-A r/w 34 IPC and S.8, 13(1)(C) r/w 13(2) Prevention of Corruption Act; no expert opinion on two-ink signatures; Auditor (PW7) found no duplicate payment; no charge framed on payment at instance of accused No.4; no opportunity to accused No.1 to explain vouchers; Karnataka Transparency in Public Procurement Act, 1999 contention rejected; cogent evidence absent; acquittal by VII Additional Sessions and Special Judge, Tumakuru in Spl.C.No.402 of 2016 upheld.

What did the court decide?

None; the criminal appeal filed by the Lokayukta Police against the acquittal was dismissed and the acquittal stands. ¶79

The Karnataka Lokayukta Police Vs Ananthaiah @ Anatha Kumar T — Corruption | Karnataka HC (2026)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

None; the criminal appeal filed by the Lokayukta Police against the acquittal was dismissed and the acquittal stands.

¶79

Issue for consideration

Whether leave should be granted to the Lokayukta Police to prosecute the appeal against the judgment of discharge/acquittal dated 30-7-2020 in Spl.C.No.402 of 2016, and whether the acquittal should be set aside. +1 more

¶34

Court's answer

The trial Court's judgment is well-reasoned regarding the proof of guilt of the accused; no grounds are made out to admit the appeal, and the appeal is dismissed.

¶79

Ratio / Principle

No material was placed on record in respect of breach of trust (Section 406 IPC) and, with regard to forgery and creation of documents, nothing was produced; no expert opinion was obtained on the alleged manipulation of documents (two different inks), so the allegation could not be accepted.

¶71

Key takeaways

On the allegation of double payment, PW7, the Auditor who conducted the audit, categorically admitted that he had not found any document evidencing duplicate payment.ratio¶74
Nothing was placed on record to show that the bills were created at the instigation of accused No.4; the trial Court's reasoning that no such charge was framed on the allegation of payment made at the instance of accused No.4, and that no opportunity was sought by the prosecution to obtain explanations from accused No.1 (PDO), was endorsed.ratio¶74
In the absence of cogent evidence, no conviction can be sustained; no material was placed on record to establish offences under Section 406 or other offences relating to forgery and the use of forged documents.

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Criminal Appeal (CRL.A. No. 117 of 2022) by the Karnataka Lokayukta Police under Sections 378(1) and (3) Cr.P.C. seeking leave to appeal against the judgment of discharge/acquittal dated 30-7-2020 passed by the VII Additional Sessions and Special Judge, Tumakuru in Spl.C.No.402 of 2016, acquitting six accused — including the PDO, President and Secretary of Eichanur Gram Panchayath and a private proprietor — charged under Sections 406, 409, 420, 468, 470, 471, 477 and 477-A read with Section 34 of IPC and Sections 8 and 13(1)(C) read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act for misappropriation of public funds. Held, dismissing the appeal: (i) no material was placed on record regarding breach of trust under Section 406 IPC or forgery, and no expert opinion was obtained on the alleged signatures in two different inks on the bills; (ii) PW7, the Auditor, categorically admitted that no document evidencing duplicate payment was found; (iii) nothing was placed on record to show that the bills were created at the instigation of accused No.4, no such charge having been framed and no opportunity having been given to accused No.1 to explain the payments; (iv) in the absence of cogent evidence, no conviction can be sustained. The acquittal was upheld.

¶1

¶2

NC: 2026:KHC:1912-DB CRL.A No. 117 of 2022

¶3

HC-KAR

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶5

DATED THIS THE 13^TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2026

¶6

PRESENT

¶7

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH AND

¶8

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VENKATESH NAIK T CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.117 OF 2022 (A)

¶9

BETWEEN:

¶10

THE KARNATAKA LOKAYUKTA POLICE REPRESENTED BY ITS RAMAREDDY K. POLICE INSPECTOR KARNATAKA LOKAYUKTA TUMAKURU-572 102.

