Bangalore District Court
The State By Police vs Sri H.R.Shantha Kumar on 6 December, 2017
IN THE COURT OF LXXVI ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL AND
SESSIONS JUDGE AND SPECIAL JUDGE
(CCH-77)
Present: Smt.SHRIDEVI S. ANGADI,
B.A., LL.M.,
LXXVI ADDL. CITY CIVIL & SESSIONS JUDGE
& SPECIAL JUDGE, BENGALURU.
DATED: This the 6th day of December 2017
Spl. C.C.No.104/2006
COMPLAINANT The State by Police
Inspector, Police wing, City
Division, Karnataka
Lokayuktha, Bangalore.
(Rep by Spl.Public
Prosecutor)
-Vs-
ACCUSED 1. Sri H.R.Shantha Kumar
Shetty, s/o M.Ranga
Shetty, aged 57 years,
Principal, Women's
Polytechnic, Bangalore.
(abated)
2. Sri S.G.Basava-
muniyappa, s/o
Govindaiah F.D.A.,
O/O the Assistant
Director of Technical
Education, Bangalore.
3. Sri G.R.Murgod,
s/o R.A.Murgod,
behind Bagi Autos,
Vidyanagar, Hubli-
2 Spl.C.C.104/2006
Dharwad District.
4. Sri Suresh Savanur,
s/o Sri
Virupakshappa
Savanur,
President of Dharwad
District, Youth
Congress & Dalal
Agent, At cotton
market, Hubli-
Dharwad District.
5. Kum.Gali Mrudula,
d/o Venkatarathna,
18 years, Lakshmi
Nursing Home,
Sathyanapalli, Guntur
District, Andhra
Pradesh.
A-2: (By Sri B.C.Lokesh
- Advocate)
A-3 & 4:
(By Sri B.K.Narendra
Babu - Advocate)
A-5: (By Sri N.Kumar
- Advocate )
1. Nature of Offence Offence punishable under
Sections 120-B, 420, 468,
474 & 511 of IPC & Sections
7, 8, 9, 13(1) (d) r/w 3 (2) of
Prevention of Corruption
Act, 1988.
2. Date of
28.10.1993
commission
3 Spl.C.C.104/2006
of offence
3. Date of First
Information Report 09.11.1993
4. Date of
commencement of 17.3.2012
recording of
evidence
6. Date of 10.03.2017
closing of evidence
7. Date of
06.12.2017
pronouncement of
Judgment
The accused Nos.2 &
8. Result of the case 5 are found guilty of the
offence punishable under
Sections 120-B, 420,
468, 474 & 511 of IPC.
The accused Nos.2 &
5 are acquitted under
Section 235(1) of Cr.P.C. of
the offence punishable
under Sections
7,8,9,13(1)(d) r/w 13(2) of
Prevention of Corruption
Act,1988.
The accused No.3 &
4 are acquitted u/s 235(1)
of Cr.P.C. of the offence
punishable under Sections
120-B, 420, 468, 474, 511
of IPC & Sections 7, 8, 9,
13(1)(d) r/w 13(2) of
Prevention of Corruption
Act,1988.
4 Spl.C.C.104/2006
JUDGMENT
The accused No.1 to 5 are charge sheeted for the alleged offence punishable under Sections 120-B, 420, 468, 474 & 511 IPC & Sections 7, 8, 9, 13(1) (d) r/w 13 (2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.
2. The prosecution case is that:
On the basis of the complaint regarding malpractices in admission to Medical Colleges, an enquiry was conducted by Hon'ble Upa Lokayuktha and ordered for investigation through Police Wing, Karnataka Lokayuktha.
3. As per the instructions of S.P. Lokayuktha, Sri Gangi Reddy-Dy.S.P. Karnataka Lokayuktha, has registered a suo moto FIR in LAC/Cr.No.23/93 under Sections 120-B, 420, 474, 468 r/w 511 of IPC & Sections 13(1)(d) r/w 13(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act,1988, and handed over further investigation to CW24-Sri P.K.Shivashankar, Police Inspector, Karnataka Lokayuktha, Bangalore.
4. It is the further case of the prosecution that, deceased accused No.1-H.R.Shantha Kumar Shetty & accused No.2- S.G.Basavamuniyappa, were working as Assistant Director of Technical Education & F.D.A respectively, during the year 1993. The deceased accused No.1 & accused No.2 were public servants. They were assigning with official duty of preparing marks list & issuing of rank certificates to the candidates who appeared for 5 Spl.C.C.104/2006 Common Entrance Test for Medical & Engineering Education during the year 1993.
5. It is the further case of the prosecution that, Gali Mrudula (accused-5), was one of the candidates who took up the Common Entrance Test conducted in the year 1993 and sought admission under the Payment Quota. Her Common Entrance Test Admission Ticket Number was JS 1956 and she got Medical ranking No.11987, and Engineering rank nil. Accused No.1 to 5 hatched a criminal conspiracy to cheat the Director of Medical Education with an intention to get medical seat to accused No.5 under Payment Quota and in furtherance of such conspiracy, deceased accused No.1-H.R.Shantha Kumar Shetty & accused No.2-S.G.Basavamuniyappa issued a forged ranking certificate showing Registration No.as ZX 0684, her Medical ranking as 3047 A & Engineering ranking as 4647 A which actually belongs to CW2-Pranshu Gupta.
6. It is the further case of the prosecution that, in furtherance of said conspiracy, accused No.3- Sri G.R.Murgod & accused No.4-Sri Suresh Savanur, obtained forged ranking certificate from deceased accused No.1 & accused No.2 with an intention to cheat the Director of Medical Education and handed over the said forged Certificate to accused No.5-Gali Mrudula after obtaining Rs.25,000/- to be payable to deceased accused No.1 & accused No.2. In furtherance of common intention, accused No.5 knowing fully well that it is a forged & concocted document, produced forged ranking certificate before the Director of Medical Education seeking admission to the Medical Course under Payment 6 Spl.C.C.104/2006 Quota by suppressing her original Admission number and ranking given by the Technical Education Board.
7. It is the further case of the prosecution that, deceased accused No.1 & accused No.2 being public servants, hatched a criminal conspiracy with accused No.3 to 5 and in furtherance of such conspiracy, accused No.2-S.G.Basavamuniyappa demanded and accepted illegal gratification of Rs.25,000/- from CW1- M.Krishna through accused No.3, as a motive or reward to influence accused No.1-deceased accused H.R.Shantha Kumar Shetty to do an illegal act of putting signature on the forged & fabricated Ranking Certificate, thereby accused No.1 to 5 committed an offence punishable under Sections 120-B, 420, 468, 474, 511 IPC & Sections 7, 8, 9, 13(1)(d) r/w 13(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act,1988.
