Bangalore District Court
Serious Fraud Investigation Office vs C P Yogeshwara on 17 January, 2026
KABC030814932021
Presented on : 10-11-2021
Registered on : 10-11-2021
Decided on : 17-01-2026
Duration : 4 years, 2 months, 7 days
IN THE COURT OF THE XLII ADDITIONAL CHIEF JUDICIAL
MAGISTRATE, BENGALURU CITY
Present: Shri.K.N.SHIVAKUMAR, B.Sc.,(Agri),L.L.M.,
XLII Addl.CJM, Bengaluru City
Dated this the 17th day of January, 2026
C.C.No. 30750/2021
C/w
C.C.No. 30756/2021
COMPLAINANT: SERIOUS FRAUD INVESTIGATION OFFICE,
Ministry of Corporate Affairs
Government of India,
2nd Floor, Paryavaran Bhawan,
CGO Complex, Lodhi Road,
New Delhi - 110003.
Represented by Assistant Director
Mr. Somendra Kumar Nanda.
(Represented By Sri. NCS, Advocate)
-Vs-
ACCUSED: 1. Sri. C.P. Yogeshwara,
S/o. Sh. Puttamade Gowda,
Aged about 48 Years,
Managing Director of Megacity
(Bengaluru) Developers
& Builders Limited,
C.C.No. 30750/2021
2
C/w
C.C.No.30756/2021
464, 1st 'G' Cross,
2nd Phase, BSK 3rd Stage,
BENGALURU 560085.
(A1 Represented by Sri. VKJ Advocate)
2. M/s. Mega City (Bengalore) Developers &
Builders Pvt Ltd.,
Mega Tower, 120,
Kengal Hanumanthaiah Road,
BENGALURU 560027.
(A2 Represented by Sri. K.M.N Advocate)
JUDGMENT
The Complainant has filed complaints U/Sec.200 of Code of Criminal Procedure for the offences punishable U/sec.420, 416, 419 & 177 of IPC in C.C. No. 30750/2021 and for the offences punishable U/Sec.266G & 628 of the Companies Act, 1956 against the Accused.
2. The case of the prosecution in brief is as follows; The accused No.1 was the Managing Director of accused No.2- M/s. Megacity (Bengaluru) Developers & Builders Ltd., (herein after referred to as 'MDBL'). Which was incorporated as a private limited company on C.C.No. 30750/2021 3 C/w C.C.No.30756/2021 11/08/1994 and converted into a public limited company on 12/08/1998, with the object of carrying on the business to develop, construct, furnish, let-out, sell, deal in and to carry on all or any of the functions of Proprietors of lands, flats, dwelling houses, shops, offices, commercial complexes, factory sheds, buildings and accommodation of all kinds. The accused No.1 was dis- qualified from the Directorship of said company on 30/11/2009 U/sec. 274(1)(g) of the Companies Act, 1956. In spite of it, the accused No.1 knowingly & intentionally furnished false information about his name, his father's name & the addresses to the Directors Identification Number (in short 'DIN') Cell of Ministry of Corporate Affairs (in short 'MCA') of the Government of India, in ordered to obtain more than one DIN Numbers in violation of Sec.266C of the Companies Act, 1956. The accused No.1 in order to get Directorship in some other companies obtained more than one DIN Numbers by dishonestly inducing the authorities of DIN Cell of MCA C.C.No. 30750/2021 4 C/w C.C.No.30756/2021 by personating himself with different names & addresses and thereby cheated the said authorities by impersonation. Accordingly, the accused No.1 has committed the offences punishable U/sec.177, 416, 419 & 420 of IPC and Sec.266G & 628 of the Companies Act, 1956.
3. The complaints were filed by a Public Servant one Sri. Somendra Kumar Nanda, Assistant Director of Serious Fraud Investigation Office (in short 'SFIO') Ministry of Corporate Affairs, Government of India and as such examination of the complainant U/Sec.200 of Cr.P.C was dispensed. On perusal of the complaint allegations and the documents produced along with the complaint, this court has taken cognizance of alleged offences punishable U/sec.266G and 628 of the Companies Act in C.C. No.30756/2021 and issued summons to the accused. Similarly, on the basis of the complaint allegations and the documents produced along C.C.No. 30750/2021 5 C/w C.C.No.30756/2021 with the complaint, this court has taken cognizance of alleged offences punishable U/sec.177, 416, 419 & 420 of IPC in C.C. No.30750/2021 and issued summons to the accused. The accused upon service of summons entered their appearance through their counsel and they are enlarged on bail.
