Bangalore District Court
Davanagere Lokayuktha P S vs A1 R M Nandeesha on 4 July, 2024
1 Spl.CC 867/2019
KABC010244182019
IN THE COURT OF LXXXI ADDL. CITY CIVIL AND
SESSIONS JUDGE, BENGALURU (CCH 82)
Present
Sri Santhosh Gajanan Bhat,B.A.L, LL.B.,
LXXXI Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge,
Bengaluru City (CCH-82)
(Special Court exclusively to deal with criminal cases
related to elected former and sitting MPs/ MLAs in the State of Karnataka)
Dated this the 4thday of July, 2024
Spl.CC. No. 867 / 2019
COMPLAINANT: State of Karnataka
by Lokayukta Police, Davanagere
V/s
ACCUSED : 1. Sri R.M.Nandish S/o
J.Mallikarjunappa, Aged about 42 yrs
No.1716/37, Nandisha Nilaya
5th Main Road, Siddaveerappa Extn.,
Davanagere
Presently r/o No.369, 2nd Cross
'Belaku', J.P.Nagara, 4th Stage
Bengaluru-78
2. Smt.R.M.Shilpa W/o Deepak K.R.
Aged about 43 years
Software Engineer
No.1716/37, Nandisha Nilaya
5th main Road, Siddaveerappa Extn.,
Davanagere
Presently r/o No.369, 2nd Cross
'Belaku', J.P.Nagara, 4th Stage
Bengaluru-78
2 Spl.CC 867/2019
3. Dr.B.K.Jayadevappa
S/o B.Karibasappa
Aged about 73 years
Retired District Medical Officer
S.S.Layout 'A' Block
9th Cross, Pharamacy College Road
Davanagere
4. Sri K.Prakash S/o
K.Parameshwarappa
Aged about 57 years
LIC Development Officer
Shikaripura town
Shikaripura, Shivamogga Dist.
5. Kum. N.Swapna
D/o B.M.Nagarajappa
Aged about 44 years
MBA Student,
No.858, Bapuji Vidyanagara
2nd bus-Stop, Davanagere
6. Sri M.C.Vidyashankara
S/o M.P.Ram Bhat
Aged about 69 years
Retired Govt Official
Near Shankara Mandira
Malebennur, Harihara
7. Smt.Susheela Devi (DEAD) (Abated)
8. Sri N.Basavaraja S/o B. Nagappa
Aged about 56 years
No.1795/77, 1st Cross
Siddaveerappa Badavane
Davanagere
9. Sri B.Mallikarjuna Swamy
S/o Bheemappa.B
Aged about 51 years
3 Spl.CC 867/2019
AEE, O & M Zone, BESCOM
Chitradurga
10. Sri Ramachandra Hebbar
S/o Subbanna Hebbar,
Aged about 47 years
Proprietor Love Food,
R/o No.5638/A207, S.S.Extension
'B' block, Davanagere
11. Sri Sunil Kumar
S/o K.V. Eshwarappa,
Aged about 48 years
Assistant Teacher, J.J.M. Medical
College, R/o 1690/2-3,
9th Cross, Anjaneya Extn.,
Davanagere.
12. Dr.Ramesh R.
S/o M.G.Rajashekarappa
Aged about 49 years
Orthopedic Professor
J.J.Medical College, Vidya Nagara
Davanagere
13. Sri J.Mallikarjunappa
S/o B.R. Jayadevappa
Aged about 68 years
Ex-President, Davanagere Urban
Development Authority, Davanagere
14. Sri S.A.Ravindranath
S/o Basappa
Aged about 75 years
Ex-District Administrative Minister
Davanagere District
15. Sri Yeshwantha Rao Jadhav
S/o Hanumanthappa
Aged about 60 years
Vice-President,
4 Spl.CC 867/2019
Davanagere-Harihara Urban Development
Authority, Davanagere.
16. Smt.G.E.Shashikala Eshwarappa
W/o Eshwarappa
Aged about 61 years
Ex-Member, Davanagere-Harihara
Urban Development Authority
R/o 8th Cross, Anjaneya Extension
Davanagere
17. Sri J.N.Hanumanthappa (DEAD)
18. Sri K.Hanumanthappa (Not charge
sheeted)
19. Dr. B.R.Sumithra Devi
W/o Dr. T. Omkarappa
Aged about 66 years
Retired District Health and
Family Welfare Officer, Davanagere
District and Member of Site Allotment
Committee,
Davanagere Harihara Urdban
Development Authority, Davanagere
Date of offence Between 2008 and 2013
Date of report of offence 02.07.2013
Name of the complainant Sri Manikanta Sarkar
Date of commencement of 15.12.2021
recording of evidence
Date of closing of evidence 15.12.2023
Offences complained of Cr.No. Sec.198 of IPC and Sec.8 of
8/13 P.C. Act
25/2023 Sec.198 of IPC and Sec.13(1)
27/2013 (c) r/w 13(2) of P.C.Act, 1988
5 Spl.CC 867/2019
31/2013
39/2013
41/2013
43/2013
45/2013 and
47/2013
10/2013 Sec.8 and Sec.13(1)(c) r/w
29/2013 13(2) of P.C.Act, 1988
33/2013
Opinion of the Judge Accused No.1 to 6, 8 to 16 and 19 are
found not guilty
State represented by Sri S.S.Nagarale, Learned Special Public
Prosecutor
Accused defended by Sri Gnanesh N.I. Advocate for A1, 2 and 13
Sri Ramesh R.M. Advocate for A3, 4, 6, 10 to
12
Sri Suresh R, Advocate for A5 and 15
Sri Nitish Kumar.S. Advocate for A8, 9, and
19
Sri G.M.Chandrashekar, Advocate for A14
and 16
JUDGMENT
The Davanagere Lokayukta Police had filed the charge sheet against the aforesaid accused persons for the offences punishable under Sec. 198 of IPC and under Sec.8, 13(1)(c) and 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.
