Bangalore District Court
Ganesh Mandodka vs Kalyana Raman on 16 January, 2024
Judgment 1 CC.No.9558/2011
KABC030095712011
Presented on : 23-03-2011
Registered on : 23-03-2011
Decided on : 16-01-2024
Duration : 12 years, 9 months, 24 days
IN THE COURT OF IV ADDITIONAL CHIEF
METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE COURT, BENGALURU
PRESENT: Smt. Vidya. K. B.Sc., M.A. LL.M.
IV Addl. CMM, Bengaluru.
Dated This the 16th day of January, 2024
CRIMINAL CASE NO. 9558/2011
State through the Police Sub Inspector,
Baiyappanahalli Police Station,
Bengaluru. ...COMPLAINANT
(By Learned Sr. Asst. Public Prosecutor)
2 CC 9558/2011
Vs.
R. Kalyan Raman,
S/o Ramamurthy,
Aged about 44 years,
R/o No.283, Classic Paradise Layout,
Beguru main road,
Bengaluru.
...Accused
(By Ms. S.M.A. Advocate)
******
1 Date of commission of * 01.08.2007 to
offence 01.10.2009
2 Date of reporting of * 15.04.2010
offence
3 Date of arrest of Accused * On anticipatory bail
4 Name of complainant * Ganesh Montadka
5 Date of recording evidence * 05.12.2014
6 Date of closing evidence * 16.11.2022
3 CC 9558/2011
7 Offence complained of * Section 408, 420 and
477(A) of Indian Penal
Code.
8 Opinion of the Judge * As per final order
9 State represented by * Learned Senior
Assistant Public
Prosecutor
10 Accused defended by * Ms. S.M.A. Advocate
(VIDYA K.)
IV ADDITIONAL CHIEF METROPOLITAN
MAGISTRATE, BENGALURU.
JUDGMENT UNDER SECTION 355 OF CRIMINAL
PROCEDURE CODE
That, the Accused has faced Trial for the
offences punishable Under Section 408, 420 and
477(A) of Indian Penal Code upon challan filed by
4 CC 9558/2011
the Police Sub-Inspector of Baiyappanahalli Police
Station, Bengaluru in furtherance to the Private
Complaint filed by Complainant before the instant
court seeking cognizance offences and after
referring matter to jurisdictional Police station
directing to file Report aftermath Private
Complaint, which had culminated in filing Charge
sheet for the offences Punishable Under Section
408, 420 and 477(A) of Indian Penal Code.
2. Brief facts of the prosecution unfolded during
the trial is as under:-
It is alleged by the prosecution that within
the Jurisdictional Limits of Baiyappanahalli
5 CC 9558/2011
Police Station the Accused being appointed in
SanDisc India Device Design Centre Private
Limited company as Office Manager on
17.10.2005 was promoted as Finance
Manager-II during 2007 and was entrusted
with the job of supervising the finance
management, when situation stood so, the
Accused from the intervening period of
24/04/2007 to 12/10/2009 had
misappropriated sum of ₹70,00,000/- by
falsifying accounts had transferred the said
amount to his personal account bearing
No.00531000117145 of HDFC Bank and
6 CC 9558/2011
thereby committed offences of criminal breach
of trust, cheating, falsification of accounts
punishable under Section 408, 420 and 477A
of Indian Penal Code.
3. That, primordially defacto Complainant had
maintained memorandum of private Complaint
under section 200 of Criminal Procedure Code,
seeking to take cognizance of offences punishable
under Sections 405, 406, 408, 415, 417, 418, 420,
463, 464, 465, 477A of Indian Penal Code, on the
said backdrop Learned Predecessor in office
had referred matter to Jurisdictional
7 CC 9558/2011
Baiyappanahalli police Station pursuant to the
Complaint lodged by CW1 who had set criminal
law in motion and had registered First Information
Report in Cr. No. 127/2010 and same was sent to
the court, further Panchanama of the scene of
offences and statement of witnesses were
recorded. On completion of the investigation
charge sheet came to be filed against the Accused
for the offences Punishable under Section 408, 420
and 477(A) of Indian Penal Code. Thereafter,
cognizance was taken as against Accused in
respect of the said offences and in furtherance to
this summons came to be issued against him,
8 CC 9558/2011
Wherein pursuant to issuance of due process
Accused had appeared before court and engaged
services of Counsel.
