Bangalore District Court
Lokayukta Police Inspector vs Nagaraj Naik on 7 August, 2018
IN THE COURT OF THE LXXVIII ADDL.CITY CIVIL & SESSIONS
JUDGE & SPECIAL JUDGE (PCA), BENGALURU (CCH.79)
Present: Sri. Ravindra Hegde,
M.A., LL.M.
LXXVIII Addl. City Civil & Sessions
Judge & Spl. Judge (PCA),
Bengaluru.
Dated this the 7th day of August 2018
Spl.C.C. No.475/2014
COMPLAINANT: Lokayukta Police Inspector,
City Division, Karnataka Lokayukta,
Bengaluru.
(By Public Prosecutor)
- Vs -
ACCUSED: 1. Nagaraj Naik,
S/o Raja Naik,
38 yrs, Police constable,
No.8833, JP Nagar PS,
Bengaluru.
No.21, B Block, 2nd floor,
Y.G.Palya Police Quarters,
Ashoknagar, Bengaluru-47.
2. Ram Bricks Yadav,
S/o Bulak Yadav, 35 years,
Pawn stall, C/o Chula Chowki
Daba, 21st main, JP Nagar,
Bengaluru-78.
(For A-1 - Sri. PNH Advocate.
For A-2-Sri. LD/GKV Advocates)
2 Spl.C.C. No.475/2014
Date of commission of
offence 28-10-2013
Date of report of occurrence 31-10-2013
Date of arrest of accused: 05-11-2013
Date of release of accused on 05-11-2013
bail:
Date of commencement of 21-11-2017
evidence
Date of closing of evidence 13-06-2018
Name of the complainant Sri. Vamshi Krishna
Offences complained of U/s 7, 8, 13(1)(d) r/w
13(2) of PC Act, 1988.
Opinion of the Judge ACQUITTED
Date of Judgment: 07-08-2018
JUDGMENT
The Police Inspector, Karnataka Lokayukta, City Division, Bengaluru has filed this charge sheet against accused Nos. 1 and 2 for the offences punishable under Sections 7, 8, 13(1)(d) r/w Sec. 13(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act 1988 (In short PC Act).
2. Brief facts of the prosecution case is as under:-
Accused No.1-Nagaraj Naik is working as Police constable in JP Nagar Police station, Bengaluru and is a public servant. Accused No.2-Ram Bricks Yadav, is private person.3 Spl.C.C. No.475/2014
Complainant-Vamshi Krishna gave complaint before Lokayukta Police Inspector on 31.10.2013 stating that his application for passport had come to JP Nagar Police station for verification and accused No.1, visited house of complainant and has behaved rudely with father and wife of complainant and asked for documents and accused demanded Rs.3,000/- to process verification report and took Rs.400/- on 28.10.2013 from complainant and has repeatedly made phone call to wife of complainant and demanded bribe and complainant recorded conversation with accused and produced CD containing recorded conversation with accused. On receiving complaint, Lokayukta Police have registered the case in Crime No.62/2013 and submitted F.I.R. to the Court against Accused No.1. Lokayukta Police Inspector secured panchas and made all arrangements to trap accused and on the same day trap team proceeded to trap accused in JP Nagar Police station and near police station, when complainant made phone call to accused, he informed that he is on night duty and later called complainant and asked him to give bribe amount of Rs.3,000/- in pan shop near Chular Chowki Dhaba and at 3.05 p.m. On the say of accused No.1, owner of the pan shop accused No.2 has received tainted notes and was caught by Lokayukta police and tainted notes were seized from him. Thereafter, accused No.1 was also secured and complainant identified him as person who demanded and asked him to give tainted notes 4 Spl.C.C. No.475/2014 to accused No.2 and both accused Nos.1 and 2 were arrested and produced before court. Trap procedures were followed and Investigating Officer continued further investigation and after completion of investigation and after securing prosecution sanction order against accused No.1, filed charge sheet against both accused.