4. In the connected C.C. No. 30756/2021 the allegations of the complaint are same as that of the allegations in the C.C. No. 30750/2021. However, it is alleged in C.C. No. 30756/2021 that the accused have committed the offences punishable U/sec.266G & 628 of the Companies Act, 1956. In the course of trial it was brought to notice of this court that, the offence punishable U/sec.266G was compounded before the Hon'ble Company Law Board, Chennai in C.A No.287/2014 on 22/05/2015, which was also confirmed by Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka in C.A No.17/2015, on 22/07/2022 and permitted the trial of the offences C.C.No. 30750/2021 6 C/w C.C.No.30756/2021 punishable U/sec.177, 416, 419 & 420 of IPC in C.C. No.30750/2021. Further, it was submitted that the offence punishable U/sec.628 of the Companies Act alleged in C.C. No.30756/2021 was not compounded and as such, said C.C. No.30756/2021 shall be proceeded for the said offence.
5. Thereafter, in the course of the evidence before charge, it was mutually agreed by both the parties that, as the allegations & issues involved in these cases are one & the same, both these cases can be clubbed together for further trial. Accordingly, these two cases were clubbed and the common evidence before charge U/Sec. 244 of Cr.P.C., was recorded. Thereafter, in the course of hearing before charge it was mutually agreed by both the parties that the offence punishable U/sec. 628 of the Companies Act as alleged in C.C. No. 30756/2021 & the offence punishable U/sec.177 of IPC as alleged in CC No. 30750/2021 are one and the same arising out of C.C.No. 30750/2021 7 C/w C.C.No.30756/2021 a common incident & also having same ingredients and as such either of the said offences have to be charged, but not both. Further, it was also agreed that the offence punishable U/sec. 628 of the Companies Act being under the Special enactment shall prevail over the offence punishable U/sec.177 of IPC, which is a General enactment and as such charge may be framed for the offence punishable U/sec.628 of the Companies Act only. Further, it is also agreed that the offence punishable U/sec.419 & 420 of IPC cannot co-exist as both are different species of the offence of cheating. As such, the ingredients of the allegations made in this case would attract only the offence punishable U/sec.419 of IPC, but not both 419 & 420 of IPC. Accordingly, the charges were framed for the offences punishable U/sec.419 of IPC & Sec.628 of the Companies Act, read over & explained to the accused in the language known to them, wherein they have not pleaded guilty, but claimed for trial. Hence, the case was taken up for trial.
C.C.No. 30750/2021 8 C/w C.C.No.30756/2021
6. In order to prove its case, the Representative of the complainant - Somendra Kumar Nanda, himself got examined as PW1 and got marked 13 documents as Ex.P1 to 13 and also examined one R.S. Chaudhary who is stated to be one of the Member of investigation team appointed by the MCA, Government of India as PW.2. Thereafter, the accused were examined U/sec.313 of Cr.P.C., wherein they have denied the incriminating evidences appeared against them in the evidence of complainant side and submitted to have no defence evidence.
7. Heard the arguments of the learned Counsel for the accused and perused the materials available on record. The counsel for the complainant did not turn up and submitted any arguments.
8. The points that arise for consideration are:
1. Whether the complainant proves beyond reasonable doubts that accused No.1 being C.C.No. 30750/2021 9 C/w C.C.No.30756/2021 the Managing Director of accused No.2 company - Megacity (Bangalore) Developers & Builders Pvt Ltd., having been disqualified from the directorship of a company under Sec.274 (1)(g) of The Companies Act, have knowingly furnished false information about his name, his father's name and addresses to the DIN cell of the MCA in order to obtain more than one DIN numbers in violation of the provisions of Sec.266C of the Companies Act and thereby committed the offence punishable U/sec.628 of the Companies Act ?
2. Whether the complainant proves beyond reasonable doubts that accused No.1 being a disqualified director of MDBL Company under Sec.274(1)(g) of the Companies Act, in order to get directorship in some other companies by obtaining more than one DIN numbers, dishonestly induced the authorities of DIN Cell, MCA by personating himself with different names and addresses & cheated by impersonation and thereby committed the offence punishable U/sec.419 of Indian Penal Code ?