4. That, the Accused after appearing before the
court through his counsel was released on regular
bail. Furthermore, Copy of the charge sheet was
furnished to him in consonance with section 207 of
Criminal Procedure Code and there after matter
was set down for hearing before charges,
furthermore as there were sufficient materials to
frame charges, charges under section 408, 420
and 477(A) of Indian Penal Code came to be
9 CC 9558/2011
framed and the sum and substance of Charges
read over and explained to him in the known
language Kannada, wherein which he had not
pleaded guilty and claimed to be tried. Hence, the
case was posted for Prosecution evidence.
5. That, in order to bring home the guilt of Accused
though frantic efforts were made in examining
witnesses cited in charge sheet at CW1 to CW13,
by issuing witness summons, Witness Non-Bailable
and Bailable Warrant for requisite sum to official
witnesses coupled with publication of
proclamation repeatedly at the instance and prayer
of Prosecution, except CW1, CW2 and CW12 who
10 CC 9558/2011
were examined as PW1 to PW3 other witnesses
could not be secured despite coercive mode of
service cited supra, in light of which it was humbly
opined that the prayer of Prosecution for reissuing
of processes to the said charge sheeted witnesses
would not enure any fruits, hence having due
regards to the year of pendency, facts and
circumstances of case, by hearing prayer of
prosecution and rejecting same, in order to save
valuable time of court had dropped other charge
sheeted witnesses from charge sheet and closed
Prosecution side evidence, furthermore though
CW1 was subjected as PW2 during examination-
11 CC 9558/2011
in-chief and prosecution had got exhibited
documents at Ex.P1 and CW2 was examined as
PW1 but to the dismay both the witnesses had
not offered for further chief and cross-examination
respectively, hence the evidence of PW1 and PW2
came to be discarded, added to this though official
witness CW12 was examined as PW3 his role was
restricted to the extent of securing the Bank
Account details of Accused, and except this
nothing is out coming from the evidence of
Prosecution which would bring home the guilt of
accused.
12 CC 9558/2011
6. That, at the risk of repetition is emphasized that
when PW1 and PW2 had not offered themselves
for cross-examination and other witnesses had not
appeared to tender their witness despite repeated
issuance of witness summons, Non Bailable and
Bailable Warrant for requisite sum and Publication
of Proclamation, having due regards to the facts,
circumstances and year of case frantic efforts
made to secure PW1 and PW2 for cross-
examination and further chief was merely a futile
exercise, hence by discarding the evidence of PW1
and 2, which had nullifying effect in the eyes of law
for non completion of evidence thereupon whilst
13 CC 9558/2011
closing Prosecution evidence matter was set down
for recording Statement Under section 313(1)(b) of
Criminal Procedure Code.
7. That, after recording Statement Under Section
313(1)(b) of Criminal Procedure Code,
incriminating circumstances prevailing as against
Accused was read over, wherein Accused by
denying the incriminating circumstances had
stated that he has no defence evidence to lead,
hence matter was set down for arguments, in
furtherance to this heard Learned Senior Assistant
Public Prosecutor and Learned Counsel appearing
for the Accused.
14 CC 9558/2011
8. Upon hearing arguments and on perusal of
materials placed on records, following points arises
for consideration.
:POINTS:
1. Whether the prosecution proves
beyond all reasonable doubt that
within the Jurisdictional Limits of
Baiyappanahalli Police Station the
Accused being appointed in SanDisc
India Device Design Centre Private
Limited company as Office Manager on
17.10.2005 was promoted as Finance
Manager-II during 2007 and was
15 CC 9558/2011
entrusted with the job of supervising
the finance management, when
situation stood so, the Accused from
the intervening period of 24/04/2007
to 12/10/2009 had misappropriated
sum of ₹70,00,000/- by falsifying
accounts had transferred the said
amount to his personal account
bearing No.00531000117145 of HDFC
Bank and thereby committed offences
of criminal breach of trust, cheating,
falsification of accounts punishable
16 CC 9558/2011
under Section 408, 420 and 477A of
Indian Penal Code. ?