¶11

&APPELLANT

¶12

(BY SRI K. PRASANNA SHETTY, ADVOCATE)

¶13

AND:

¶14

Digitally signed by MOUNESHWARAPPA NAGARATHNA Location: High Court of Karnataka

¶15

ANANTHAIAH @ ANATHA KUMAR T. AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS PDO, BAJAGOORU GRAM PANCHAYATH EARLIER WORKING AS PDO OF EICHANUR GRAM PANCHAYATH

¶16

TIPTUR

¶17

RESIDING AT LAKSHMIRANGANATHA NILAYA SHANKAR NAGAR, NEAR ANNAPURA GATE

¶18

TIPTUR TOWN NATIVE OF SORALAMAVU CHIKKANAYAKANAHALLI TALUK TUMAKURU DISTRICT-572 201.

¶19

H.N. NAGARAJU S/O. NARAYANAPPA AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS EARLIER WORKING AS PRESIDENT OF EICHANUR GRAM PANCHAYATH TIPTUR

¶20

2 - NC: 2026:KHC:1912-DB CRL.A No. 117 of 2022

¶21

HC-KAR

¶22

RESIDING AT EICHANUR TIPTUR TALUK TUMAKURU DISTRICT-572 201.

¶23

S.G. SHIVANNA S/O. LATE GAVIYAPPA AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS SECRETARY, EICHANUR GRAM PANCHAYATH TIPTUR RESIDING AT SOMMAJJIANNA PALYA HULIYUR HOBLI CHIKKANAYAKANAHALLI TALUK TUMAKURU DISTRICT-572 201.

¶24

D.S. NEELAKANTHASWAMY S/O. LATE SHIVAPPA AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS PROPRIETOR OF KALPATARU ELECTRICALS ALLAMAJJI COMPLEX B.H. ROAD, TIPTUR RESIDING AT VENKATESHWARA NILAYA BYE PASS ROAD SHARADANAGARA TIPTUR-572 201.

¶25

KUMATHI RAMAIAH S/O. LATE RAMAIAH AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS RETIRED PDO OF EICHANUR GRAM PANCHAYATH TIPTUR RESIDING AT 7TH A CROSS 1ST MAIN, HANUMANTHA NAGAR TUMAKURU NATIVE OF CHEERAHALLI KORATAGERE TALUK TUMAKURU DISTRICT-572 201.

¶26

SMT. KRISHNABAI VITHAL BHANDARI W/O. CHANRAJ CHUBAJE AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS EARLIER WORKING AS PDO OF EICHANUR GRAMA PANCHAYATH PRESENTLY PDO NAAGARAHGHATTA GRAM PANCHAYATH, TIPTUR TALUK RESIDING AT KOPPA GATE GORAGANAHALLI

¶27

¶28

NC: 2026:KHC:1912-DB CRL.A No. 117 of 2022

¶29

HC-KAR

¶30

TIPTUR TALUK TUMAKURU DISTRICT-572 201.

¶31

&RESPONDENTS

¶32

(BY SRI M.R. HIREMATHAD, ADVOCATE FOR SRI RUDRAPPA, ADVOCATE FOR R-1 TO R-5; SRI MARUTHI S., ADVOCATE FOR R-6)

¶33

¶34

THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 378(1) AND (3) OF THE CR.P.C PRAYING TO I) GRANT LEAVE TO PROSECUTE THE APPEAL AGAINST THE JUDGMENT OF DISCHARGE/ACQUITTAL ORDER DATED 30-7-2020 PASSED BY THE VII ADDITIONAL SESSIONS AND SPECIAL JUDGE, TUMAKURU IN SPL.C.NO.402 OF 2016 AND II) SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT/ORDER DATED 30-7-2020 PASSED BY THE VII ADDITIONAL SESSIONS AND SPECIAL JUDGE, TUMAKURU IN SPL.C.NO.402 OF 2016 AND ETC.

¶35

THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:

¶36

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH and HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VENKATESH NAIK T

¶37

ORAL JUDGMENT

¶38

(PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH)

¶39

Though the matter is listed for admission, learned

¶40

counsel appearing for the appellant, learned counsel appearing for respondent Nos.1 to 5 and learned counsel for respondent No.6 were heard.