3. What Order ?
9. My answer to the above points are as follows :
Point No.1 & 2 : In the Negative. Point No.3: As per final order for the following;
REASONS C.C.No. 30750/2021 10 C/w C.C.No.30756/2021
10. Point No.1 & 2 :- As these two points are interlinked, they are taken together for common discussion in order to avoid repetition of facts & evidences.
11. It is the specific case of the complainant that, accused No.1 being the managing director of accused No.2 - M/s. Megacity (Bangalore) Developers & Builders Limited, Bangalore had obtained three DIN numbers bearing No. 01637527 on 03/08/2007, DIN No.01743266 on 15/01/2008 & DIN No.02233500 on 24/06/2008, by furnishing false information about his actual name & address to the DIN Cell of MCA, Government of India. It is specifically alleged that while making applications for obtaining said DIN numbers the accused furnished his name, his father's name & the addresses as Chekkerepura Yogeshwara Madegowda, residing at No.524, 3rd Main, Banashankari 3rd Stage, Bengaluru, Chennapattana Yogeeshwara Puttamadegowda, residing C.C.No. 30750/2021 11 C/w C.C.No.30756/2021 at No.1857, Hanumanthnagar, Mysore Road, Chennapatna & Yogeeshwara Madegowda Chekkerepura, Residing at No.367, 7th Block, 2nd Phase, Banashankari 3rd Stage, Bengaluru. But, as per the school records of accused No.1, his name is Yogeshwara C.P i.e., Yogeshwara Chekkere Puttamadegowda. Further, it is alleged that, in the course of investigation when the accused No.1 was questioned, he has stated that he had never changed his name. Thus, it is evident that the accused while obtaining said DIN Numbers, furnished 3 different names of himself as well as his father & the addresses, other than his actual name & address. It is further alleged that, the accused was disqualified from the Directorship of accused No.2 company on 30/11/2009 U/Sec.274(1)(g) of the Companies Act, 1956 and as such he had become ineligible to be director of any other company. As such, he had obtained 3 DIN Numbers by furnishing false information to the DIN Cell in order to show himself to be eligible to be appointed as C.C.No. 30750/2021 12 C/w C.C.No.30756/2021 Director of some other companies. The accused No.1 with such object & intention to get Directorship in other companies obtained 3 DIN Numbers by inducing the authorities of DIN Cell, MCA by dishonestly furnishing false information about his name, his father's name & the addresses. Thus, the accused has committed the offence of cheating by impersonation, which is punishable U/Sec.419 of IPC and also an offence of furnishing false information to the authorities of MCA, which is punishable U/Sec.628 of the Companies Act.
12. In order to prove it's case, the complainant got examined himself as PW1 and also examined a witness as PW2. The PW1 being complainant & PW2 being one of the inspectors of said investigation team have in their evidence reiterated the allegations of the complaint as well as the findings of investigation report with regard to alleged acts of the accused No.1.
C.C.No. 30750/2021 13 C/w C.C.No.30756/2021
13. The PW1 in the course of his evidence got produced the xerox copies of applications alleged to have been submitted by accused No.1 to the DIN Cell in Form DIN -1 as per Ex.P7 to 9 along with the xerox copies of VAT registration certificate, the passports of accused No.1 stated to had been submitted along with his applications. He also got marked xerox copy of the statement of accused No.1 stated to had been recorded by the investigating team in the course of investigation as Ex.P6. Further, the PW1 also got produced the letters given by the Site Members Welfare Association, Mega City Project to the Secretary, Ministry of Corporate Affairs, the Director, SFIO & the Joint Secretary, Ministry of External Affairs, Government of India as Ex.P10 to 12 and also got produced Certified copies of the Statement of accused No.1 dated: 08/02/2011 as per Ex.P13. He further deposed in his evidence that, the accused has not furnished his real name in the applications submitted for obtaining said DIN Numbers, but by furnishing 3 C.C.No. 30750/2021 14 C/w C.C.No.30756/2021 different false names in the said 3 different applications, he got allotment of 3 different DIN Numbers, which is clear violation of the provisions of Sec.266C of the Companies Act, which is punishable U/Sec.628 of the Companies Act.