8. Originally the case was registered in Spl.C.C.No.17/1997. Charge was framed against the accused No.1 to 5 and trial was conducted. The prosecution had examined 16 witnesses as PWs.1 to 16 and got marked 37 documents as Ex.P-1 to 37. Two documents were marked on behalf of the accused as Ex.D-1 & D-2. The accused were examined u/s 313 of Cr.P.C. After hearing arguments, my Predecessor in office, by an Order dated 29.1.2002 was pleased to drop the proceedings against the accused No.1 to 5 on the ground that the Sanction Order obtained against deceased accused No.1 & accused No.2 was invalid and directed to return the entire charge sheet papers to the Investigating Officer with liberty to proceed afresh against all the 7 Spl.C.C.104/2006 accused after obtaining necessary sanction from the Competent Authority against deceased accused No.1 & accused No.2.
9. Thereafter the Lokayuktha Police had obtained the fresh Sanction Order from the Competent Authority to prosecute deceased accused No.1 & accused No.2 and filed fresh charge sheet against the accused No.1 to 5 for the offence punishable under Sections 120-B, 420, 468, 474, 511 of IPC & Sections 13(1)(d) r/w 13(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act,1988.
10. My Predecessor-in-Office by an Order dated 27.06.2006, took cognizance of the offence and ordered to register the case and issue summons. Based on the said Order, Spl.C.C.No.104/2006 came to be registered. In pursuance of the summons, accused No.1 to 5 appeared before the Court and enlarged on bail.
11. During the pendency of the case, accused No.1- H.R.Shantha Kumar Shetty reported to be dead. Hence, the case against accused No.1 stood abated.
12. After hearing, Charge was framed against accused No.2 to 5 for the offence punishable under Sections 120-B, 420, 468, 474, 511 of IPC & Sections 7, 8, 9, 13(1)(d) r/w 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. The Charge was read over and explained to the accused No.2 to 5. The accused No.2 to 5 pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.
8 Spl.C.C.104/2006
13. My Predecessor-in-Office by an Order dated 18.4.2016, has dismissed the application filed by the Spl.P.P. to lead evidence of all the witnesses afresh. However, liberty is reserved for the prosecution to adduce additional evidence, if any. The learned Advocate appearing for the accused persons have also filed a Memo stating that they will adopt the evidence already recorded in the earlier proceedings. In view of the circumstances, the prosecution has examined two more witnesses as PWs-17 & 18 and got marked one document as Ex.P-38 and closed the side. The accused No.2 to 5 were examined under Sec.313 of Cr.P.C. for the purpose of enabling them to explain the circumstances existing against them. The accused No.2 to 5 denied all the incriminating evidence available against them. The accused No.2 to 5 have not chosen to lead any defense evidence. I have heard the arguments and perused the records.
14. The learned Counsel for accused No.5 in support of his arguments has placed reliance on the following citations:
1. Jibrial Diwan -v- State of Maharashtra; (1997) 6 SCC 499.
2. Mohd.Ibrahim -v- State of Bihar; (2009) 8 Supreme Court Cases 751.
3. Parminder Kaur -v- State of U.P. & another;
(2010) 1 SCC 322.
4. Hari Sao and another -v- The State of Bihar; 1969(3) Supreme Court Cases 107.
5. Vijayan -v- State of Kerala; (1999) 3 Supreme Court Cases 54.
9 Spl.C.C.104/2006
6. A.Ramadas, MLA -v- State of Karnataka & ors; ILR 2000 Kar 4385.
7. Anil Bajpadithaya and others -v- State of Karnataka and others; (1995) 6 Supreme Court Cases 531
15. After hearing the arguments and on perusal of the records, the points that arise for my consideration are:
1. Whether the prosecution proves beyond reasonable doubt that accused No.1 & 2 being public servants, hatched a criminal conspiracy with accused No.3 to 5 to do an illegal act and in furtherance of such conspiracy, with a malafide intention to help accused No.5 in getting admission to MBBS course, knowing fully well that accused No.5 was having CET Admission Ticket No.JS 1956 and she got medical ranking No.11987 and Engineering rank nil, with an intention to cheat the Director of Medical Education, issued forged & fabricated rank certificate to accused No.5 showing registered No.ZX 0684 & medical ranking No.3047A and engineering No.4647A which actually belongs to CW2-
Pranshu Gupta, and thereby committed an offence punishable under Sections 120-B r/w 420 of IPC.?
2. Whether the prosecution proves beyond reasonable doubt that, accused No.1 & 2 being public servants had been assigned with the official duties of preparing marks list and issuing rank certificates to the candidates of CET for medical & engineering seats during the year 1993, hatched a criminal conspiracy with accused No.3 to 5 and in furtherance of such conspiracy, dishonestly & fraudulently issued a forged ranking certificate on 28.10.1993 in favour of accused No.5 through A3 & A4 in registered No.ZX 0684 having medical ranking No.3047A which actually belongs to one Pranshu Gupta, knowing fully 10 Spl.C.C.104/2006 well that the said certificate will be used by accused No.5 as genuine certificate for cheating CW3-Director of Medical Education and thereby committed an offence punishable under Sections 120-B, 468 & 474 of IPC?
3. Whether the prosecution further proves beyond reasonable doubt that accused No.1 & 2 being public servants hatched a criminal conspiracy with accused No.3 & 4 to do an illegal act and in furtherance of such conspiracy, accused No.3 & 4 after obtaining forged & fake medical rank certificate handed over to Accused No.5 who in turn presented the same before the Director of Medical Education to get admission to MBBS course, and thereby committed an offence punishable under Sections 120-B r/w 511 of IPC?
4. Whether the prosecution further proves beyond reasonable doubt that accused No.1 & 2 being public servants hatched a criminal conspiracy with accused No.3 to 5 to do an illegal act and in furtherance of such conspiracy, accused No.2 on 28.10.1993 demanded and accepted illegal gratification of Rs.25,000/- from CW-1 Krishna through accused No.3 & 4 as a motive or reward to show an official favour and also to influence accused No.1 to do an illegal act of putting signature on the forged medical ranking certificate issued to accused No.5 and thereby committed an offence punishable under Sections 7, 8, 9, 13(1)(d) r/w 13(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act,1988?
5. What order?
16. My answer to the above points is as under:
Point No.1: In the affirmative Point No.2: In the affirmative 11 Spl.C.C.104/2006 Point No.3: In the affirmative Point No.4: In the negative Point No.5: As per final order for the following:
REASONS
17. Point Nos.1 to 4: For the sake of convenience and to avoid repetition of facts, I have taken Point Nos.1 to 4 together for consideration.
18. The prosecution has examined CW6-Professor P.V.Bhandari, the then Director of Technical Education as PW.1 PW-1 has deposed that, he was working as Director of Technical Education from January 1991 to January 1996. During the year 1993, accused No.1 was working as Assistant Director of Technical Education. He was delegated with additional work of preparing marks list and issuing rank certificate to the candidates of CET for medical & engineering seats during the year 1993. Accused No.2 was assisting accused No.1 in CET section. He was the Member- Secretary to the CET constituted by the Government of Karnataka.