2 The genesis of the above case is that one Sri Manikanta Sarkar had lodged private complaint against aforesaid accused persons in PCR No.8/2013, PCR No.10/2013, PCR No.25/2013, 6 Spl.CC 867/2019 PCR No.27/2013, PCR No.21/2013, PCR No.39/2013, PCR No.41/2013, PCR No.43/2013, PCR No.45/2013, PCR No.47/2013, PCR No.29/2013 and PCR No.33/2013 before the learned District and Sessions Judge and Special Judge, at Davanagere. It has been contended in the private complaint that the aforesaid accused persons i.e., accused No.1 R.M.Nandeesha, accused No.3 B.K.Jayadevappa, accused No.4 K.Prakash, accused No.5 N.Sapna, accused No.6 M.C.Vidyashankar, accused No.7 Sushila Devi (Abated), accused No.8 N.Basavaraj, accused No.9 B.Mallikarjunaswamy, accused No.10 Ramachandra Hebbar, accused No.11 Sunil Kumar, accused No.12 Dr.Ramesh R., had applied for allotment sites at Sri J H Patel Extension, Davangere formed by the Davanagere Harihar Urban Development Authority ('DHUDA' for short). It is his contention that the DHUDA had called for public notice/ notification calling upon the general public to file necessary applications towards allotment of sites of various dimensions. It is contended that the sites which were to be allotted were developed by DHUDA towards the up-liftment and benefit of economically weak, socially backward and for the benefit of downtrodden class. He has narrated in his complaint that the aforesaid accused persons though were ineligible to obtain allotment of sites had filed necessary applications before the 7 Spl.CC 867/2019 DHUDA, in connivance and with tacit support of the then Members of Sub Committee of DHUDA formed towards allotment of sites. He has contended that, accused No.13 J.Mallikarjunappa was one of the prominent leader of a Political Party and he had exerted his influence towards allotment of sites and had ensured that his son accused No.1 R.M.Nandeesha and daughter accused No.2 R.M.Shilpa were allotted with sites though they were not eligible. It is also submitted that accused No.14 Sri S.A.Ravindranath, the then District In-charge Minister had played an active role towards allotment of sites and also accused No.15 Yashwanthrao Jadav who was the Chairman of the Sub-Committee and accused No.16 Shashikala Eshwarappa who was the Member of the Sub-Committee along with accused No.19 Dr.B.R.Sumitradevi and had participated in the meetings called by the Sub-Committee and had supported the cause of the applicants in illegal allotment of sites though there were other eligible persons for obtaining the allotment. It is stated the claim made by the eligible applicants were not considered only to make unlawful allotment to aforesaid accused No.1 to 12. It is also been narrated in the private complaint that the allotment was made by flouting all the relevant provisions of law and also the DHUDA who were required to ensure due allotment of sites, had ignored the basic provisions and rules 8 Spl.CC 867/2019 pertaining to allotment as enumerated under the Karnataka Urban Development Authority, 1987 ('KUDA' for short). He has further stated that though he had filed complaint before the competent Lokayukta authorities, nothing much had happened and due to inaction of the authorities and left with no other alternatives, he had filed the private complaint before the Jurisdictional Special Court at Davanagere. Based on the said complaint the learned District and Sessions Judge and Special Judge, Davanagere had referred the aforesaid private complaint for investigation to the Karnataka Lokayukta, Davangere with a direction to register the case, investigate and file report acting under Sec.156(3) of Cr.P.C.
3 On the receipt of the said complaint, the Investigation Agency had registered various FIRs as mentioned above and had commenced the investigation. The I.O. had visited the office of DHUDA and had collected the basic application forms and other documents which were enclosed by the applicants seeking for allotment of sites by drawing various mahazars. It is relevant to note that nearly 9 mahazars were drawn by the I.O. and he had obtained the documents and application forms which were filed by the applicants. After collecting the same, the I.O. had also requested the 9 Spl.CC 867/2019 Competent Authorities to furnish necessary documents with respect to owning of immovable property by the aforesaid accused persons, their family members and their kith and kin. It is submitted by the investigating officer that on perusal of the materials which indicated that sites were allotted to accused No.1 to 12 in derogation of the principles and policies of the State Government and also by not adopting a proper procedure with the connivance, aid and support of accused No.13, 14, 15, 16 and 19. The Investigation Agency has thus concluded that the then District In-charge Minister accused No.14 S.A.Ravindranath, had exerted his influence towards allotment of sites and since accused No.13 J.Mallikarjunappa was prominent member of his Party, he had prevailed over the Committee to allot sites to his son and daughter who were arraigned as accused No.1 and accused No.2. It is also narrated in detail that the entire episode was unraveled by the Investigation Agency and during the course of investigation on the basis of the materials collected, clearly indicated that the applicants who were the accused persons in the instant case had intentionally filed false affidavit claiming that they were not owning any property in the State of Karnataka and the application which was filed were not in accordance with law and several false information projecting it to be a true and genuine were furnished by 10 Spl.CC 867/2019 the applicants, which clearly attracted the provision of Sec.198 of IPC. It is also submitted that the act of accused No.14, 15, 16 and 19 clearly indicated of a definite role being played under Sec.8 of P.C.Act and also conducting a dereliction of duty amounting to criminal misconduct as contemplated under Sec.13(1)(c) r/w 13(2) of P.C.Act. Hence, by pointing out the materials on record the Investigating officer had filed the charge sheet before the jurisdictional Court.