3. Cognizance of offences is taken by this court. Accused Nos.1 and 2 have appeared before the court and are enlarged on bail. Copies of prosecution papers are furnished to both accused. After hearing both sides regarding framing of charge and having found prima-facie materials, charge is framed against both accused and read over to them. They have pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.
4. In support of the prosecution case PWs 1 to 4 are examined. Documents as per Exs.P.1 to P.22 are marked and MOs 1 to 13 are also marked.
5. After completion of prosecution evidence, statement of accused as required under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. is recorded and accused have denied incriminating evidence appearing against them. Accused have not chosen to lead any defence evidence on their behalf.
6. Heard the arguments and perused the records.
5 Spl.C.C. No.475/20147. Now, points that arise for my consideration are:-
POINTS
1) Whether prosecution proves beyond all reasonable doubt that accused no.1 being public servant working as police constable in JP Nagar Police station has on 28.10.2013 with regard to police verification for passport of complainant, his wife and child, visited residence of complainant and demanded bribe and received Rs.400/- on 28.10.2013 and again reiterated his demand for bribe of Rs.3,000/-
from complainant and on 31.10.2013 at 3.05 p.m. near Pan shop of Chular Chowki Dhaba, near JP Nagar Police station, Bangalore when complainant talked to accused No.1 by phone he again re-iterated the demand and asked complainant to give bribe amount of Rs.3,000/- to accused No.2 who was in pan shop and thereby accused No.1 has received illegal gratification from complainant through accused No.2 as a motive or reward to do official act or to do official favour to complainant and thereby committed an offence punishable u/s 7 of Prevention of Corruption Act?
2) Whether prosecution further proves beyond all reasonable doubt that accused No.1 being public servant working as police constable in JP Nagar Police station has on 31.10.2013 at 3.05 p.m. near Pan shop of Chular Chowki Dhaba, near JP Nagar Police station, Bengaluru, has by corrupt or illegal means or by abusing his position as public servant, obtained pecuniary 6 Spl.C.C. No.475/2014 advantage of Rs.3,000/- from complainant through accused No.2 without public interest and thereby committed offence of criminal misconduct which is an offence u/s 13(1)(d) of Prevention of Corruption Act, punishable u/s 13 (2) of Prevention of Corruption Act?
3) Whether prosecution further proves beyond all reasonable doubt that in pan shop of Chular Chowki Dhaba, near JP Nagar Police station, Bengaluru, accused No.2, on 31.10.2013 at 3.05 p.m. has received illegal gratification amount of Rs.3,000/- from complainant on behalf of accused No.1, to induce him by corrupt means to do official act of complainant or favour to complainant and thereby committed an offence punishable u/s 8 of Prevention of Corruption Act?
4) What order?
8. My findings on the above points are :-
Point No. 1 : In the Negative.
Point No. 2 : In the Negative.
Point No. 3 : In the Negative.
Point No.4 : As per final order, for the following:
REASONS
9. Point Nos. 1 to 3 : Since these points are interlinked with each other, they are taken together for discussion to avoid repetition.
7 Spl.C.C. No.475/201410. To prove charge against accused Nos.1 and 2 for offences under Sections 7, 8, 13(1)(d) r/w/s 13(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act, prosecution has examined 4 witnesses as P.Ws. 1 to 4. P.W.1 - Madlerigowda is Shadow witness. P.W.2- Shivalingaiah is Head Constable of Police station who had given information about accused No.1 and took Lokayukta Police Inspector to house of accused No.1. P.W.3 - Manjunath K.R is Police Sub-Inspector of JP Nagar Police station who has identified voice of accused in recordings played before him. P.W.4 Puttaswamy.H.P., Police Inspector, Karnataka Lokayukta is Investigating Officer in this case.