19. PW-1 has further deposed about the procedure to be adopted in conducting Common Entrance Test, preparing of rank list, the process of admission to Medical & Engineering Colleges. PW-1 has further deposed that the candidates selected for Medical seats were supposed to report themselves before a Committee headed by the Director of Medical Education who verifies all the records and confirms their admission. PW-1 has further deposed about the procedure for issue of rank certificates in so far as 12 Spl.C.C.104/2006 candidates who have not produced their Admission Tickets at the time of Common Entrance Test. PW-1 has further deposed that, those matters were entrusted to deceased accused No.1 and accused No.2. Deceased accused No.1 & accused No.2 were supposed to verify the Admission Ticket number & Mark list of PUC and compare them with the rank list provided to them and thereafter they have to issue certificates.
20. PW-1 further deposed that in January 1994, he received a letter from Karnataka Lokayuktha to furnish the CET Medical & Engineering Ranks of 6 candidates, namely, Soumya Navit, S.H.Ajay, Kumari Gali Mrudula, Ashish Dolarray Joshi, Sheetal & Kovi Kavitha. On the same day, he had furnished the details sought for by the Lokayuktha Police & Rank List. The letter dated 29.1.1994 having detailed particulars of the names of the candidates, CET Admission Ticket number, Medical & Engineering ranking is marked as Ex.P-1. The additional rank list is marked as Ex.P-2. The office order dated 5.6.1993 issued by PW-1 assigning the work of CET section to accused No.2 is marked as Ex.P-3.
21. During the course of cross-examination made on behalf of accused No.2, it was suggested to PW-1 that accused No.2 was entrusted with CET section work apart from his regular work of looking after admissions to Engineering Colleges & Polytechnic Colleges and various other works. PW-1 has denied the said suggestion.
13 Spl.C.C.104/2006
22. The prosecution has examined CW8- T.K.Prakash as PW-2. According to the prosecution, PW-2 has acted as a Mediator, who alleged to have helped Kum.Kovi Kavitha in getting Medical seat by obtaining Rs.25,000/- as bribe from her father Kanakaraj to be payable to accused No.2 through Haji Jamadar, Murgod & Suresh Savanur. But PW-2 has deposed that he has not seen accused No.3 to 5 at any point of time. He does not know anything about the deceased accused No.1 & accused No.2 and also about the case. He does not know anything about a person by name Haji Jamadar.
23. PW-2 has turned hostile. He has not supported the prosecution case. The Learned Spl.P.P. has cross-examined PW-2 at length. But nothing useful to the case of the prosecution is forthcoming during the course of cross-examination. PW-2 has denied of giving statement before the Lokayuktha Police as per Ex.P-4.
24. The prosecution has examined CW7-Dr.S.Kantha, the then Director of Medical Education as PW3. PW-3 has deposed that, the Director of Technical Education after consolidating the 50% marks obtained in CET and 50% marks obtained in PUC or equivalent examination, sent her a computerized Ranking List consisting the name of the candidates, Register numbers and as well as ranking numbers who were eligible for Medical seats. She being one of the Members of the Selection Committee to select the candidates for MBBS & other course for the Academic year 1993- 94, conducted interviews of the candidates who were aspirants to 14 Spl.C.C.104/2006 the Medical seats under the Payment Quota on 29.10.1993. The Committee identified 6 candidates, viz; 1) Soumya Navit, 2) S.H.Ajay, 3) Gali Mrudala, 4) Ashish Dolarray Joshi, 5) Sheetal Vagarali 6) Kovi Kavitha whose CET admission number & CET rank number did not tally with each other compared to the original ranking list sent by the Director of Technical Education. On verification of the Application & other documents submitted by Gali Mrudula (accused No.5) they found that the CET Admission No.ZX 0684 Medical ranking No.'3047A furnished by her belongs to one Pranshu Gupta. So also on comparison of CET Admission number & ranking number of other 5 candidates with the rank list sent by Director of Technical Education, they found differences between them and those ranking numbers & CET numbers belong to some other candidates. As such, the admission to the above 6 candidates were withheld and the same had been notified in the Notice Board. On the next day i.e. 30.10.93 Lokayuktha Police came to her office and enquired about this fact. She gave the list of the 6 candidates. Subsequently on 2.12.1993, she furnished the application along with the documents submitted by the said 6 candidates to the Lokayuktha Police. The Application Form seeking admission in Medical/Dental/Pharmacy/Nursing under Payment seat along with other documents submitted by accused No.4 to the Director of Medical Education are marked as Ex.P-5 & Ex.P-5(a) to
(j). The forged & fabricated certificate said to have been issued by dc d accused No.1 & accused No.2 in favour of accused No.4 is marked as Ex.P-5(f).
15 Spl.C.C.104/2006
25. PW3 has been cross-examined at length on behalf of accused No.1 & 5. She stood to the test of cross-examination. Nothing contrary has been elicited during the course of cross- examination so as to disbelieve her oral testimony.
26. The prosecution has examined CW12-Vamanamurthy as PW-4. He is one of the witnesses to the Search Mahazar-Ex.P6. PW-4 has deposed that, on 27.11.1993, he was called to attend Lokayuktha Police station to act as witness to the Search Mahazar. In his presence, house of the deceased accused No.1 was searched and Search Mahazar as per Ex.P6 was drawn. He identified his signature on the Search Mahazar and it is marked as Ex.P6(a). No documents were seized from the house of deceased accused No.1 under the Search Mahazar. PW4 has further deposed that, in the month of March 1994, once again he was secured to the Lokayuktha Police station and in his presence, specimen signature of deceased accused No.1 as per S1 to S12 was obtained. He identified the specimen signature of deceased accused No.1. The specimen signature of deceased accused No.1 obtained in five sheets, are marked as Ex.P7 to P11.
27. PW4 has been cross-examined at length on behalf of accused No.1 & 5. He stood to the test of cross-examination. Nothing contrary has been elicited during the course of cross- examination so as to disbelieve his oral testimony.
28. The prosecution has examined CW9-N.Srikantaprasad as PW-5. He is one of the witnesses to the Search Mahazar-Ex.P13.
16 Spl.C.C.104/2006 PW-5 has deposed that, on 27.11.1993, he was called to attend Lokayuktha Police station to act as witness. In his presence, house of the accused No.2 was searched and Search Mahazar as per Ex.P13was drawn. He identified his signature on the Search Mahazar and it is marked as Ex.P13(a). Under the Search Mahazar, Empty CET Forms-Ex.P12 was seized from the house of the accused No.2 under the Search Mahazar. PW-5 has further deposed that, on 24.3.1994, once again he was secured to the Lokayuktha Police station and in his presence, specimen signature of accused No.2 as per S13 to S24 was obtained. He identified the specimen signature of accused No.2. The specimen signatures of accused No.2 obtained in four sheets are marked as Ex.P14 to P17.
29. PW-5 has been cross-examined at length on behalf of accused No.2. He stood to the test of cross-examination. Nothing contrary has been elicited during the course of cross-examination so as to disbelieve his oral testimony.