4 Initially the accused persons were secured before the jurisdictional court at Davangere and subsequently on establishing of Special Court for Trial of criminal Cases against sitting and former MPs/ MLAs in the State of Karnataka, the above case came to be transferred to this court. The accused persons were once again secured and they were admitted to bail. Accordingly, charges were framed by my Predecessor in Office on 23.8.2021 under Sec.198 of IPC against accused No.1, 3, 4, 6, 8 to 12 along with deceased accused No.7 and 17. That apart a second charge was framed against accused No.1 to 6, 8 to 13 under Sec.8 of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 ( hereinafter referred as P C Act) and last charge was framed against accused No.15, 16 and 19 under Sec.13(1)(c) r/w 11 Spl.CC 867/2019 13(2) of the P.C.Act, 1988. The accused persons had pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. Accordingly, Trial came to be fixed wherein the prosecution had examined totally 21 witnesses as PW1 to 21 and got marked Ex.P.1 to 143 were marked during the course of evidence. On completion of evidence necessary statement as contemplated under Sec.313 of Cr.P.C., came to be recorded wherein the accused persons had denied the all the incriminating materials available against them. They had preferred not to lead defence evidence.
5 Heard the arguments of both the parties. The learned SPP Sri Santhosh S.Nagarale had filed written Synopsis before this court and also he had taken this court through the evidences recorded. It is vehemently argued by him that the Court has to consider the case of the prosecution in a broader perspective wherein the definition of the family has been given under various statutes and provisions. He has tried to impress this court by contending that furnishing of false information by accused persons for obtaining allotment of sites would per se indicate of an offence under Sec.198 of IPC. He has also pointed out that accused No.15, 16 and 19 who were the Members of the Sub-Committee and accused No.14 Sri 12 Spl.CC 867/2019 S.A.Ravindranath who was the then District In-charge Minister had intentionally colluded with each other and had made the allotment to ineligible persons i.e., the aforesaid accused persons and on culmination of the investigation necessary charge sheet were filed. It is his submission that the affidavit which was furnished by the applicants clearly indicates that the same were filed in a casual, mechanical manner and in some aspects accused No.5 N.Sapna, and accused No.2 R.M.Shilpa were totally ineligible to obtain sites since they had obtained zero points by the Sub-Committee Members. Instead of allotting the sites to eligible persons, the accused persons had tried to enrich themselves unlawfully which is impermissible under the eyes of law. Lastly it is also submitted that the act of the Members of the Sub-Committee in favouring their own persons would clearly indicate dereliction of duty which would attract the provisions of Sec.13(1)(c) and 13(2) of P.C.Act. By pointing out the same, the learned SPP had vehemently argued that the definition of family was forthcoming in KUDA (Allotment of Sites), 1991. However, ignoring all the said aspects, the allotment of sites had taken place which was highly illegal and contrary to the provisions of law. Accordingly, he has sought for conviction of aforesaid accused persons.
13 Spl.CC 867/2019 6 The learned counsel for accused have argued by pointing out the entire evidence which have been recorded and they have submitted that on appreciating the materials on record it would indicate that no prima facie materials available towards commission of offence. Further, it has been submitted at Bar that the notification clearly emphasized that the sites were available for general public and it is not their case that in the proceedings they had supported and helped the ruling party. Without any iota of material to indicate of bias being played by the members of the Sub Committee appointed for allotment of site, the allegation leveled by the prosecution would fail to withstand the rigors of trial. By pointing out all the said aspects, it is finally submitted that the Notification of KUDA Act 1987 would clearly indicate that none of the parties were barred from obtaining the allotment in their name. It is submitted that though it is correct in some of the cases, certain properties were standing in their spouse name, the same cannot be termed as the one which would attract the wrath of the Urban Development Authorities Act for the reason that the allotment was to be made either by the State Government or Central Government or any Governmental Agency for the benefit of the petitioner. In the instant case allotment was 14 Spl.CC 867/2019 admittedly made under the ruled enumerated under KUDA Rules, 1991 and hence, they have sought for interference of this Court.
7 The learned SPP has put in his appearance and has stood his fort. It has been submitted at Bar that the learned Sri Santhosh S.Nagarale that the Investigation on its completion had pointed out the overt acts and accordingly he has sought for conviction of the accused persons.
8 The learned counsel for accused have relied upon several authorities which for instance were noted down as follows:-
(a) (2007) 9 SCC 67 (Chandigarh Housing Board Vs. Major Gen Devinder Singh(Retd.) and another)
(b) ILR 2012 KAR 268 (Smt.K.Pankaja Prabhudev @ Pankaja Prabhudev Vs. The Bangalore Development Authority)
(c) Order of Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka in W.P.No.52690/2019 (LB-RES) dated
9.2.2021 in the case of Sri Shivakumaraswamy Vs. the State of Karnataka)
(d) Order of Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka in W.P.No.22649/2018 c/w W.P.No.31341/2018 (LB-RES) dated 19.12.2019 in the case of Sri Mallikarjunaiah B.K. Vs. The Mysuru Urban Development Authority) 15 Spl.CC 867/2019
(e) (2018) 17 SCC 732 (Babji Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh)
(f) Order of Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka in Crl.R.P.No.699 of 2016 dt.16.12.2016 between Sri S.Jagannatha Vs. Justice Subray Rama Nayak 9 By pointing out the same, the learned counsels for accused have sought for acquittal.