11. On behalf of prosecution, documents at Exs.P.1 to P.22 are marked. Ex.P.10 is complaint and Ex.P.12 is FIR. Ex.P.2 is sheet containing details of currency notes. Pre-trap mahazar is marked as Ex.P.3. Transcription of the recordings in the CD produced by complainant is marked as Ex.P.4. Transcription of recordings of conversation in mobile at the time of trap is marked as Ex.P.6. Trap mahazar is marked as Ex.P.5. Explanations given by accused Nos.1 and 2 are respectively marked as Exs.P.7 & 8. Sample seal is marked as Ex.P.9. Report given by P.W.3 is marked as Ex.P.11. Rough sketch of the spot is marked as Ex.P.13 and sketch prepared by Engineer of PWD is marked as Ex.P.22. Copy of nominal role is marked as Ex.P.14. SHD copy is marked as Ex.P.15. Copy of 8 Spl.C.C. No.475/2014 passport book and other documents pertaining to work of complainant is marked as Ex.P.16. Two mobile bills are marked as Ex.P.17. Service details of accused No.1 is marked as Ex.P.18. Chemical examination report is marked as Ex.P.19. Expert's report regarding voice identification is marked as Ex.P.20. Call details are marked as Ex.P.21. M.Os.1 to 13 are also marked for the prosecution. M.O.1 is shirt of accused No.2. M.Os.2 to 6 are bottles containing solutions taken at different stages of proceedings. M.O.7 is mobile phone. M.Os. 8 to 12 are C.Ds. M.O.13 is tainted notes of Rs.3,000/-.
12. As per the materials placed by prosecution, C.W.1- complainant gave Ex.P.10-Complaint before P.W.4-Investigating Officer stating that in respect of police verification on the passport application, accused No.1 visited their house and has demanded bribe and had received Rs.400/- on 28.10.2013 and then he again demanded bribe of Rs.3,000/- and this conversation of accused demanding bribe was recorded. On receiving complaint, P.W.4 registered the case and secured P.W.1 and C.W.3-Smt. S.Niveditha as panch witnesses and followed pre-trap procedure. Complainant produced Rs.3,000/- in denomination of Rs.500x6 and number of notes were noted on Ex.P.2 and phenolphthalein powder was applied to notes and P.W.1 kept tainted notes in left side shirt pocket of C.W.1 and thereafter his hands were washed in sodium carbonate 9 Spl.C.C. No.475/2014 solution. Thereafter, contents of CD produced by complainant was transcribed as per Ex.P.4 and after taking copy, original C.D. was seized as per M.O.8. C.W.1 was given instructions to meet accused and then to give tainted notes only in case of demand and to flash signal by wiping his head and digital voice recorder was also given to C.W.1 and P.W.1 was asked to accompany C.W.1 as shadow witness and to observe the activities and to report later. Pre-Trap Mahazar as per Ex.P.3 was prepared and signatures were taken.
13. It is further case of the prosecution that, thereafter trap team proceeded towards JP Nagar police station and vehicles were stopped near R.V. Dental college and C.W.1 made a phone call to accused No.1 and accused No.1 has informed that he is on night duty and will be coming at 8 p.m. and C.W.1 informed that he will not be available after 7 p.m. and then, accused No.1 told that he will call later. Thereafter, accused No.1 called C.W.1 and asked him to go to pan shop near Chular Chowki Dhaba and to give bribe amount to the person in pan shop. Accused No.1 has also talked to the person in pan shop by mobile phone of C.W.1, who is accused No.2 and as told by accused No.1, complainant gave tainted notes to accused No.2 and accused No.2 took the amount and kept it in his shirt pocket and then signal was given by C.W.1 and immediately trap team came and trap procedures were 10 Spl.C.C. No.475/2014 followed and hand wash of accused No.2 was made. Thereafter they came to JP Nagar Police station. In the meanwhile, Investigating Officer has sent another Lokayukta Police Inspector C.W.12 S.T.Yogesh to police station to enquire about accused No.1 and C.W.12 secured information about phone number of accused and also his residence address from P.W.2 and along with P.W.2 he went to house of accused No.1 and brought him to JP Nagar Police station along with mobile without having sim and two mobile bills. In JP Nagar police station both complainant and accused No.2 have identified accused No.1 and then sample voice of accused No.1 was recorded. The recordings in the mobile of complainant and also the CD produced at the time of complaint were played before P.W.3 and he has identified the voice of accused No.1 and gave report as per Ex.P.11. Shirt of accused No.2 was seized. On questioning both accused have given written explanation as per Exs.P.7 and 8 and explanation of accused No.1 was found not acceptable and both accused were arrested and produced before the court. Trap mahazar as per Ex.P.5 was prepared and signatures were taken. P.W.4 continued further investigation and after completion of investigation and securing prosecution sanction order as per Ex.P.1 he has filed the charge sheet.