30. The prosecution has examined CW3-G.N.Biradhar, as PW-6. According to the prosecution, in the month of August 1993, accused No.5, CW1-Krishna, met him in connection with getting Medical seat to accused No.5 under Payment Quota and requested him to introduce any person in the office of the Director of Technical Education, whereupon he told them to meet accused No.3-Murgod & accused No.4-Suresh Savanur, who were having influence in the office of Director of Technical Education, and gave their address. But PW-6 has deposed that, he had not seen CW1- Krishna & accused No.5 Gali Mrudula. He does not know anything 17 Spl.C.C.104/2006 about accused No.3-Murgod & accused No.4-Suresh Savanur. He has not seen them at any point of time. He does not know anything about the case.
31. PW-6 has turned hostile. He has not supported the prosecution case. The Learned Spl.P.P. has cross-examined PW-6 at length. But nothing useful to the case of the prosecution is forthcoming during the course of cross-examination. PW-6 has denied of giving statement before the Lokayuktha Police as per Ex.P-18.
32. The prosecution has examined CW13- Hanumanatharayappa as PW-7. He is one of the witnesses to the Search Mahazar-Ex.P23. PW-7 has deposed that, on 27.11.1993, he was called to attend Lokayuktha Police station to act as witness and in his presence, house of Dr.Ramanna was searched and Search Mahazar as per Ex.P24 was drawn. He identified his signature on the Search Mahazar and it is marked as Ex.P23(a). The list showing the number of candidates admitted to Medical course, Dental course & B.Pharma course under Payment Quota and xerox copy of the Admission Ticket of one K.S.Nandini(Ex.P19 to P22) were seized under Seizure Mahazar from the house of Dr.Ramanna.
33. The prosecution has examined CW5-Venkatesh as PW-8. PW-8 is one of the witnesses to the Seizure Mahazar-Ex.P25 for having seized the original CET Admission Ticket from accused 18 Spl.C.C.104/2006 No.5-Gali Mrudula. The original CET Admission Ticket of accused No.5 is marked as Ex.P24.
34. PW-8 has been cross-examined at length on behalf of accused No.5. He stood to the test of cross-examination. Nothing contrary has been elicited during the course of cross-examination so as to disbelieve his oral testimony.
35. The prosecution has examined CW17-Subramanya as PW-9, who produced the original Application Form for CET Examination submitted by accused No.5-Gali Mrudula to Lokayuktha Police. The said Application Form is marked as Ex.P-26.
36. PW-9 has been cross-examined at length on behalf of accused No.5. He stood to the test of cross-examination. Nothing contrary has been elicited during the course of cross-examination so as to disbelieve his oral testimony.
37. The prosecution has examined CW22-M.Gangi Reddy, the then Dy.S.P., Karnataka Lokayuktha, Bangalore, as PW-10. He deposed that as per instructions of S.P.Lokayuktha, he registered suo-moto case in Crime No.23/93 & submitted FIR to the Court as per Ex.P27 & 28.
38. PW-10 has been cross-examined at length on behalf of accused No.2 & 5. He stood to the test of cross-examination.
19 Spl.C.C.104/2006 Nothing contrary has been elicited during the course of cross- examination so as to disbelieve his oral testimony.
39. The prosecution has examined CW21-G.Basavaraj, the then Superintendent of Police, Karnataka Lokayuktha, as PW-11. PW-11 deposed that as per the instructions of DIG, Lokayuktha on 29.10.1993 & 30.10.1993, he visited Bangalore Medical College and held preliminary enquiry with regard to alleged malpractices taken place in getting admission of candidates to Medical course. During enquiry, he came to know that 6 candidates viz., Soumya Navit, S.H.Ajay, Gali Mrudula, Ashish Dolarray Joshi, Sheetal & Kovi Kavitha submitted false & forged rank certificates before the Committee to get admission to the Medical course. The said rank certificates were issued by deceased accused No.1 and were verified by accused No.2. Accordingly, he submitted a Report to DIG, Lokayuktha. On the basis of the directions of DIG, Lokayuktha, he instructed Sri.Gangi Reddy-Dy.S.P., to register a suo-moto case, and to hand over the further investigation to Mr.Shivshankar, Police Inspector, Lokayuktha.
40. PW-11 has been cross-examined at length on behalf of accused No.1, 2 & 5. He stood to the test of cross-examination. Nothing contrary has been elicited during the course of cross- examination so as to disbelieve his oral testimony.
41. The prosecution has examined CW-20-K.V.Prasad- Under Secretary to the Government, Education Department, as PW-12. PW-12 has deposed about of Sanction Order issued by the 20 Spl.C.C.104/2006 Government on 18.7.1996 to prosecute deceased accused No.1 & accused No.2. The Sanction Order dated 18.7.1996 is marked as Ex.P29. The said Sanction Order is held to be invalid, as per Order dated 29.1.2002. As per the said Order, the entire charge sheet papers were returned to the Investigating Officer, with liberty to file fresh charge sheet after obtaining valid Sanction from the Competent Authority to prosecute deceased accused No.1 & accused No.2.
42. The prosecution has examined CW1-M.Krishna as PW-13. PW-13 is the maternal uncle of accused No.5-Gali Mrudula. According to the prosecution, PW-13 and accused No.5 met PW6-G.N.Biradhar, in connection with getting Medical seat to accused No.5 under Payment Quota, and as per advice of PW6, he met accused No.3 & 4 in Sandhya Lodge, Bangalore on 28.10.1993 and gave Rs.25,000/- as bribe to be payable to deceased accused No.1 & accused No.2, who were having authority to issue medical rank certificate. But PW-13 has deposed that, in the year 1992-93, his sister's daughter-Gali Mrudula-accused No.5 had taken CET Examination in Karnataka State for Medical & Engineering course. The police have not recorded his statement at any time. He does not know anything about the case, except accused No.5 being his sister's daughter.
43. PW-13 has turned hostile. He has not supported the prosecution case. The Learned Spl.P.P. has cross-examined PW- 13 at length. But nothing useful to the case of the prosecution is forthcoming during the course of cross-examination. PW-13 has 21 Spl.C.C.104/2006 denied of giving statement before the Lokayuktha Police as per Ex.P-30.
44. The prosecution has examined CW16-Syed Asgar Imam, Scientific Officer, FSL., Bangalore as PW-14. PW-14 has deposed that, he has been working as Handwriting & Documents Expert in the Forensic Science Laboratory, Government of Karnataka, Bangalore, since 1981. On 5.9.1994, Dy.S.P., Karnataka Lokayuktha, Bangalore had sent five original medical rank certificates belongs to Soumya Navit, Ajay S.H., G.Mrudula, A.D.Joshi, Sheetal Vagarali & one xerox copy of the medical rank certificate of Kovi Kavitha along with specimen signature of H.R.Shantha Kumar Shetty-deceased accused No.1 marked at S1 to S12 as well as specimen initials & signatures of S.G.Basavamuniyappa-accused No.2, marked at S13 to S24 for comparison of questioned signatures found in the medical rank certificate marked at Q1 to Q6 and Q7 to Q12 respectively with the specimen and admitted signatures and to give opinion. After scientific examination of questioned, specimen signatures & admitted signatures, he gave opinion that the person who wrote the standard signatures marked at S1 to S12, S12(1) to S12(7) (H.R.Shantha Kumar Shetty) also wrote the questioned signatures marked at Q1 to Q5 and the person who wrote the standard signatures (initials) marked at S13 to S24 and S24(1) to S24(7)(S.G.Basavamuniyappa) also wrote the questioned signatures (initials) marked at Q7 to Q11. It was not possible for him to express opinion on questioned signatures/initials marked at Q6 and Q12 since they were in xerox impression. The opinion 22 Spl.C.C.104/2006 given by PW-14 is marked at Ex.P-31. The specimen signatures marked at S12(1) to S12(6) (6 pages) and S12(7) of H.R.Shantha Kumar Shetty(deceased accused No.1) are marked at Ex.P-32 & P-33 respectively. The specimen signatures & initials marked at S24(1) to S24(6) (6 sheets) of Basavamuniyappa(accused No.2) are marked at Ex.P.34. The standard initial of accused No.2- Basavamuniyappa marked and stamped as S24(7) found in the office letter dated 22.07.1994 is marked as Ex.P-35.