10 Heard the arguments and perused the materials. The points that would arise for my consideration are:-
1) Whether the prosecution proves beyond reasonable doubt that the accused No.1 R.M.Nandeesha, accused No.3 B.K.Jayadevappa, accused No.4 K.Prakash, accused No.6 M.C.Vidyashankar, accused No.8 N.Basavaraj, accused No.9 B.Mallikarjunaswamy, accused No.10 Ramachandra Hebbar, accused No.11 Sunil Kumar and accused No.12 Dr.Ramesh.R along with deceased accused No.7 & 17, had made false declaration at the time of filing application for allotment of sites from DHUDA in a corrupt and dishonest manner so as to ensure that on the basis of the affidavit they would entitled for allotment of site and 16 Spl.CC 867/2019 thereby accused No.1, 3, 4, 6, 8 to 12 have committed an offence punishable under Section 198 of the Indian Penal Code?
2) Whether the prosecution proves beyond reasonable doubt that the accused No.1 to 6, 8 to 13 being applicants having filed application for allotment of sites, have promised to give an undue advantage to the accused No.14 S.A.Ravindranath, the then District In-charge Minister and to the accused No.15 Yashwanthrao Jadav, accused No.16 Shashikala Eshwarappa and accused No.19 Dr.B.R.Sumitradevi, along with deceased accused No.17, who are members of Sub-
Committee for allotment of sites and induced the above said public servants to perform improperly and allot the sites in their favour and thereby accused No.1 to 6, 8 to 13 have committed an offence punishable U/s.8 of the Prevention of Corruption of Act and within the cognizance of this Court?
3) Whether the prosecution proves beyond all reasonable doubt that accused No.14 being the District In-charge Minister and accused No.15 Yashwanthrao Jadav, accused No.16 Shashikala Eshwarappa and accused No.19 17 Spl.CC 867/2019 Dr.B.R.Sumitradevi along with deceased accused No.17, being members of Sub-
Committee for allotment of sites and public servants, dishonestly misappropriated the power of allotment of sites which was under
their control and influenced the DHUDA to allot sites to the accused No.1 to 6, 8 to 13 and thereby committed an offence punishable U/s.13(1)(c) r/w 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988?
4) What order?
11 My answer to the above points are as under:
Point No.1 : In the Negative Point No.2 : In the Negative Point No.3 : In the Negative Point No.4 : As per the final order, for the following REAS O NS
12 Point No.1 to 3: These points are taken up together for discussion as they are related to each other and to avoid repetition in the discussion.
13 Eliminating the extraneous details, the brief facts in narrow compass is that the DHUDA authorities had issued public 18 Spl.CC 867/2019 notification calling for applications from the eligible applicants towards allotment of 507 sites at Sri.J.H.Patel Extension, Davanagere. The notification called upon the general public to apply for allotment of sites and amongst the stipulations imposed one of the criteria was that the applicant should not have been allotted with sites by the Statement Government or Governmental agency or Urban Development Authority. After the receipt of necessary applications, the DHUDA had segregated the same and allotted to sites to eligible candidates. The complainant had filed private complaint under Sec.200 of Cr.P.C., alleging that the allotments were made in derogation of the settled principles of law and also without adhering to the basic provision of KUDA Act. It has been submitted that the accused No.1, 3, 4, 6 to 12 had obtained allotment of sites from DHUDA by furnishing false information in the affidavit annexed with the application contending that they had not owned any sites and further accused No.2 and 5 had exerted influence over the Sub- Committee Members, accused No.15 to 19 and accused No.14 being the then District In-charge Minister had ensured allotment of sites to the children of accused No.13 J.Mallikarjunappa who was also Member of a Political Party and as such a complaint was filed. The then learned District and Sessions Judge and Special Judge, at 19 Spl.CC 867/2019 Davanagere had referred the complaint to Lokayukta Police, Davanagere for registration of the case and for investigation and to file report by invoking the provision of Sec.156(3) of Cr.P.C. On completion of investigation, charge sheet was filed and the case came to be transferred to this court wherein evidence was conducted.
14 Before adverting to the factual aspects, the brief details of the evidence tendered by the witnesses is as follows:-
a) PW1 Manikanta Sarkar is the complainant who has deposed about filing of various private complaints before the jurisdictional court at Davanagere and on receipt of the same, it was referred for investigation to Karnataka Lokayukta, Davanagere, who in turn had registered the FIR and had commenced the investigation. He has also deposed that the aforesaid accused No.1 to 12 had flouted various provisions of law by suppressing the fact that they owned properties in their name and though they were in-eligible to obtain allotment had obtained the same with the connivance and support of the committee Members i.e., accused No.15 to 19. He had identified the private complaint which he had filed and also deposed that the aforesaid accused 20 Spl.CC 867/2019 persons had cheated and defrauded the general public. During the course of cross-examination several questions were put forth to him with respect to filing false complaints and also blackmailing the parties. However, he has denied all the said aspects. He has deposed of tendering statement and further statement before the I.O.
b) PW2 Vijayakumar, PW3 Vasudeva, PW4 Ravi, PW5 Karibasavanagouda are the mahazar witnesses and also PW5 is the Employee at DHUDA, who had assisted the Investigating Agency with respect to drawing of mahazars as per Ex.P.25 to 36. They have specifically deposed that on 1.7.2013, 5.7.2013, 2.9.2013 and 3.9.2012 the Investigating officer had requested the witnesses PW2, PW3, PW4 to accompany them to DHUDA office towards collection of documents. On reaching the office they were handed over with the documents by PW8 Achutha Murthy and the documents were recovered by drawing necessary mahazars as mentioned above. Apart from denial nothing much was elicited from them during the course of cross-examination.