11 Spl.C.C. No.475/201414. Among the witnesses examined for prosecution, P.W.1, shadow witness has stated the prosecution case in his chief evidence. P.W.1 has stated that after making phone call to accused No.1 at the time of trap, C.W.1 told that accused No.1 informed him that he is on night duty and asked him to give amount to accused No.2. He has stated that then they all proceeded to Dhaba and there, complainant met accused No.2 and gave tainted notes and he kept it in left side shirt pocket and thereafter gave signal and immediately they went there and trap procedures were followed etc., He has also stated regarding another Police Inspector securing accused No.1 and also about trap mahazar as per Ex.P.5. In his cross- examination he has admitted that copy of passport register is secured by Lokayukta Police Inspector and admitted that in that register it is shown that application of Supriya and Vamshi Krishna are received in JP Nagar Police station on 24.10.2013 and on 29.10.2013 Investigating Officer has visited the address of applicant Supriya and on 30.10.2013, report is stated to have been sent to COP. He has stated that complainant had produced mobile while giving complaint and it was transmitted to CD in Lokayukta office and complainant had told that he had recorded conversations with accused on 31.10.2013. He has stated that Lokayukta Police Inspector had instructed him to accompany C.W.1 and after getting down near RV Dental College, C.W.1 while making call 12 Spl.C.C. No.475/2014 proceeded towards JP Nagar Police station and he followed him. He has admitted that he do not personally know, to whom complainant had made a call. He has stated that when complainant went to Dhaba, himself and other members of the trap team were outside Dabha and after getting signal they went near Pan shop. He has stated that as C.W.1 asked them to come only after giving signal, he had gone near pan shop with complainant earlier.
15. P.W.2 has stated about furnishing details of Accused No.1 and accompanying Police Inspector while bringing accused No.1 to Police Station from his house. P.W.3 has stated about identifying voice of accused in recorded conversations played before him and giving report as per Ex.P.11.
16. P.W.4 is Investigating Officer who has stated about investigation done by him and also about filing of charge sheet. In his cross-examination he has admitted that logging date for passport was mentioned in complaint as 24.10.2013 and admitted that police official had visited residence for verification on 29.10.2013 and admitted that after verification if there is no adverse remarks report will be sent to Commissioner of police. He has stated that on the date of trap i.e on 31.10.2013 he has collected passport book as per Ex.P.16 and as per this, the verification report in respect of 13 Spl.C.C. No.475/2014 Vamshi Krishna was already sent to Commissioner of Police on 30.10.2013. He has admitted that in the course of investigation he found that there was no official work of complainant pending before accused No.1 as on 31.10.2013. He has stated that C.W.2 has not stated details of conversation had between the complainant and accused No.2 near Pan shop. He has stated that he has seen accused NO.1 only in JP Nagar Police station.
17. In order to bring home the guilt of accused No.1 for the offences under Sections 7, 13(1)(d) r/w/s 13(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act, prosecution has to prove that accused being public servant has demanded and accepted illegal gratification for doing any official act or for doing official favour. On proof of commission of offence under Section 7, such act of accused would be criminal misconduct coming under Section 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. To prove guilt of accused No.2, prosecution has to prove that accused No.2 has received the tainted notes by corrupt or illegal means to influence public servant to do an official act or favour.
18. In this case, prosecution sanction order against accused No.1 has been marked as Ex.P.1 by consent. Therefore, there is no dispute regarding validity of prosecution 14 Spl.C.C. No.475/2014 sanction order issued against accused No.1. To prove demand of illegal gratification, its acceptance and recovery, there are 4 witnesses examined as PWs 1 to 4. The complainant Vamshi Krishna and his wife with whom accused No.1 is said to have demanded bribe, have not given evidence. Inspite of all efforts both CWs 1 and 9 could not be secured and their evidence is not available before the court. P.W.1 is the only witness to say about acceptance of bribe by accused No.2 on behalf of accused No.1.