45. PW-14 has been cross-examined at length on behalf of deceased accused No.1 & accused No.2. He stood to the test of cross-examination. Nothing contrary has been elicited during the course of cross-examination so as to disbelieve his oral testimony.
46. The prosecution has examined CW23-N.T.Shivakumar, the then Police Inspector, Karnataka Lokayuktha, Bangalore, as PW-15. PW15 has deposed that, he executed the Search Warrant (Ex.P36) and conducted search of the residential house of deceased accused No.1 and submitted Report as per Ex.P-37. PW-15 has deposed that, during search, no incriminating materials were found in the house of deceased accused No.1.
47. The prosecution has examined CW25-K.M.Muddaiah, the then Police Inspector, Karnataka Lokayuktha, Bangalore, as PW-16. PW-16 has deposed that, he took up further investigation of the case from P.K.Shivashankar. On 22.7.1996, he received the Sanction Order. After receipt of the Sanction Order, he prepared the charge sheet and submitted before the Court on 7.8.1996.
23 Spl.C.C.104/2006
48. The prosecution has examined CW-20-Shoba Nambishan as PW-17. PW-17 is the Sanctioning Authority. PW-17 has deposed that, she has gone through the prosecution papers, Final Report, CET Application Forms, Admission Forms, Report of the Handwriting Expert and she has given sanction for prosecution of deceased accused No.1 & accused No.2. The Sanction Order dated 7.11.2005 is marked at Ex.P38.
49. The prosecution has examined CW27-B.S.Ramamohan, the then Police Inspector, Karnataka Lokayuktha, Bangalore, as PW-18. PW18 has deposed that, on 4.1.2006, he received fresh Sanction Order dated 7.11.2005 from the Chief Secretary to Government, Education Department(Higher Education) to prosecute Sri Shantha Kumar Shetty-deceased accused No.1 & Sri Basavamuniyappa-accused No.2 and submitted charge sheet against accused No.1 to 5.
50. It is well settled that the demand of illegal gratification by the public servant and acceptance of the same is sine-qua-non for constituting the offence u/s 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. The prosecution is required to prove that there was demand and acceptance of bribe to bring home the guilt of the accused.
51. In order to attract Sections 8 & 9 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, it is necessary that the accused should have had the animus or intent at the time when he receives gratification that it is received as a motive or a reward for inducing a public servant by corrupt or illegal means.
24 Spl.C.C.104/2006
52. In order to attract Sec.13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act,1988, it must be established that, i) a public servant by corrupt or illegal means, obtains for himself or for any other person any valuable thing or pecuniary advantage; or ii) by abusing his position as a public servant, obtains for himself or for any other person any valuable thing or pecuniary advantage; or iii) while holding office as a public servant, obtains for any person any valuable thing or pecuniary advantage without any public interest.
53. In the present case, PW2-T.K.Prakash & PW13-Krishna, who are the material witnesses to prove the factum of demand and acceptance of illegal gratification of Rs.25,000/- by the accused No.2, through accused No.3 & 4 as a motive or reward to show an official favour and also to influence accused No.1 to do an illegal act of putting signature on the forged medical ranking certificate issued to accused No.5, have turned hostile. They have not supported the prosecution case. The prosecution has failed to prove the theory of demand and acceptance of illegal gratification of Rs.25,000/-by the accused No.2, from PW13-Krishna through accused No.3 & 4 as a motive or reward to show an official favour and to influence accused No.1 to do an illegal act of putting signature on forged and fake medical ranking certificate. As the basic ingredients of 'demand and acceptance' as stated in Section 7 are not found, it cannot be said that the accused Nos.1 to 5 committed an offence punishable under Sections 7, 8, 9, 13(1)(d) r/w 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act,1988.
25 Spl.C.C.104/2006
54. The next allegation made against the accused No.1 to 5 is that, they hatched a criminal conspiracy to do an illegal act and in furtherance of such conspiracy, with malafide intention of helping accused No.5 to get admission to MBBS course, knowing fully well that accused No.5 was having CET Admission Ticket No.JS 1956 and she got medical ranking No.11987, with an intention to cheat the Director of Medical Education, deceased accused No.1 & accused No.2 dishonestly & fraudulently issued forged ranking certificate to accused No.5 through accused No.3 & 4 showing registered No.ZX 0684 & medical ranking No.3047A which actually belongs to Pranshu Gupta, knowing fully well that the said certificate will be used by accused No.5 as genuine certificate for cheating the Director of Medical Education and accused Nos.3 & 4 handed over the said forged medical ranking certificate to accused No.5, who in turn presented the same before the Director of Medical Education to get admission for medical course.
55. Ex.P-24 is the original CET Admission Ticket of accused No.5. It reveals that CET Admission Ticket No. of accused No.5 was JS 1956. Ex.P26 is the original Application Form for admission to professional courses i.e., B.E. MBBS, etc. in professional Colleges in Karnataka under payment seat for the year 1993-94 submitted by accused No.5-Gali Mrudula. Along with the said application, Form No.1,2, 3, 4, 5 of CET 1993 were enclosed. In the said Forms, CET Admission Ticket No.of Gali Mrudula-accused No.5 was shown as JS 1956. From this it is clear that, CET Admission Ticket No. of accused No.5 was JS 1956.
26 Spl.C.C.104/2006
56. The original Application Form seeking admission to medical course under payment seat submitted by accused No.5- Gali Mrudula is marked as Ex.P-5. The documents enclosed to the said Application Form are marked at Ex.P-5(a) to (j). The original rank certificate issued in favour of Accused No.5-Gali Mrudula is marked at Ex.P-5(f). The said certificate was issued on 28.10.1993. The said certificate reads as under:
"This is to certify that Kum.Gali Mrudula has appeared for the Common Entrance Test 1993, vide Register No.ZX 0684 & her Medical rank comes to 3047A and Engineering rank 4647A."
The said rank certificate was issued by deceased accused No.1 & verified by accused No.2. The said certificate bears the signature of deceased accused No.1. Accused No.2 put his initial for having verified the rank certificate. The signature of deceased accused No.1 found in the rank certificate is marked as Q3 & the initial of accused No.2 found in the rank certificate is marked as Q9.