14. The PW2 in his evidence deposed in support of the case of the complainant as well as in corroboration with the testimony of PW1. He has stated that, in the course of investigation he has recorded the statement of accused No.1 on 08/02/2011, wherein the accused No.1 stated that as per his school records i.e., the Secondary School Certificate, his name was Yogeeshwara Chekkere Puttamadegowda and also stated that he has not changed his name subsequently. But, he had obtained 3 DIN Numbers under 3 different names, like Chekkere Yogeshwara Madegowda, Channapattana Puttamadegowda Yogeshwara & Yogeshwara Chekkerepura Madegowda. He also deposed that, C.C.No. 30750/2021 15 C/w C.C.No.30756/2021 obtaining more than one DIN numbers by a single person is an offence and also obtaining such DIN numbers by furnishing false information is also an offence.
15. In the course of cross-examination of PW1 & 2 as well as his defence arguments, Ld.defence counsel has taken specific contentions that the complainant though makes an allegation that the accused No.1 had filed 3 different applications with different names for obtaining alleged 3 DIN numbers, they have not produced the original such applications or the certified copies of the same from the said DIN Cell of MCA to prove said allegation. The xerox copies of said applications produced by the complainant cannot be admitted in evidence, unless any such secondary evidence in proof of the same as provided U/Sec.63 of the Indian Evidence Act is produced. In the light of this specific contention, on perusal of the testimony of PW1 as well as said applications which were marked as Ex.P7 to 9, it appears C.C.No. 30750/2021 16 C/w C.C.No.30756/2021 that said xerox copies were marked subject to objection of defence counsel as to their admissibility in evidence. As such, the burden lies on the complainant to either produce the original or certified copies of said documents in the course of trial or to produce any such secondary evidences in proof of those documents. But, till conclusion of trial & even till the matter is listed for judgment, the complainant did not produce any such original or certified copies of said documents or any such secondary evidences as contemplated U/Sec.63 of the Indian Evidence Act. Though this matter has been pending for trial since 2012 i.e., for more than 13 years, the complainant for the reasons best known to them have neither secured nor produced any such original or certified copies of those documents and not even made any attempt to lead any such secondary evidence in support of those xerox copies of the documents. Therefore, as rightly argued by the Ld.defence counsel C.C.No. 30750/2021 17 C/w C.C.No.30756/2021 said xerox documents without the support of any secondary evidences cannot be admitted in evidence.
16. Even if, those documents are treated as valid documents for admitting in evidence, whether those documents would establish the guilt of the accused. Let us examine the same for the sake of arguments. On perusal of said Ex.P7 to 9 it appears very clear that, they are the copies of applications with provisional DIN numbers. As per General Guidelines for DIN applications, as provided in the said Ex.P7 to 9 themselves, any applicant applying for any such DIN numbers should fill in the application online and after generating provisional DIN number, he has to take printout of said application and submit to the DIN processing Cell for scrutiny and approval. As such, it appears that, the said applications were generated and obtained provisional DIN numbers, which were submitted for approval. But, there are no materials as to C.C.No. 30750/2021 18 C/w C.C.No.30756/2021 whether those applications were approved and the regular DIN numbers were allotted to accused No.1.
17. Further, on perusal of those applications, it is revealed that they contain several columns requiring various details of the applicant, like the PAN number, the Voter ID Card Number, Passport Number etc.,. On careful perusal of said Ex.P7 to 9, it appears that the PAN Number of accused is mentioned only in the first application at Ex.P7, but not mentioned in the other two applications at Ex.P8 & 9. If so, how the concerned authorities i.e., the DIN processing Cell had accepted said two applications at Ex.P8 & 9. There is no explanation in this regard by the complainant or the inspector PW2. Similarly, in the said applications it is required that the applicant has to furnish any one of the documents mentioned therein in proof of his identity as well as his residence. Further, as per the General Guidelines for DIN Applications, such documents in proof of identity and C.C.No. 30750/2021 19 C/w C.C.No.30756/2021 documents in proof of residence should have been attested by the Gazetted officer of a Government or a practicing charted accountant or company secretary or cost accountant. In this regard, on perusal of said applications at Ex.P7 to 9 it is revealed that, in support of application at Ex.P7 the accused stated to had furnished his Income Tax PAN card as proof of identity and the VAT registration certificate in proof of residence. But, as already discussed herein above, as the complainant could produce only the xerox copies of those documents, it cannot be ascertained as to whether those documents were duly attested by the persons mentioned in the General Guidelines. More so, in Ex.P8 it is stated that the accused has produced the passport in proof of his identity as well as residence. Here also as the complainant could produce only the xerox copies of those documents , it cannot be ascertained as to whether said passport was duly attested by the persons mentioned in the general guidelines. In the absence of such C.C.No. 30750/2021 20 C/w C.C.No.30756/2021 ascertainment, it may not be possible to come to any conclusion as to the actual name of accused No.1, because in the PAN Card & passport submitted by the accused under Ex.P7 & 8, his names appear different. Those two documents are admittedly the authorized documents issued by the authorities of Central Government itself. That being the case, how come those documents could bear the name of accused No.1 differently. That apart, it is pertinent to note that, in support of the application at Ex.P9 the accused appears to have not furnished any document in proof of his identity as well as residence, because in the said application there is no mention about the same. If so, in the absence of mentioning said information, how come the concerned authorities of DIN processing Cell would accept or approve said application. Therefore, even on the basis of those xerox documents also the complainant could not establish his case as to the accused No.1 making such applications with such false information.