19. To prove demand of bribe by accused No.1 prior to giving of complaint, in the absence of evidence of complainant and his wife, prosecution have to rely only on the CD alleged to be containing conversation of complainant with accused No.1 regarding demand for bribe. CD produced by complainant is marked as M.O.8. During pre-trap proceedings, the recordings in M.O.-8 CD has been transcribed as per Ex.P.4 and signatures were taken. P.W.1 in his cross-examination has stated that recording was in mobile and in Lokayukta office, contents were transmitted to CD. In respect of CD and Ex.P.4 transcriptions, there is no certificate under Sec.65-B of Indian Evidence Act obtained. Even during the trap after parking the vehicle complainant is said to have made a phone call to accused No.1 and informed about his presence and that he had brought amount and then accused made a phone call to 15 Spl.C.C. No.475/2014 complainant and asked him to give amount in pan shop of accused No.2. These conversations in mobile are also stated to have been recorded in mobile and then during trap proceedings it was played and then transmitted to CD as per M.O.-10 and contents were transcribed as per Ex.P.6. Even in respect of these CD M.O.-10 and Ex.P.6 transcription there appears to be no certificate obtained under Sec.65-B of Indian Evidence Act. In trap mahazar and in evidence of PWs 1 and 4 it is stated that sample voice of accused No.1 was obtained in JP Nagar Police station and it was transmitted to CD as per M.O.11 and then in the course of investigation this CD was sent along with M.O.-8 and 10 for obtaining experts opinion. Even in respect of sample voice CD, no such certificate as required under Evidence Act is taken. When there is no certificate under Sec.65-B of Indian Evidence Act, even report of Forensic Science Laboratory about voice identification as per Ex.P.20 would loose its importance.
20. In a decision reported in 2014 AIR SCW 5695 (Anvar P.V -Vs- P.K.Basheer and others), Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that "when the secondary evidence of the electronic records are produced before the Court, they cannot be admitted in evidence, unless the secondary evidence is accompanied by certificate under Section 65B of Indian Evidence Act". The mobile and voice 16 Spl.C.C. No.475/2014 recorder in which recordings were made are not produced in this case. The CDs and transcriptions which are not supported by certificate under Section 65B of Indian Evidence Act, are not admissible in evidence and will not help prosecution. When CDs are not admissible in evidence, report of P.W.3 regarding voice identification will also be of no help to prosecution.
21. Call details are also produced as per Ex.P.21. Even in respect of call details there is no certificate under Sec.65-B of Indian Evidence Act. As held by Hon'ble Supreme Court in Crl. Appeal No.2539/2014 Hardeep Singh Vs State of Punjab dated 21.11.2016, even call details without certificate under Sec.65-B of Indian Evidence Act are not admissible. Therefore, the CDs alleged to be containing conversation with accused and its transcriptions and even call details cannot be relied by prosecution to establish its case as they are in-admissible. In the absence of these records, there is no evidence to show any demand of bribe by accused as complainant and his wife C.W.-9 are not examined. P.W.1 shadow witness though was present with complainant at the time of trap, in his cross-examination, he has stated that he was at a distance of about 3-4 meters and has stated that he did not personally know to whom complainant had made a phone call. Therefore, regarding demand of bribe by accused 17 Spl.C.C. No.475/2014 at the time of trap, even evidence of P.W.1 do not help the prosecution. Therefore, demand of bribe amount by accused either before giving complaint or subsequent to giving of complaint is not established in this case.
