Bangalore District Court
State By Central Crime Branch vs Nos.1 And 2 Assured To Get Rs.5 Crores ... on 12 December, 2017
IN THE COURT OF THE I ADDL.CMM: BENGALURU
Dated this the 12th day of December 2017.
Present: Shri V.Jagadeesh, B.Sc., LL.B.
I Addl. C.M.M BENGALURU.
JUDGMENT U/s.355 Cr.P.C.,
Case No. : C.C.No.8337/2015
Date of Offence : 8.2.2014 to 23-2-2014
Name of complainant : State by Central Crime Branch,
(OCW), Bengaluru.
Name of accused : 1. Mohammed Asif @ Sanjeev
s/o late S.M.Abu Mohammed,
aged 54 years, r/o No.40,
1st floor, K.S.R.T.C. Block,
Bannimantapa, Mysore,
2. Anadan V. @ Ankur Sharma
s/o Vasudevan, aged 58 years,
r/o No.474, Ambedkar Park,
Last house, Pillanna Garden,
III Stage, Bengaluru,
3. Kishore Veeti (split up).
Offence complained off: U/s.420 r/w Sec.34 of IPC.
Plea of Accused : Pleaded not guilty
Final Order : As per final order
Date of Order : 12-12-2017
2 C.C.No.8337/2015
JUDGMENT
The Inspector of Police, Central Crime Branch (OCW), Bengaluru has filed the charge sheet against the accused Nos.1 to 3 for the offence punishable under Section 420 r/w Section 34 of IPC.
2. It is the case of the prosecution that, C.W.1 was running a firm in the name and style of Lokabioscience, Hyderabad and to develop the said company he intended to borrow a loan from the accused Nos.1 and 2, on 8-12-2014 in room No.528, Oberoy hotel and assured him to get a loan and asked him to come to Mangalore. Therefore, C.Ws.1 to 3 have went to Mangalore and contacted the accused Nos.1 and 2 on 13-2-2014 at Ocean Pulse Hotel and introduced the accused No.3 as a Financier. Further the accused Nos.1 and 2 assured to get Rs.5 crores loan within 25-2-2014 and shown P.F.No.102/2014 in this regard and contacted C.Ws.1 to 3 at Clerk In Hotel on 22-2-2014 and to get Rs.5 crores loan, demanded Rs.60 lakhs bond as a security and received Rs.60 lakhs from C.Ws.1 to 3 and played a fraud on them without repaying the said amount 3 C.C.No.8337/2015 and completed the loan transaction. Under such circumstances, complainant has filed the complaint against the accused Nos.1 to 3. On the basis of the said complaint, the C.C.B. Police have registered the case against the accused Nos.1 to 3 for the offence punishable under Section 420 r/w Section 34 of I.P.C. in Crime No.58/2014. After completion of investigation, the Investigating Officer has filed the charge sheet against the accused Nos.1 to 3 for the aforesaid offences.
3. After appearance of the accused, necessary documents as relied by the prosecution are furnished to the accused as provided under Section 207 of Cr.P.C. Charge has been framed and same is read over and explained to the accused Nos.1 and 2. The accused Nos.1 and 2 pleaded not guilty and claims to be tried. Therefore, the case was posted for prosecution evidence.
4. C.Ws.1 to 15 have been cited as charge sheet witnesses. In order to prove the guilt of the accused Nos.1 and 2, during the course of trial, the C.Ws.11 and 8 are examined as P.Ws.1 and 2 and got marked Ex.P1. So far as 4 C.C.No.8337/2015 other prosecution witnesses are concerned, their presence is not secured inspite of sufficient time, hence they were dropped.
5. During the pendency of the trial, the presence of accused No.3 is not secured. Therefore, case against the accused No.3 is split up and the present case is continued only against accused Nos.1 and 2.
6. After completion of prosecution evidence, the statement of the accused Nos.1 and 2 was recorded under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. The accused Nos.1 and 2 have not adduced any defence evidence on their behalf. Therefore, there is no defence evidence on behalf of the accused Nos.1 and 2.
6. Heard the arguments of learned Senior A.P.P. and counsel appearing for accused. The points that would arise for my consideration are as under:
1. Whether the prosecution proves beyond all reasonable doubt that, the accused Nos.1 and 2 have committed the offence punishable under Section 420 r/w Sec.34 of I.P.C.?
2. What Order ?5 C.C.No.8337/2015
7. My answer to the above points are as under:
Point No.1: In the Negative.