57. The questioned signature/initial found in medical rank certificate-Ex.P5(f) issued in favour of accused No.5 and five other rank certificates issued in favour of Soumya Navit, S.H.Ajay, Ashish Dolarray Joshi, Sheetal Vagarali Kovi Kavitha (one of the accused in Crime No.21/93, 22/93, 24/93, 25/93 & 26/93) were sent to Forensic Science Laboratory for scientific examination and opinion. The questioned signatures of the deceased accused No.1 found in the rank certificates were stamped & marked as Q1 to Q6.
27 Spl.C.C.104/2006 The questioned initials/signatures of the accused No.2 found in the rank certificates were stamped & marked as Q7 to Q12. The specimen signatures of the deceased accused No.1 were stamped & marked as S1 to S12 & S12(1) to S12(6). The specimen initials/ signatures of the accused No.2 were stamped & marked as S13 to S24 & 24(1) to 24(6). Admitted initial of the accused No.2 found in office letter dated 22.7.1994(Ex.P-35) was stamped & marked as S24(7). After scientific examination of the questioned, standard & admitted signatures and initials of deceased accused No.1 & accused No.2, the Handwriting Expert submitted his Report as per Ex.P-31. The Handwriting Expert has opined that, the person who wrote the standard signatures marked at S1 to S12, S12(1) to S12(7) also wrote the questioned signatures marked at Q1 to Q5 and the person who wrote the standard signatures/initials marked at S13 to S24 & S24(1) to S24(7) also wrote the questioned signatures/initials marked at Q7 to Q11.
58. The Handwriting Expert-PW14 has given detailed reasoning for the arrival of his opinion. Handwriting Expert's opinion-Ex.P31 coupled with oral evidence of PW-14 reveals that the signature marked at Q3 & Q9 in the rank certificate-Ex.P5(f) were that of deceased accused No.1 & accused No.2.
59. The oral evidence of PW3-Dr.S.Kantha, goes to show that she being one of the Members of the Selection Scrutiny Committee to select the candidates for the MBBS & other course for the Academic Year 1993-94 conducted interviews of the candidates who were aspirants to the Medical seats under the Payment Quota 28 Spl.C.C.104/2006 on 29.10.1993. The Committee identified 6 candidates viz; 1) Soumya Navit, 2) S.H.Ajay, 3) Gali Mrudula, 4) Ashish Dolarray Joshi, 5) Sheetal Vagarali 6) Kovi Kavitha, whose CET admission number & CET rank number did not tally with each other compared to the original ranking list sent by the Director of Technical Education. On verification of the Application & other documents submitted by Gali Mrudula (accused No.5) they found that the CET Admission No. ZX 0684 & Medical ranking No.'3047A' furnished by her belongs to one Pranshu Gupta. So also on comparison of CET Admission number & ranking number of other 5 candidates with the Rank List sent by Director of Technical Education, they found differences between them and those ranking numbers & CET numbers belong to some other candidates. As such, the admission to the above 6 candidates were withheld and the same had been notified in the Notice Board. On the next day i.e. 30.10.1993 Lokayuktha Police came to her office and enquired about this fact. She gave the list of the 6 candidates. Subsequently on 2.12.1993, she furnished the application along with other documents submitted by the candidates to the Lokayuktha Police. There are no reasons to disbelieve the version of PW-3. Admittedly, there is no ill-will or enmity between PW-3 & accused so as to give false evidence. Moreover, PW-3 was holding an important & responsible position. Her evidence cannot be simply ignored.
60. On appreciation of the evidence of PW3-Dr.S.Kantha, PW14-Syed Asgar Imam(Handwriting Expert), documentary evidence viz., Ex.P24- CET Admission Ticket, Ex.P26-Application 29 Spl.C.C.104/2006 Form for admission to MBBS & other courses, Ex.P5(f)-Rank certificate dated 28.10.1993 & Ex.P31-Handwriting Expert's Report, it reveals that, deceased accused No.1 & accused No.2 knowing fully well that accused No.5 was having CET Admission Ticket No.JS 1956 & got medical ranking No.11987 and not awarded rank in Engineering, had fraudulently & dishonestly issued a forged & fabricated ranking certificate in favour of accused No.5 showing Register No. as ZX 0684, her medical ranking as 3047A & Engineering ranking as 4647A which actually belongs to one Pranshu Gupta knowing fully well that the said certificate will be used by accused No.5 as genuine certificate for cheating PW3- Director of Medical Education and getting admission to Medical course. The accused No.5 knowing fully well that it is a forged & fabricated document, presented the said forged certificate before PW3-Director of Medical Education, along with the Application Form seeking admission to medical course under payment seat. The intention of accused No.5 was to get admission to Medical course by producing forged rank certificate. Immediately after coming to know that the Application Form & other documents submitted by Gali Mrudula(accused No.5) and other five candidates who were one of the accused in Crime No.21/93, 22/93, 24/93, 25/93 & 26/93, were not tallying with that of original ranking list sent by the Director of Technical Education, PW3 withheld the admission to the said 6 candidates and same has been notified in the Notice Board. PW3 had also orally informed the Lokayuktha Police on 30.10.1993, regarding non-tallying of the ranking numbers of 6 candidates with that of the original rank list furnished by the Director of Technical Education.
30 Spl.C.C.104/2006
61. The learned counsel appearing for accused No.5 has strongly argued that, in view of withholding of admission to Medical course, by producing of forged rank certificate by the accused No.5 there is neither any wrongful gain to anyone nor any wrongful loss to another. The act of the accused No.5 could not be termed to have been done dishonestly. Likewise, the accused No.5 cannot be said to have any dishonest intention to defraud because her action resulted in no disadvantage to anyone.
62. The above said argument, in my opinion in not acceptable, because of the reason that at the time of producing the forged rank certificate by the accused No.5 before the Selection Committee, she had the knowledge that it was forged & fabricated one. The accused No.5 has produced the forged rank certificate before the Selection Committee to use it as genuine certificate. Her intention was to get admission to Medical course by producing forged & fabricated rank certificate though she was ineligible to get Medical seat. The production of forged & fabricated rank certificate before the Selection Committee was definitely for her wrongful gain. She has done it dishonestly & fraudulently. Because of the fact that PW3 withheld admission of 6 candidates to Medical course, it cannot be said that no harm or damage or disadvantage caused to any person. By issuing forged & fabricated rank certificate by deceased accused No.1 & accused No.2, using the said certificate as genuine certificate by accused No.5 and producing the said forged & fabricated certificate by accused No.5 before the Selection Committee, the deceased accused No.1, accused No.2 & accused 31 Spl.C.C.104/2006 No.5 virtually played fraud, a fraud to the detriment of the general public at large and bonafide & merited candidates in particular.