¶41

4 - NC: 2026:KHC:1912-DB CRL.A No. 117 of 2022

¶42

HC-KAR

¶43

The charges levelled against the accused in the

¶44

prosecution case are that accused Nos.1 to 3, 5 and 6 were public servants at the relevant point of time and that they misappropriated public funds, thereby committing offences of criminal breach of trust, cheating and forgery. Accused No.4 is a private person, against whom it is alleged that he obtained illegal gratification as a motive or reward for inducing a public servant to perform an official act by corrupt or illegal means. Thereby, he is alleged to have committed an offence under Section 8 of the Prevention of Corruption Act.

¶45

The prosecution relies upon evidence of PW1 to PW11 and Exs.P1 to P24. The trial Court, having considered the charges levelled against the accused persons, comes to the conclusion that accused Nos.1 to 3, 5 and 6 were Government Officials and that the prosecution had obtained valid sanction orders for their prosecution. However, the trial Court further concluded that the evidence available on record was not sufficient to bring home the guilt of the accused persons.

¶46

5 - NC: 2026:KHC:1912-DB CRL.A No. 117 of 2022

¶47

HC-KAR

¶48

The trial Court, particularly from paragraph No.45 onwards, appreciated both oral and documentary evidence and came to the conclusion that the bills relied upon by the prosecution were not sent for expert analysis to determine whether the signatures thereon were made using two different inks at two different points of time. In the absence of expert opinion in this regard, the trial Court held that it was not possible to conclude that accused No.1 had signed on top of the signature of accused No.5 on the bills.

¶49

The trial Court, in paragraph No.46, also discussed the evidentiary value of PW7, who is the Auditor. He categorically admitted that he had not come across any double or duplicate payment. Even when the matter was again re-entrusted to him, he gave the same evidence and particularly in respect of DC bills are concerned, the same is discussed in paragraph No.47, and in paragraph No.48, the trial Court considered the billing to the tune of Rs.6,600/-, in respect of which none of the witnesses has spoken.

¶50

6 - NC: 2026:KHC:1912-DB CRL.A No. 117 of 2022

¶51

HC-KAR

¶52

In paragraph No.49, the trial Court also took note

¶53

of the cheque payment dated 31.12.2013 for a sum of Rs.42,280/-, whereas vouchers were available to the extent of Rs.24,378/- and no vouchers were available for the remaining amount of Rs.17,902/-. The DC bill in respect of the said payment is at File No.3 of Ex.P5. Perusal of the said file discloses that payment was made for Rs.42,280/-, but the bills produced were only for amounts of Rs.13,670/-, Rs.6,982/- and Rs.3,721/-, that is out of the payment of Rs.42,280/-, the bills are available only for Rs.24,373/-. This payment was made during the tenure of accused No.1 as PDO.

¶54

Further, even in the audit report at Ex.P13, two objections were raised regarding non-production of vouchers. However, there are two lacunae in respect of this allegation made against accused No.1. Firstly, as already noted supra ,

¶55

this allegation does not form part of the charge framed by the learned predecessor, as it was not included in the charge sheet presented to the Court. Secondly, accused No.1 was not given an opportunity by the prosecution either to

¶56

7 - NC: 2026:KHC:1912-DB CRL.A No. 117 of 2022

¶57

HC-KAR

¶58

produce the vouchers or to explain how he could have authorised the payment in the absence of the relevant bills. Taking note of these two lacunae, the trial Court came to the conclusion that the prosecution was not able to prove its case.

¶59

Being aggrieved by the acquittal, the present

¶60

appeal is filed by the Lokayukta Police. The counsel appearing for the appellant would vehemently contend that the trial Court has not appreciated both oral and documentary evidence available on record. It is further contended that the evidence of PW5 is very clear that, at the

¶61

time when he was taking charge from respondent No.6, respondent No.6 did not hand over the stock register, and in Ex.P8 endorsement is made to the effect that stock register was in the custody of respondent No.3. The trial Court ought to have considered that the stock register was in the custody of respondent No.3, thereby enabling falsification of records and the trial Court has not properly appreciated the evidence of PW5.