Point No.2: As per final order, for the following:
REASONS
8. Point No.1:- The contention of the prosecution is that C.W.1 is running a firm in the name and style of Lokabioscience, Hyderabad and to develop the said company he intended to borrow a loan from the accused Nos.1 and 2, on 8-12-2014 in room No.528, Oberoy hotel and assured him to get a loan and asked him to come to Mangalore. Therefore, C.Ws.1 to 3 have went to Mangalore and contacted the accused Nos.1 and 2 on 13-2-2014 at Ocean Pulse Hotel and introduced the accused No.3 as a Financier. Further the accused Nos.1 and 2 assured to get Rs.5 crores loan within 25-2-2014 and shown P.F.No.102/2014 in this regard and contacted C.Ws.1 to 3 at Clerk In Hotel on 22-2-2014 and to get Rs.5 crores loan demanded Rs.60 lakhs bond as a security and received Rs.60 lakhs from C.Ws.1 to 3 and played a fraud on them 6 C.C.No.8337/2015 without repaying the said amount and completed the loan transaction and thereby the accused persons have committed the offence punishable under Section 420 r/w Section 34 of IPC.
9. In order to prove the guilt of the accused Nos.1 and 2 for the offence punishable under Section 420 r/w Section 34 of IPC, the C.W.1 is examined as P.W.1 who has deposed that he Manager of Woodlands Hotel from 2009 to 2016. On verification he came to know that the accused persons were stayed in their hotel on 20-2-2014. Accordingly, he has given a report to the concerned police which is marked as Ex.P1. In the course of cross-examination P.W.1 has deposed that he has not signed the Ex.P1. The evidence of P.W.1 in this regard is not at all sufficient to prove the alleged guilt of the accused Nos.1 and 2.
10. C.W.8 is examined as P.W.2. He is the Chief Security Officer and deposed with regard to the stay of accused No.1 in their hotel. Accordingly, he has given a report to the police. He further deposed that he came to know about the 7 C.C.No.8337/2015 cheat and fraud played by the accused to the extent of Rs.60,00,000/-.
11. To test the veracity of P.W.2, the counsel appearing for the accused has cross-examined him in detail. In the course of cross-examination P.W.2 has deposed that he does not remember whether he has produced document before the Investigating Officer to show that he was a worker in the said hotel. In further cross-examination P.W.2 has deposed to the following effect:
Before I identifying the Sanjeev Sharma through CCTV clippings, the I.O. has not shown either physically or though photo of Sanjeev Sharma to me.
It is true to suggest that before identifying Sanjeev Sharma through CCTV I am not seen in personally at any point of time.
The evidence of P.W.2 as above is not sufficient to prove the identity of the accused persons. The evidence of P.Ws.1 and 2 is not at all sufficient to prove the guilt of the accused for the alleged offences. The complainant and other material witnesses have not been examined in the present 8 C.C.No.8337/2015 case. Therefore, non-examination of complainant and other material witnesses is fatal to the case of the prosecution to prove the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubt. Therefore, in view of above discussions and reasonings, I am of the opinion that the prosecution has miserably failed to prove the guilt of the accused Nos.1 and 2 for the offence punishable under Section 420 r/w Section 34 of IPC beyond all reasonable doubt. Hence, it is held that the accused Nos.1 and 2 are entitled for acquittal. Accordingly, I answer point No.1 in the negative.
12. Point No.2:- In view of my answer on the point No.1, I proceed to pass the following:
ORDER The accused Nos.1 and 2 are not found guilty for the offence punishable under Section 420 r/w Section 34 of IPC. Therefore, they are acquitted for the said offences under Section 248(1) Cr.P.C.
The bail bonds executed by the accused Nos.1 and 2 and their surety stands cancelled. 9 C.C.No.8337/2015 (Dictated to the stenographer, transcript thereof, computerized revised and then corrected by me and then pronounced in open court on this the 12th day of December 2017).
(V.Jagadeesh) I Addl. CMM., Bengaluru.
ANNEXURE List of witnesses examined on behalf of prosecution:-
P.W.1, N.Krishnamurthy, P.W.2, Sujay Hegde;
List of documents marked on behalf of prosecution:-
Ex.P1, Report;
Material Objects Produced:- NIL Witnesses examined on behalf of the defence, documents marked:- NIL.
(V.Jagadeesh) I Addl. CMM., Bengaluru.
10 C.C.No.8337/201512/12/2017 State by Sr.APP Accused Nos.1 and 2 C/B For Judgment (Judgment pronounced in the Open Court) ORDER The accused Nos.1 and 2 are not found guilty for the offence punishable under Section 420 r/w Section 34 of IPC. Therefore, they are acquitted for the said offences under Section 248(1) Cr.P.C.
The bail bonds executed by the accused Nos.1 and 2 and their surety stands cancelled.
I ACMM, Bengaluru.
11 C.C.No.8337/201512 C.C.No.8337/2015