21 Spl.CC 867/2019
c) PW6 S.Rangaswamy is another mahazar witness. He has deposed of drawing mahazar at Ex.P.37 and 38 on 5.9.2013 and handing over documents pertaining to accused No.11 Sunil Kumar and accused No.12 Ramesh.R.
d) PW7 Swetha.G., PW8 Achutha Murthy are the employees of DHUDA and PW7 has deposed of preparing check list as per Ex.P.39 to 42 pertaining to accused No.7 Sushila (Dead), accused No.8 Basavaraj and accused No.12 Dr.Ramesh.R.
e) PW9 Dr.N.Mahanthesh was the then Deputy Commissioner of Urban Development Authority, who has deposed of furnishing necessary details of pertaining to Smt.S.V.Rathna who is the mother of accused No.1 and 2 and had deposed of furnishing details on 28.2.2013 as per Ex.P.43 and also 10 katha extracts as per Ex.P.44 to 53. Further, he has deposed that on 2.8.2014 he had furnished details with respect to accused No.10 Ramachandra Hebbar as per Ex.P.54 and on 9.3.2015 he had furnished documents pertaining to accused No.12 Dr.Ramesh as per Ex.P.56 and
57. Apart from denial nothing much elicited from him.
22 Spl.CC 867/2019
f) PW10 Varalakshmi, ARO who has deposed of producing document at Ex.P.58.
g) PW11 C.K.Basavarajappa, SDA of DHUDA has deposed of preparing the check list as per the directions of the Sub-Committee.
h) PW12 Chinnappa is the PDO of Malebennur who has deposed of producing documents pertaining to A6 M.C.Vidyashankar as per Ex.P.65. During the course of cross-examination he has admitted that no property was allotted to Vidyashankar of which the documents were furnished by him.
i) PW13 Prasad Kumar is the Sub-Registrar who has deposed of producing documents pertaining to accused No.4 K.Prakash and his wife Manjula as per Ex.P.68 to P.73.
j) PW14 Javed Akhthar is the Secretary, who has deposed of according sanction to prosecute accused No.9 B.Mallikarjunaswamy who worked as Executive Engineer on the basis of the investigating materials furnished to him. He has deposed that on receipt of the materials, he had verified the same and had found incriminating materials against accused No.9 23 Spl.CC 867/2019 and accordingly, he had issued necessary order of sanction to prosecute him as per Ex.P.78
k) PW15 Vasanna is the Revenue Officer, who has deposed of furnishing documents pertaining to accused No.8 Basavaraj as per Ex.P.75 and 76 and of Dr.Mangala as per Ex.P.80 to 82.
j) PW16 Gnanappa and PW17 Venkateshappa were the Members of the Sub-Committee and they had specifically deposed that the members have opposed picking of the allottees by lottery system and nothing much has been allotted from him during the course of cross-examination.
k) PW18 A.Vasim is the Revenue Officer of Chitradurga who has deposed of furnishing document pertaining to accused No.9 B.Mallikarjunaswamy.
l) PW19 Mustaq Ahmed, PW20 S.T.Odeyar, and PW21 Manjunath Gangal are the I.O.s who had deposed about registering the FIR, conducting the mahazar and filing the charge sheet. deposed furnishing 15 When the aforesaid aspects are carefully appreciated it would be pertinent to note that the entire allegation which is leveled against the accused persons is twofold. Firstly it is contended that the 24 Spl.CC 867/2019 accused persons had furnished false affidavits at the time of filing of application seeking for allotment of site at J.H.Patel Extension, Davanagere by suppressing the fact that they had owned site/ house property in their name in order to obtain allotment from DHUDA. The second allegation is that some of the accused persons were the members of Sub-Committee which was formed for allotment of sites. In this back ground, it is stated that the ineligible applicants were allotted with sites with the connivance of some of the Committee Members. To ascertain the said aspects, it would be appropriate to briefly state about the overt acts alleged against each of the accused along with the documents through which the prosecution is intending to prove the accusations against them. For the sake of benefit and convenience of understanding, the entire allegations and overt acts are culled out in the tabular form as follows:-
Sl. Name of the Allegation in brief as per the Exhibits No. Accused and case of prosecution Ranking
1. A-1 R.M. Nandish Had furnished false affidavits Ex P-28 though his father G. application which Mallikarjunappa and Mother consists of S.G. Rathna were having 13 Affidavit immovable properties in their Properties are at name had obtained allotment of Ex P-43. 12X18 meters Site.
2. A-2 R.M. Shilpa Had influenced committee members and though in eligible
25 Spl.CC 867/2019 had obtained allotment through her father A-13 G. Mallikarjunappa. Further she had purchased site at HSR Extension, Bengaluru on 24.01.2011 after allotment of site. Site allotted was 15X24 meters.