¶62

8 - NC: 2026:KHC:1912-DB CRL.A No. 117 of 2022

¶63

HC-KAR

¶64

The learned counsel appearing for the appellant also vehemently contend that the provisions of the Karnataka Transparency in Public Procurement Act, 1999 ought to have been followed and that the same were not complied with. It is further contended that there is a violation of the requirements of the Karnataka Transparency in Public Procurement Act by the Eichanuru Grama Panchayath. The trial Court has not properly appreciated the evidence on record, and if the trial Court properly appreciated the evidence of PWs.1, 9 and 10, the result would have been otherwise. Hence, it is contended that this Court has to admit the appeal.

¶65

Per contra , learned counsel appearing for respondent Nos.1 to 5 and learned counsel appearing for respondent No.6 would submit that the prosecution was not able to prove the charges levelled against the accused persons and the fact that accused persons, except accused No.4, are Government employees is not in dispute. In order to prove the charges, there must be cogent evidence;

¶66

¶67

NC: 2026:KHC:1912-DB CRL.A No. 117 of 2022

¶68

HC-KAR

¶69

however, such cogent evidence was not placed on record. Hence, the accused persons were rightly acquitted.

¶70

Having heard the learned counsel for the appellant counsel and learned counsel appearing for the respondents and having considered the charges levelled against the accused persons, particularly against the Government Officials under Sections 406, 409, 420, 468, 470, 471, 477 and 477-A read with Section 34 of IPC and Sections 8 and 13(1)(C) read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, the trial Court, having considered both oral and documentary evidence in paragraph Nos.45 to 49 assigned the reasons for acquittal.

¶71

Regarding Section 406 is concerned, no material has been placed on record in respect of breach of trust and similarly, with regard to forgery and creation of documents, nothing has been produced. Moreover, no expert opinion was obtained. This aspect is discussed in paragraph No.45 with regard to the manipulation of documents and in the absence of the expert report, the same could not be

¶72

10 - NC: 2026:KHC:1912-DB CRL.A No. 117 of 2022

¶73

HC-KAR

¶74

accepted. With regard to the double payment is concerned, PW7, who conducted the audit, categorically admitted in his examination that he had not found any document evidencing duplicate payment. The Court has also taken note of the evidence of PW5, upon which the counsel appearing for the Lokayukta heavily relied. However, there is no cogent evidence before the Court with regard to the charges alleged against the accused persons and even with regard to the offences under the Prevention of Corruption Act also, nothing is placed on record to show that the bills were created at the instigation of accused No.4 and with regard to payments exceeding the bills, the same has been discussed in paragraph No.49. The trial Court has assigned the clear reasoning that no such charges were framed against the accused with regard to allegation of payment made at the instance of accused No.4, and no opportunity was sought by the prosecution to obtain explanations from accused No.1, who was working as PDO, regarding the payments.

¶75

The trial Court's judgment is well-reasoned

¶76

regarding the proof of guilt of the accused. In the absence

¶77

11 - NC: 2026:KHC:1912-DB CRL.A No. 117 of 2022

¶78

HC-KAR

¶79

of cogent evidence, no conviction can be sustained. No material has been placed on record to establish offences under Section 406 or other offences relating to forgery and the use of forged documents. In view of the above, no grounds are made out to admit the appeal and accordingly, the appeal is dismissed .

¶80

Sd/(H.P.SANDESH) JUDGE

¶81

Sd/(VENKATESH NAIK T) JUDGE

¶82

AM List No.: 1 Sl No.: 14

The Karnataka Lokayukta Police v. Ananthaiah @ Anatha Kumar T

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

The Karnataka Lokayukta Police v. Ananthaiah @ Anatha Kumar T

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

The State of Karnataka Vs Mohammed Mutheeb @ Mutheeb

Satyanarayana Vs State of Karnataka

The State by Vs Abu Salman Saifan Sab Thambe

Chitra Anand S a Vs Santhosh M S

The State of Karnataka Vs Jaheer Vasan

Sapna Rohira Vs Mukund Chandi Bammar