63. To bring home the charge of conspiracy within the ambit of Section 120-B IPC, it is necessary to establish that there was an agreement between the parties for doing an unlawful act. Conspiracy is a mental act and it is usually hatched up in secrecy. It is no doubt true that it is difficult to establish conspiracy by direct evidence and, therefore, from the established facts an inference could be drawn. This view of mine is supported by the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Vijayan -v- State of Kerala; (1999) 3 SCC 54.
64. In the case on hand, the prosecution has produced sufficient material to infer a conspiracy between the deceased accused No.1, accused No.2 & accused No.5 to forge & fabricate the rank certificate and to produce it before PW3-Director of Medical Education to use it as genuine and for getting admission to accused No.5 for MBBS course. The prosecution has established the connection between the alleged conspiracy and the act done pursuant to the said conspiracy.
65. None of the prosecution witnesses have spoken about the involvement of accused No.3 & 4 in the entire episode. There is absolutely no evidence against accused No.3 & 4. The prosecution has miserably failed to prove the charges leveled against the accused No.3 & 4.
32 Spl.C.C.104/2006
66. I have gone through the decisions relied on by the learned Counsel for the accused No.5. I have borne in mind the ratio laid down in the decisions quoted by the learned advocate for the accused. I respectfully agree with the ratio laid down in the decisions relied on by the learned advocate for the accused. But the facts of this case stands on different footing. Hence, those decisions will not be helpful for the accused in any way.
67. The prosecution has proved beyond reasonable doubt that accused Nos.2 & 5 have committed an offence punishable under Sections 120-B, 420 468, 474 & 511 of IPC. The prosecution has failed to prove that accused Nos.2 to 5 have committed an offence punishable under Sections 7,8,9,13(1)(d) r/w 13(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act,1988. The prosecution has failed to prove the charges leveled against accused No.3 & 4 under Sections 120-B, 420 468, 474 & 511 of IPC. Hence, I answer Point No.1 to 3 in the affirmative and Point No.4 in the negative.
68. Point No.5:- In the result, I proceed to pass the following :
ORDER The accused Nos.2 & 5 are found guilty of the offence punishable under Sections 120-B, 420, 468, 474 & 511 of IPC.
The accused Nos.2 & 5 are acquitted under Section 235(1) of Cr.P.C. of the offence punishable under Sections 7,8,9,13(1)(d) r/w 13(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act,1988.
33 Spl.C.C.104/2006 The accused No.3 & 4 are acquitted u/s 235(1) of Cr.P.C. of the offence punishable under Sections 120-B, 420, 468, 474, 511 of IPC & Sections 7, 8, 9, 13(1)(d) r/w 13(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act,1988.
Bail bonds executed by the accused Nos.3 & 4 stands cancelled.
The order regarding sentence as against accused Nos.2 & 5 will be passed after hearing both sides.
(Dictated to the judgment writer directly on the computer, after transcription, corrected by me and then pronounced by me in the open court on this the 6th day of December 2017) (SHRIDEVI S. ANGADI) LXXVI Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge & Special Judge,Bengaluru (CCH-77) 34 Spl.C.C.104/2006 ORDER REGARDING SENTENCE Accused Nos.2 & 5 are present before the Court and they are taken into custody. Heard the learned Spl.P.P. & Advocate for convict/accused Nos.2 & 5 regarding sentence.
Advocate for convict/accused No.2 submits that the accused person is married and having family. He is retired Government servant. He is suffering from age old ailments. He is chronic diabetic and B.P.patient. He is under constant medication. Hence, pleaded mercy and requested to take leniency in sentence. He also pleaded hardship.
Advocate for convict/accused No.5 submits that accused No.5 is a Dentist by profession. She is married and having two minor children. Her husband-Ramesh Babu is a sick person, he is suffering from brain hemorrhage. He is virtually bed-ridden. There is nobody in her family to look after him. She is having reputation in the society. The offence has been committed in the year 1993 i.e 24 years back. At the time of commission of the offence, she was just 18 years old. She was not in a position to take proper decision. It was her parents who had taken decision to get admission to Medical course. Further he submits that, the accused No.5 has not been previously convicted in any case. For the last 24 years, she is under constant surveillance of the Court. She has not violated the bail conditions. The offence for which she is convicted are punishable with imprisonment for a term of 7 years. Hence, 35 Spl.C.C.104/2006 requested to release the accused No.5 on probation of good conduct by invoking the provisions of S.360 of Cr.P.C.
Spl.P.P. submits that since the accused persons have committed fraud detriment to the public at large, it is not a fit case to take leniency or to release the accused No.5 on probation of good conduct under S.360 of Cr.P.C. He requested to impose maximum sentence.
Settled legal position is that awarding of sentence should be always proportionate to the nature of the offence, its impact on the society, the mitigating & aggravating circumstances if any, brought out by the parties.
The offence committed by accused No.2 & 5 is serious in nature and it affected the society at large. The entire examination system of Medical & Engineering course was affected. Therefore, it is not a fit case to release the accused No.5 on probation of good conduct by invoking the provisions of S.360 of Cr.P.C.
Having regard to the gravity & seriousness of the offence, its impact on the society, age & other background of the convict/accused No.2 & 5 is just and proper to impose quantum of sentence & fine.
In the result, I proceed to pass the following :
ORDER Acting u/s 235(2) of Cr.P.C., accused Nos.2 & 5 are convicted for the offence punishable under Sections 120-B, 420, 468, 474 & 511 of IPC.
36 Spl.C.C.104/2006 The accused Nos.2 & 5 are convicted & sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for a period of 3(three) years for the offence punishable under Sec.420 IPC and ordered to pay fine of Rs.10,000/-(Rupees ten thousand only)each. In default to pay the fine, the convict/accused Nos.2 & 5 shall undergo simple imprisonment for a period of two months.
The accused Nos.2 & 5 are convicted & sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for a period of 3(three) years for the offence punishable under Sec.468 IPC and ordered to pay fine of Rs.10,000/-(Rupees ten thousand only)each. In default to pay the fine, the convict/accused Nos.2 & 5 shall undergo simple imprisonment for a period of two months.
The accused Nos.2 & 5 are convicted & sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for a period of 3(three) years for the offence punishable under Sec.474 IPC and ordered to pay fine of Rs.10,000/-(Rupees ten thousand only)each. In default to pay the fine, the convict/accused Nos.2 & 5 shall undergo simple imprisonment for a period of two months.
The accused Nos.2 & 5 are convicted & sentenced to suffer imprisonment for a period of 1(one) year for the offence punishable under Sec.511 IPC.
37 Spl.C.C.104/2006
The accused Nos.2 & 5 are convicted &
sentenced to suffer imprisonment for a period of 6 months for the offence punishable under Sec.120-B IPC.
All the sentences of imprisonment shall run concurrently.
In the event fine amount is paid or realized, the said amount shall be remitted to the State Exchequer.
The accused No.2 & 5 are entitled for set off u/s 428 of Cr.P.C.
Issue Conviction Warrant.
Office is directed to supply free copy of the Judgment & Order to the accused Nos.2 & 5 forthwith.