C.C.No. 30750/2021 21 C/w C.C.No.30756/2021
18. Further, with regard to the allegation of cheating by impersonation, it is pertinent to note that, when the complainant could not establish the fact that the accused No.1 submitted alleged applications at Ex.P7 to 9, the question of considering as to whether the accused furnished false information about his name, his father's name & addresses may not arise. However, for the sake of arguments, even if it is considered that he made such applications, that would not substantiate the specific allegation of complainant in his complaint. In the complaint it is specifically alleged that, this accused No.1 was disqualified U/Sec.274 (1)(g) of the Companies Act on 30/11/2009 and as such he became ineligible to be Director of any other company. As such, this accused in order to get Directorship in other companies alleged to had obtained alleged 3 DIN numbers by furnishing such false information. But, as stated by the complainant, himself in his complaint as well as evidence and also as C.C.No. 30750/2021 22 C/w C.C.No.30756/2021 reflected from the alleged applications at Ex.P7 to 9, the accused obtained the provisional DIN number 01637527 on 03/08/2007, the provisional DIN number 01743266 on 15/01/2008 & the provisional DIN number 02233500 on 24/06/2008. But, as stated herein above, he was dis- qualified from being Director of a company on 30/11/2009. If so, how could it be said that he obtained alleged DIN number to get Directorship in some other companies as he was disqualified U/Sec.274 (1)(g) of the Companies Act. If at all, he did so, he should have done the same subsequent to his disqualification on 30/11/2009, but not prior to that in anticipation. Therefore, this line of allegation of the complaint cannot be accepted.
19. Further, the PW1 & 2 in their evidence stated that, in the course of investigation, the PW2 had recorded the statement of accused No.1 as per Ex.P6 / Ex.P13, wherein the accused No.1 admitted obtaining 3 DIN C.C.No. 30750/2021 23 C/w C.C.No.30756/2021 numbers by furnishing his name in 3 different manners. In the light of the same, on perusal of said statement at Ex.P13, it appears that though the accused No.1 admitted that his name in the said applications is reflected differently, he says that due to spelling mistakes in expressing the initials of his name, there might be such difference. Further with regard to obtaining 3 DIN numbers, he says that he was under the impression that to become Director in different companies such different DIN numbers are required. Though these explanations may not be acceptable, the complainant has to prove that the accused made such statement before the investigation team, because the accused in the course of cross-examination of PW1 & 2 as well as his examination U/Sec.313 of Cr.P.C., has categorically denied to have given any such statement. But except producing copy of said statement, the complainant has neither adduced any evidence nor produced any materials to prove that said statement was given by the accused.
C.C.No. 30750/2021 24 C/w C.C.No.30756/2021
20. Apart from all the above Ld. Defence counsel has contended that as the very offence of obtaining more than one DINs, which is P/U/Sec.266G of The Companies Act, 1956 was compounded, the corresponding offence P/U/Sec.628 of the said Act would not survive. He also argued that if at all said offence P/U/Sec.628 would survive, Hon'ble High Court while disposing said C.A No.17/2015 would have permitted the trial of said Offence P/U/Sec.628. But, in the said order Hon'ble High court has specifically & clearly held that the trial of the offence punishable U/sec.177, 416, 419 & 420 of IPC in C.C. No.30750/2021 shall be continued, but not stated that the remaining offence punishable U/sec. 628 of the Companies Act after compouding the offence punishable U/sec. 266G of the Companies Act in C.C. No. 30756/2021, on which said C.A No. 17/2015 has arisen shall be continued.