3. A-3 Dr. Jayadevappa Had filed false affidavit though Ex P-101 was having house property in Affidavit. No.1966/64 standing in the Ex P-114 and Ex name of his son Dr. D.J. P-115 Abhishek. Site allotted was 15X24 meter.
4. A-4 K. Prakash Had furnished false affidavit Ex P-102 though property immovable affidavit.
properties were standing in the Ex P-68 to Ex P-
name of his wife Manjula at 73 Shivamoga at Gandhinagara Extension, A.B. Vajpayee Extension, Gopal Gowda Extension.
Site allotted was 9X15 meters.
5. A-5 Sapna Had obtained site of dimension 12X18 meters which was here marked for general category.
Out of 52 sites 144 applications were received and in that the present applicant was at Sl. No.120 and had obtained zero points allotted by the committee.
6. A-6 M.C. Had filed false affidavit to Ex.P.104 Vidyashankar obtain site though his father affidavit.
and wife were owning house Property details at property at Malebennuru, Ex.P.65 to Harihara Taluk. Ex.P.67 The site allotted was 15X24 meter.
7 A-7 Susheel Devi (Abated) 8 A-8 N. Basavaraj Had filed false affidavit though Ex P-106 he was having site at affidavit.
Siddaveerappa Extension of Property 26 Spl.CC 867/2019 Davanagere. was allotted document at 12X18 meters site. Ex.P.75 to Ex.P.79
9. A-9 Mallikarjuna Had filed false affidavit though Ex P-107 Swamy was having house property affidavit.
jointly in the name of his wife Property details at at Davalagiri Extension, Ex P-83 and Ex Chitradurga in Door No.2627 P-84.
and 2628 and was having 2 sites of 30X40 Sq Mtrs. Was allotted 12X18 meter site.
10. A-10 Ramachandra Had filed false affidavit though Ex P-108 affidavit Hebbar had purchased site in S.S. Property details at Layout and was allotted with Ex P-54 and Ex 9X15 meter site. P-55.
11. A-11 Sunil Kumar Had filed false affidavit though Ex P-109 was having property at S.S. Affidavit.
Extension in the name of his Property details at wife Smt. H.S. Mangala. Was Ex P-80 to Ex P- allotted with 12X18 meter site. 82.
12. A-12 Dr. R. Ramesh Had filed false affidavit though Ex P-110 was having site property at Affidavit.
M.C.C. B Block, Davanagere. Property details at Was allotted with 12X18 meter Ex P-56 and Ex site. P-57.
13. A-13 G. Father of accused No.1 and Ex P-
Mallikarjunappa active member of the political party. Though 52 sites were available under general category out of which 141 applications were received and the Sl. Number of A-1 Nandish was 122 and his number was 40 in the list of selected members where in he had obtained zero points and though 83 people had obtained 2 points, A-1 was preferred over them.
Present accused is also father of accused No.2 and her application Sl. No. was 20 and totally 21 sites were available for allotment out of which she had obtained 1 point and other 16 persons in the category had 27 Spl.CC 867/2019 obtained 2 points were ignored.
14. A-14 S.A. The then District In-charge Ravindranath Minister and had colluded with A-15 Yashwanth Rao Jadhav and nominated member A-16 Shashikala Eshwarappa towards allotment of site.
15. A-15 Yashwanth Rao Was the president of DHUDA Jadhav and also chairmen of Site allotment sub-committee and had refused the suggestion of A-17 G.N. Hanumanthappa and had allotted site to in eligible persons.
16. A-16 Shashikala Member of Sub-Committee Eshwarappa and had ignored the suggestion of G.N. Hanumanthappa and had allotted site.
17. A-17 G.N. Hanumanthappa (Abated)
18. A-18 K. Hanumanthappa (Not Charge sheeted)
19. A-19 Dr. B.R. Member of Sub-Committee Sumithra Devi and had ignored the suggestion of G.N. Hanumanthappa and had allotted site.
16 Admittedly in this case, the DHUDA called for allotment of sites at Sri. J.H.Patel Extension. It is relevant to note at this juncture that initial notification was passed by the competent authorities calling for applications from general public. However, the same was challenged before the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka and subsequently another notification was passed on 19.09.2009. In 28 Spl.CC 867/2019 the said notification dated 19.09.2009 which is marked at Ex.P.100 indicates that totally 5 categories of sites of various dimensions were available for allotment which were totally 507 in number. At the time of calling for application from the eligible applicants, certain stipulations and conditions were enumerated in the notification. Particularly the notification itself was titled as 'Re-Notification', which means the notification was continuation of the earlier notification which was published on 24.3.2008. It is relevant to note that in the stipulation column at Sl.No.7 it has been specifically laid down that the applicant should not own any site either in his name or in the name of his spouse or any family members across the State allotted from Urban Development Authority or Karnataka Housing Board or Government or any other agency and also he should not be allottee of the then Davanagere Urban Development Authority or the present Urban Development Authority. In order to justify the same necessary notarized affidavit was required to be enclosed along with the application. The very same notification was subsequently published again on 29.12.2009 and it is relevant to note that the notification was titled as 'Publication' ('Prakatane' in vernacular language). In the said notification it has been specifically mentioned that the earlier notification came to be challenged before the Hon'ble 29 Spl.CC 867/2019 High Court in W.P. No.30773-774/2009 wherein Hon'ble High Court by its kind order had directed to grant one more week time for applying to allotment of sites. However, all other stipulations and conditions imposed and also availability of sites were very much similar to the earlier notification.