22. As per Sec.7 of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, demand of illegal gratification must be as motive or reward for doing any official act or for doing some official favour to the person. In this case, passport application given by complainant had come to JP Nagar police station for verification and accused had visited house of complainant for passport verification. In Ex.P.10, Log in date for passport is mentioned as 24.10.2013. Even P.W.4 has admitted that police official had visited residence for verification on 29.10.2013 and verification report in respect of Vamshi Krishna was already sent to Commissioner of police on 30.10.2013. He has even admitted that in the course of investigation he found that there was no official work of complainant pending with accused as on 31.10.2013. Even Ex.P.16 discloses that report was submitted on 31.10.2013 i.e. one day prior to giving Ex.P.10 complaint. Therefore, as on the date of complaint there was no work of complainant to be attended by accused. Date on which accused demanded bribe is not mentioned in complaint. Evidence before the court show that passport verification was already done and report 18 Spl.C.C. No.475/2014 was already submitted to Commissioner of police and as on 31.10.2013, there was no work of complainant pending with accused.
23. When demand of bribe is not established, acceptance of amount and recovery of amount from accused has no relevance. Still, coming to the acceptance of bribe, accused No.1 who is public servant has not personally received the tainted notes. According to prosecution, when phone call was made at the time of trap by C.W.1, accused No.1 informed that he is on night duty and then he asked complainant to give amount to accused No.2 who is in pan shop in Chular Chowki Dhaba. Evidence of P.W.1 show that it was complainant who informed them that he had made phone call to accused and P.W.1 does not personally know whether call was made to accused No.1. Moreover complainant has not given evidence in this case. Under such circumstances, even acceptance of bribe amount by accused No.2 on behalf of accused No.1 is not established. Moreover even accused No.2 has stated in his explanation given as per Ex.P.8 that complainant gave him a phone stating that a person wants to talk with him and the said person has told him that he is police man and he is regularly coming to his shop to eat pan and he asked him to receive amount of Rs.3,000/- and keep it with him and he would collect later in the evening. This explanation given by 19 Spl.C.C. No.475/2014 accused No.2 is even accepted by panchas as true as mentioned in trap mahazar Ex.P.5. In the explanation accused No.2 has no where stated that it was accused No.1 who asked him to receive amount. Therefore, even explanation of accused No.2 do not implicate accused No.1. Therefore, even if, accused No.2 receiving tainted notes of Rs.3,000/- is proved, it will not establish that on behalf of accused No.1, accused No.2 has accepted this amount knowing it to be illegal gratification. Therefore, acceptance of tainted notes as illegal gratification by accused No.2 for himself or on behalf of accused No.1 is not established. Since, there is no link between accused No.2 and work of complainant, except allegation that on the say of accused No.1 he has received amount, no fault can be found with accused No.2. Though tainted notes were recovered from accused No.2 and his hand wash in sodium carbonate solution is stated to have turned to light pink colour, mere recovery of tainted notes does not prove guilt of accused Nos.1 and 2.
24. On looking to entire evidence, demand of bribe amount by accused to do any official act of complainant or to do an official favour to complainant is not established in this case. Therefore, even acceptance of amount by accused No.2 without knowing it to be illegal gratification does not prove commission of offence under Sec.7 of Prevention of Corruption 20 Spl.C.C. No.475/2014 Act by accused No.1. Though there is presumption U/s.20 of Prevention of Corruption Act, only on proof of demand and acceptance of amount, presumption can be drawn. Since demand is not proved, even presumption also cannot be drawn. Even otherwise evidence clearly show that as on the date of complaint, no work of complainant was pending with accused No.1.
25. For all these reasons, prosecution has failed to prove that accused No.1 has demanded and has accepted illegal gratification from complainant through accused No.2 and committed offence under Section 7 of Prevention of Corruption Act. As acceptance of illegal gratification or pecuniary advantage by accused by mis-using his position as public servant is not established, even offence of criminal mis- conduct under Sec.13 (1)(d) of PC Act is not established. Therefore, commission of any offence by accused No.1 is not proved. Though amount was given to accused No.2, he is stated to have received the amount, when a person told him in phone that he is police man and asked him to receive amount. Therefore this acceptance and subsequent recovery of amount from accused No.2 by Lokayukta police does not prove that accused No.2 has taken illegal gratification for himself or for accused No.1 as a motive or reward for inducing accused No.1 to do any work of complainant as alleged.