2. If so, What Order?
9. That, after careful perusal of materials on records
and giving anxious consideration to the arguments
addressed by Prosecution and Defence, findings
on the point coined supra is as follows:-
POINT NO.1 : In the Negative
POINT NO.2 : As per final order for
the following:-
::REASONS::
10. POINT No.1:- That, it is the definite case of
prosecution that within the Jurisdictional Limits of
17 CC 9558/2011
Baiyappanahalli Police Station the Accused being
appointed in SanDisc India Device Design Centre
Private Limited company as Office Manager on
17.10.2005 was promoted as Finance Manager-II
during 2007 and was entrusted with the job of
supervising the finance management, when
situation stood so, the Accused from the
intervening period of 24/04/2007 to 12/10/2009
had misappropriated sum of ₹70,00,000/- by
falsifying accounts had transferred the said
amount to his personal account bearing
No.00531000117145 of HDFC Bank and thereby
committed offences of criminal breach of trust,
18 CC 9558/2011
cheating, falsification of accounts punishable
under Section 408, 420 and 477A of Indian Penal
Code as stated supra, on the said backdrop the
prosecution in order to substantiate its stand
though had taken all strains and pains to examine
chargesheeted witnesses, it was partially successful
in examining PW1 and PW2, wherein PW1 had not
offered for cross-examination and PW2 had not
offered for further examination in chief, added to
this from the oral evidence of sole official witness
so as PW3 Prosecution was not successful in
proving the offences beyond all reasonable doubt,
hence having due regards to the facts and
19 CC 9558/2011
circumstances for the reasons cited in superior
paragraphs by dropping other prosecution
witnesses and discarding evidence of PW1 & PW2
had closed Prosecution side evidence. Further it
was learnt that the Defacto Complainant and
Accused had arrived at common consensus and
settled their scores, in light of attending
circumstances it is opined that the prosecution has
not brought home the alleged offences beyond
reasonable doubt for the reasons that it is trite
where Prosecution should not rely on the
weakness in the case of Defence and has to bring
home the guilt of Accused beyond all reasonable
20 CC 9558/2011
doubt without giving rooms to suspicion,
Resultantly bearing in mind well settled
proposition of law accentuating Criminal
Jurisprudence and having due regards to the facts
and circumstances of case, Point No.1 Coined by
this court is answered IN THE NEGATIVE.
11. POINT No.2: That, on the foothold of
deliberations made on Point No.1 this court
proceeds to pass the following:-
ORDER
That, Acting under Section 248(1) of Criminal Procedure Code Accused 21 CC 9558/2011 is hereby acquitted for the offence punishable under Sec.408, 420 and 477(A) of Indian Penal Code.
That, the Bail bond of Accused and surety bond of surety stands canceled and are set at liberty after expiry of period of appeal.
(Directly Dictated to the Stenographer over Computer, the computer script generated by her is corrected, rectified and revised by me and thereafter pronounced in the open court on this 16th day of January 2024).
(VIDYA K.) IV ADDITIONAL CHIEF METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE, BENGALURU.
22 CC 9558/2011
:ANNEXURES:
LIST OF WITNESSES EXAMINED ON BEHALF OF THE PROSECUTION.
PW.1 : Santosh K.R. PW.2 : Ganesh Mandodka PW.3 : Venkatesh
LIST OF WITNESSES EXAMINED ON BEHALF OF DEFENCE:
-NIL-
LIST OF DOCUMENTS MARKED ON BEHALF OF THE PROSECUTION:
Ex.P1 Spot Mahazar Ex.P1(a) Signature of PW1 23 CC 9558/2011 LIST OF DOCUMENTS MARKED ON BEHALF OF DEFENCE SIDE:
-NIL-
(VIDYA K.) IV ADDITIONAL CHIEF METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE, BENGALURU.