17 With this back ground, now the allegation which is leveled against individual accused persons is required to be appreciated. It would be appropriate to note that the allegation which is leveled against accused No.1 R.M.Nandeesha, accused No.2 R.M.Shilpa, accused No.3 B.K.Jayadevappa, accused No.4 K.Prakash, accused No.6 M.C.Vidyashankar, accused No.8 N.Basavaraj, accused No.9 B.Mallikarjunaswamy, accused No.10 Ramachandra Hebbar, accused No.11 Sunil Kumar, accused No.12 Dr.Ramesh R. are quite similar to each other, wherein it is narrated that they had filed a false affidavit along with application for obtaining allotment of sites at Sri. J.H.Patel Extension. In order to better appreciate the same, the documents which have been furnished by them is also carefully appreciated and in all the affidavit filed by them which is enclosed along with the application i.e., at Ex.P.28, Ex.P.101, Ex.P.102, Ex.P.104, Ex.P.106, Ex.P.107, Ex.P.108, 30 Spl.CC 867/2019 Ex.P.109 and Ex.P.110 it clearly indicates that they have sworn that they were not holding any sites allotted by any Urban Development Authority, Karnataka Housing Board, Governmental Agency and they do not own any site either in their name or in the name of their family members.
18 With respect to the allegations which is leveled against accused No.5 Sapna is that she had obtained a site 12X18M dimension in General Category wherein totally 52 sites were available for which 144 applicants had applied and in the status of the applicant shown at Sl.No.120 and though she had obtained zero point, site was allotted to her by the Committee. Apart from that it is contended that the Members of the Committee i.e., accused No.14 Sri S.A.Ravindranath who was the then District In-charge Minister along with accused No.15 Yashawanthrao Jadav, accused No.16 Shashikala Eshwarappa and accused No.19 Dr.B.R.Sumitra Devi, were also members of the Sub-Committee to allot the sites.
19 The allegation which is leveled against accused No.13 G.Mallikarjunappa is that he is father of accused No.1 and 2 and since he was member of Political Party, he had exerted his political influence over the Committee Members for obtaining allotment of 31 Spl.CC 867/2019 sites. At this juncture, it would be appropriate to consider the relevant provision of law which is applicable to the case on hand. The application of law is very much essential to ascertain whether any deviation or false declaration has been sworn in the affidavit by the applicants. When the Notification which is more fully marked at Ex.P.100 is appreciated it indicates that the allotments of sites are to be made in consonance with the provisions of KUDA Act 1987. The said aspect is not at all in dispute. As per the provision mentioned in Rule 12(2) of KUDA (Allotment of Sites) Rules, 1991 ('KUDA Rules' for short), it is specifically stated about the disability of a person who can make an application for allotment of sites. For the purpose of convenience, the said provision is culled out which reads as under:-
Rule 12 - Disqualification for allotment of sites;
(1)....
(2) Any person shall be eligible for allotment of site if said person has been allotted a site or house in any part of the State by any other Urban Development Authority or KHB or any other agency of the Government"
32 Spl.CC 867/2019 20 Apart from that the relevant provision which would be applied for considering the application has been narrated in Rule 13 of the KUDA Rules which is extracted and reads as follows:
Rule 13 of KUDA (Allotment of Sites) Rules, 1991
13. ¤ªÉñÀ£ÀUÀ¼À ºÀAaPÉUÁV CfðzÁgÀgÀ DAiÉÄÌ ¤ÃwUÀ¼ÀÄ.
(1) ¥Áæ¢üPÁgÀªÀÅ ¥ÀæwAiÉƧâCfðzÁgÀ£À ¥ÀæPÀgÀtªÀ£ÀÄß UÀÄuÁªÀUÀÄtUÀ¼À ªÉÄÃ¯É ¥ÀjUÀt¸ÀvÀPÀÌzÀÄÝ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ DAiÉÄÌ ªÀiÁqÀĪÀ°èF ªÀÄÄA¢£À ¤ÃwUÀ¼À£ÀÄß zÀȶÖAiÀÄ°èj¸ÀvÀPÀÌzÀÄÝ.
1) CfðzÁgÀ£À ªÉʪÁ»PÀ ¸ÁÜ£ÀªÀiÁ£À JazÀgÉ CªÀ£ÀÄ «ªÁ»vÀ£É CxÀªÁ E®èªÉªÀÄvÀÄÛ CªÀ®A©vÀ ªÀÄPÀ̼À£ÀÄß ºÉÆA ¢gÀĪÀ£ÉÃ, E§âgÀÄ CxÀªÁ E§âjVAvÀPÀrªÉÄ fêÀAvÀ CªÀ®A©vÀ ªÀÄPÀ̼À£ÀÄß ºÉÆA¢gÀĪÀ ªÀåQÛUÉ ºÉaÑ£À ¥ÁæzsÁ£ÀåvɤÃqÀvÀPÀÌzÀÄÝ;
2) CfðzÁgÀ£À ªÀgÀªÀiÁ£À ªÀÄvÀÄÛ ¤ªÉñÀ£ÀªÀ£ÀÄß Rjâ ªÀiÁqÀĪÀ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ CªÀ£ÀªÁ¸ÀPÁÌV CzÀgÀ°è ªÀÄ£É PànÖ¸ÀĪÀ CªÀ£À ¸ÁªÀÄxÀåð:
¥ÀgÀAvÀÄ, F µÀgÀvÀÛ£ÀÄß C£ÀĸÀÆavÀ eÁwUÀ¼ÀÄ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ C£ÀĸÀÆavÀ §ÄqÀPÀlÄÖUÀ½UÉ ಸೇjzÀ CfðzÁgÀgÀ ¸ÀA§AzsÀzÀ°è ¥ÀjUÀt¸ÀvÀPÀÌzÀÝ®ಃ
3) xxxxx.)