(Dictated to the judgment writer in the open court, transcribed by her and after corrections, signed and pronounced by me in the open court on this the 6th day of December 2017) (SHRIDEVI S. ANGADI) LXXVI Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge & Special Judge,Bengaluru (CCH-77) ANNEXURE List of witnesses examined on behalf of the prosecution:
PW1 Prof.P.V.Bhandari
PW2 T.K.Prakash
PW3 Dr.S.Kantha
38 Spl.C.C.104/2006
PW4 C.N.Vamanamurthy
PW5 Srikantaprasad N.
PW6 G.N.Biradhar
PW7 Hanumantharayappa
PW8 G.Venkatesh
PW9 A.N.Subramanyam
PW10 M.Gangireddy
PW11 G.Basavaraj
PW12 K.V.Prasad
PW13 M.Krishna
PW14 Syed Asgar Imam
PW15 N.T.Shivakumar
PW16 K.M.Muddaiah
PW17 Shobanambishan
PW18 B.S.Ramamohan
List of documents marked on behalf of prosecution:
Ex.P.1 Covering letter
Ex.P.1(a) Signatures of PW1
Ex.P.2 Addl.rank list
Ex.P.3 Xerox copy of office order
Ex.P.4 Statement of PW2
Ex.P.5 Application of A5
Ex.P.5(a) Passport size photos
Ex.P.5(b) Xerox copy of DDs(3)
Ex.P.5(c) Xerox copy of SSLC marks card
Ex.P.5(d) Xerox copy of intermediate marks card
Ex.P.5(e) Original medical certificate
Ex.P.5(f) Original rank certificate
Ex.P.5(g) Xerox copy of CET admission ticket
Ex.P.5(h) Original T.C
Ex.P.5(i) Original character certificate
Ex.P.5(j) Original study certificate
Ex.P.6 Xerox copy of mahazar
Ex.P.6(a) Signature of PW-4
Ex.P.7 to 10 4 papers containing the specimen
Ex.P.11 sheet containing the signature of
39 Spl.C.C.104/2006
A1
Signature of A1
Ex.P.7(a) to
11(a) Signatures of PW4
Ex.P.12 Xerox copy of specimen application
form
Ex.P.13 Mahazar
Ex.P.13(a) Signature of PW5
Ex.P.14 to 17 4 sheets of paper containing the
specimen signature of A2
Ex.P.14(a) to
17(a) Signatures of PW5
Ex.P.18 Portion of Statement of PW6
Ex.P.19 List pertaining to medical seats
Ex.P.20 List pertaining to Dental colleges
Ex.P.21 List pertaining to Pharmacy
colleges
Ex.P.22 Admission ticket of K.S.Nandini
Ex.P.23 Seizure Mahazar
Ex.P.23(a) Signature of PW7
Ex.P.24 Original CET Admission ticket
Ex.P.25 Mahazar
Ex.P.25(a) Signature of PW8
Ex.P.26 Application of A5
Ex.P.27 Complaint
Ex.P.27(a) Signature of PW-10
Ex.P.28 FIR
Ex.P.29 Sanction Order
Ex.P.29(a) Signature of PW12
Ex.P.30 Statement of M.Krishna
Ex.P.31 Handwriting Expert's opinion
Ex.P.32 6 sheets containing the specimen
signatures of A-1
Ex.P.33 Signature of accused on leave letter
Ex.P.34 6 sheets containing the standard
initials (6 sheets)
Ex.P.35 Standard initial of accused No.2
Ex.P.36 Copy of Search warrant
Ex.P.37 Copy of Report of PW-15
40 Spl.C.C.104/2006
Ex.P.38 Sanction Order dt: 7.11.2005
Ex.P.38(a) Signature of PW-17
List of witnesses examined on behalf of the accused:
-Nil-
List of documents marked on behalf of the accused:
Ex.D.1 copy of rank certificate issued by Asst.Director of Technical Education Ex.D.2 Relevant date in the statement of Basavaraj (SHRIDEVI S. ANGADI) LXXVI Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge & Special Judge,Bengaluru (CCH-77) 41 Spl.C.C.104/2006 Accused No.2 & 5 files an application u/s 389 (3) of Cr.P.C for suspension of sentence and fine till the appeal period is over. It is stated in the application that the accused Nos.2 & 5 intended to file an appeal. Hence, requested to suspend the sentence & fine for a period of 60 days and to enlarge them on bail.
Learned Spl.P.P. has seriously opposed the application. Heard.
Records would disclose that accused Nos.2 & 5 were throughout on bail and have not indulged in any act prejudicial to prosecution and have not violated any of the conditions of bail. Taking this aspect into consideration and the fact that accused No.2 & 5 are not likely to abscond, this court is of the considered view that the sentence & fine imposed on the accused Nos.2 & 5 deserves to be suspended. Accordingly, sentence & fine imposed on the accused Nos.2 & 5 are suspended till 6.1.2018.
Accused Nos.2 & 5 are enlarged on bail subject to the condition that they should appear before the Court whenever summoned to receive the Order of sentence & fine imposed on them on executing personal bond for Rs.1,00,000/- with one surety for the like sum.
Surety affidavit of Syed Hasham, s/o Syed Abbas is filed. He files Declaration u/s 441-A of Cr.P.C., stating that he is willing to stand as surety to accused No.5. Along with surety affidavit, notarized copy of the tax paid receipt, Will dated 31.10.96 in respect of the site measuring 30 x 40 ft. situated at Old Bamboo Bazar, Imam Mohalla, Harihar, ID card issued by Election Commission of India, tax demand register extract, are produced. All the documents are verified with the original.
Surety affidavit of Syed Hasham, s/o Syed Abbas for accused No.5 is hereby accepted.
Accused No.2 submits that he will furnish surety and remit the fine amount tomorrow and requested to release him on Personal Bond. In the interest of justice, accused No.2 is released on Personal Bond for Rs.1,00,000/-. Accused No.2 is directed to produce surety and to remit the fine amount on 7.12.2017.
42 Spl.C.C.104/2006 Office is directed to take Bond from accused No.5 and her surety.
(SHRIDEVI S. ANGADI) LXXVI Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge & Special Judge,Bengaluru (CCH-77) 43 Spl.C.C.104/2006 Judgment pronounced in the open court(vide separate Judgment) Accused No.2,3,4 & 5 present ORDER The accused Nos.2 & 5 are found guilty of the offence punishable under Sections 120-B, 420, 468, 474 & 511 of IPC.
The accused Nos.2 & 5 are acquitted under Section 235(1) of Cr.P.C. of the offence punishable under Sections 7,8,9,13(1)(d) r/w 13(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act,1988.
The accused No.3 & 4 are acquitted u/s 235(1) of Cr.P.C. of the offence punishable under Sections 120-B, 420, 468, 474, 511 of IPC & Sections 7, 8, 9, 13(1)(d) r/w 13(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act,1988.
Bail bonds executed by the accused Nos.3 & 4 stands cancelled.
44 Spl.C.C.104/2006 The order regarding sentence as against accused Nos.2 & 5 will be passed after hearing both sides.
(SHRIDEVI S. ANGADI) LXXVI Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge & Special Judge,Bengaluru (CCH-77)