21 Spl.C.C. No.475/2014Therefore, even commission of offence by accused No.2 under Sec.8 of PC Act is not established. Therefore, prosecution has failed to prove the guilt of accused Nos.1 and 2. Accordingly, points Nos.1 to 3 are answered in the Negative.
26. Point No.4:- For the discussion on Point Nos.1 to 3, accused are to be acquitted. Hence, following order is passed:
ORDER Accused No.1 and 2 are found not guilty.
Acting u/s 235(1) of Cr.P.C. accused Nos.1 and 2 are acquitted from the charges levelled against them for the offences under Sections 7, 8, 13(1)(d) r/w 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.
The bail bonds executed by accused persons and their sureties stand cancelled.
M.O.13 Cash is ordered to be confiscated to the State after expiry of appeal period.
M.O.1 to 6 & M.O.8 to 12 are ordered to be destroyed after expiry of appeal period, as they are worthless.22 Spl.C.C. No.475/2014
M.O.7 Mobile phone is ordered to be returned to accused No.1, after expiry of appeal period.
(Dictated to the Judgment-writer, transcribed by her, corrected, signed by me and then pronounced in the open court on this the 7th day of August 2018) (Ravindra Hegde) LXXVIII Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge & Special Judge (PCA), Bengaluru.
ANNEXURE List of witnesses examined for the prosecution:
PW.1 Madlerigowda PW.2 Shivalingaiah PW.3 K.R.Manjunath PW.4 Puttaswamy H.P.
List of documents exhibited for the prosecution:
Ex.P.1 Prosecution sanction order Ex.P.2 Rs.3,000/- currency notes P.2(a) Signature of P.W.1 Ex.P.3 Pre-trap mahazar P.3 (a) Signature of P.W.1 23 Spl.C.C. No.475/2014 P.3(b) Signature of P.W.4 Ex.P.4 CD transcribed sheet P.4(a) Signatures of P.W.1 Ex.P.5 Trap mahazar P.5(a) Signature of P.W.1 P.5(b) Signature of P.W.4 Ex.P.6 Conversation record P.6 (a) Signature of P.W.1 Ex.P.7 Explanation of accused No.1 P.7 (a) Signature of P.W.1 P.7 (b) Signature of P.W.4 Ex.P.8 Explanation of accused No.2 Ex.P.8(a) Signature of P.W.1 Ex.P.8(b) Signature of P.W.4 Ex.P.9 Sample seal Ex.P.9(a) Signature of P.W.1 Ex.P.10 Complaint P.10 (a) & (b) Signatures of P.W.4 Ex.P.11 Report of P.W.3 P.11(a) Signature of P.W.3 P.11(b) Signature of P.W.4 Ex.P.12 FIR Ex.P.12(a) Signature of P.W.4 Ex.P.13 Rough sketch P.13 (a) Signature of P.W.4 Ex.P.14 Original documents of nominal role Ex.P.15 SHD Copy Ex.P.16 Passport book & other documents Ex.P.17 Two postpaid bills of mobile of accused No.1 Ex.P.18 Service details of accused No.1 P.18 (a) Signature of P.W.4 Ex.P.19 Chemical examination report on 13.12.2013 Ex.P.20 Chemical examination report on 19.12.2013-Voice recorders CD 24 Spl.C.C. No.475/2014 Ex.P.21 Call details of accused No.1 Ex.P.22 Sketch
Evidence adduced on behalf of the defence :
- Nil -
Documents marked on behalf of the defence:
- Nil -
Material Objects marked by Prosecution :
MO-1 Shirt
MO-1(a) Cover
MO-2 to 6 Bottles containing solution
MO-7 Mobile phone
MO-7 (a) Cover
MO-8 to 12 C.Ds
MO-8(a) to 12 (a) Covers
MO-13 Cash
MO-13 (a) Cover
LXXVIII Addl. City Civil & Sessions
Judge & Special Judge (PCA),
Bengaluru.
***
25 Spl.C.C. No.475/2014