C.C.No. 30750/2021 25 C/w C.C.No.30756/2021
21. In the light of the above contention of the Ld.Defence counsel on perusal of the order of Hon'ble High Court of karnataka in the said C.A No.17/2015, dated: 22/07/2022, it is very clear that Hon'ble high court in the said order has permitted the trial of the offences punishable U/sec.177, 416, 419 & 420 of IPC in C.C. No.30750/2021, but not stated anything as to the continuation of proceedings in respect of the remaining offence punishable U/sec. 628 of the Companies Act in C.C.No.30756/2021 after compounding offence punishable U/sec.266G of the Companies Act. For reference the operative portion of said order is extracted herein below;
" (i) The company appeal is dismissed.
(ii) The order dated: 22/05/2015 in C.A. No. 287/621A/CB/2014 passed by the Board at Chennai is hereby confirmed.
(iii) It is needless to observe that the compounding of offence committed under Section 266C is without prejudice to the case pending before the I Addl. Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bangalore under Sections 177, 420 & 416 of the IPC as stated in the order dated: 22/05/2015.
No order as to costs ".
C.C.No. 30750/2021 26 C/w C.C.No.30756/2021
22. Therefore, as rightly argued by the defence counsel it appears that as the main offence punishable U/sec.266G of the Companies Act was compounded, the other offence punishable U/sec. 628 of the Companies Act, may not survive independently and as such the company law board as well as Hon'ble high court have not stated anything as to whether the proceedings in respect of the remaining offence punishable U/sec.628 of Companies Act as alleged in the said C.C. No. 30756/2021 shall be continued. As such the proceedings for the offence punishable U/sec.628 of the Companies Act after compounding the main offence punishable U/sec. 266G may not survive.
23. From all the above discussed facts, circumstances, evidences and the reasons, it can be concluded that the complainant has miserably failed to prove the guilt of the accused for the offences punishable C.C.No. 30750/2021 27 C/w C.C.No.30756/2021 U/Sec.628 of Companies Act & Sec.419 of IPC, beyond reasonable doubts. Accordingly, Point Nos.1 & 2 are answered in the Negative.
24. Point No.3- In view of the above findings on point Nos.1 & 2, the following order is passed;
ORDER Acting under section 248(1) of Cr.P.C., the accused No.1 & 2 are hereby acquitted of the offences punishable U/Sec.628 of the Companies Act & Sec.419 of IPC.
Bail bonds and surety bonds of the accused shall stand canceled.
(Dictated to the Stenographer directly on computer, after her typing, corrected, signed and then pronounced by me in open Court this the 17th day of January, 2026).
Digitally signed by
KN KN SHIVAKUMAR
SHIVAKUMAR Date: 2026.01.24
15:40:11 +0530
(K.N. SHIVAKUMAR)
XLII Addl. CJM,Bengaluru
(Spl.Court for trial of cases filed against sitting as well as former MPs/MLAs, triable by the Magistrate in the State of Karnataka) ANNEXURE Witnesses examined for the Prosecution:
C.C.No. 30750/2021 28 C/w C.C.No.30756/2021 PW.1 - Somendra Kumar Nanda PW.2 - R.S. Chaudhary Documents exhibited for the Prosecution:
Ex.P1 -C/c of Gazatte Notification Ex.P2 -C/c of Order dated: 17/10/2011 passed by the Ministry of Corporate Affairs Ex.P3 - C/c of Certificate Of Incorporation Ex.P4 - C/c of Memorandum & Articles of Association Ex.P5 - C/c of Order dated 17.04.2009 passed by the Ministry of Corporate Affairs Ex.P6 - C/c of Oath Administered of accused No.1 Ex.P7 - C/c of Form DIN-1 of accused No.1 Ex.P8 - C/c of Value Added Tax Registration Certificate Ex.P9 - C/c of Form DIN-1 of accused No.1 Ex.P10 to 12- Letter given by the Site Members Welfare Association and statements of accused No.1 Ex.P13 - Statement of the accused Witnesses examined for the Defence:
- Nil -
Documents exhibited for the defence:
- Nil -
Material objections:
- Nil - Digitally signed
by KN
KN SHIVAKUMAR
SHIVAKUMAR Date: 2026.01.24
15:40:27 +0530
(K.N. SHIVAKUMAR)
XLII Addl. CJM,Bengaluru
(Spl.Court for trial of cases filed against sitting as well as former MPs/MLAs, triable by the Magistrate in the State of Karnataka)