4) ¤ªÉñÀ£ÀzÀ ºÀAaPÉUÁV CfðzÁgÀ£ÀÄ F »AzÉ JµÀÄÖ ¨Áj Cfð¹gÀĪÀ£ÉA§§UÉÎ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ ¤ªÉñÀ£ÀªÀ£ÀÄß ¥ÀqÉAiÀÄ®Ä CªÀ£ÀÄ CºÀð¤zÁÝUÀÆå CªÀ£ÀÄ ¤ªÉñÀ£À¥ÀqÉAiÀÄzÉ EgÀĪÀ ¸ÀAUÀwAiÀÄ£ÀÄß CªÀ£ÀÄ CºÀð£ÁVzÁÝ£É JA§ÄzÁV¥ÀjUÀt¸À¨ÉÃPÀÄ;
33 Spl.CC 867/2019
5) ªÀiÁf ¸ÉʤPÀgÁVgÀĪÀ ªÀåQÛUÀ¼ÀÄ CxÀªÁ PÀ¼ÉzÀ ºÀvÀÄÛ ªÀµÀðUÀ¼À°è ¸ÉêɸÀ°è¸ÀÄwÛgÀĪÁUÀ ªÀÄÈvÀgÁzÀ ¸ÉʤPÀgÀ PÀÄlÄA§zÀ ¸ÀzÀ¸ÀågÀÄ.
(2) ¤ªÉñÀ£ÀªÀ£ÀÄß F PɼÀV£À ««zsÀ ¥ÀæªÀUÀðUÀ¼À ¥ÉÊQ ºÀAZÀvÀPÀÌzÀÄÝ.
(J)»AzÀĽzÀ ªÀUÀðUÀ¼ÀÄ 2% (ಬಿ) ಅನುಸೂಚಿತ ಬುಡಕಟ್ಟು ಗಳು 3% (ಸಿ) ಅನುಸೂಚಿತ ಜಾತಿಗಳು 15% (ಡಿ) ಮಾಜಿ ಸೈನಿಕರು ಅಥವಾ ಮೃತ ಸೈನಿಕರ
ಕುಟುಂಬದ ಸದಸ್ಯ ರು ಮತ್ತು ಕೇಂದ್ರ ಶಸ್ತ್ರ ಪಡೆಯ ಸದಸ್ಯ ರು 5% (ಇ) ರಾಜ್ಯ ಸರ್ಕಾರ ನಿಗಮ ಸಾರ್ವಜನಿಕ ವಲಯ ಉದ್ದಿಮೆಗಳು ಮತ್ತು ಶಾಸನ ಪ್ರದತ್ತ ಪ್ರಾಧಿಕಾರಗಳ ನೌಕರರು 10% (ಎಫ್) ಕೇಂದ್ರ ಸರ್ಕಾರದ ಸಾರ್ವಜನಿಕ ವಲಯ ಉದ್ದಿಮೆಗಳು/ನಿಗಮ ಮತ್ತು ಶಾಸನ ಪ್ರದತ್ತ ಪ್ರಾಧಕಾರಗಳ ನೌಕರರು 5% (ಜಿ) ಸಾರ್ವಜನಿಕು 48% (ಎಚ್) ಕಲೆ, ವಿಜ್ಞಾನ, ಕ್ರೀಡೆ ಅಥವಾರ ಇನ್ಯಾವುದೇ ಕ್ಷೇತ್ರಗಳಲ್ಲಿ ಶ್ಲಾಘನೀಯ ಶಾದನೆಯನ್ನು ಸಾಧಿಸಿರುವ ವ್ಯ ಕ್ತಿಗಳು 8% ಐ) ಅಂಗವಿಕಲರು 2% 34 Spl.CC 867/2019 «ªÀgÀuÉ.-- ºÀAaPÉ ªÀiÁqÀĪÀ PÁ®zÀ°è, (J) ¥ÀæªÀUÀðPÉÌ ¸ÉÃjzÀ ªÀåQÛUÀ½AzÀ ¸ÁPÀµÀÄÖ¸ÀASÉåAiÀÄ°è CfðUÀ¼ÀÄ §AzÀgÉ DUÀ D ¥ÀæªÀUÀðPÉÌ «ÄøÀ°j¹zÀ G½zÀ ¤ªÉñÀ£ÀUÀ¼À£ÀÄß (©) ¥ÀæªÀUÀðPÉÌ ªÀUÁð¬Ä¸ÀvÀPÀÌzÀÄÝ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ (J) ªÀÄvÀÄÛ (©) ¥ÀæªÀUÀðUÀ½UÉ ¸ÉÃjzÀ ªÀåQÛUÀ½AzÀ ¸ÁPÀµÀÄÖ¸ÀASÉåAiÀÄ°è CfðUÀ¼ÀÄ §gÀ¢zÀÝgÉ, DUÀ F ¥ÀæªÀUÀðUÀ½UÁV «ÄøÀ°j¸À¯ÁzÀ G½zÀ¤ªÉñÀ£ÀUÀ¼À£ÀÄß (¹) ¥ÀæªÀUÀðPÉÌ ªÀUÁð¬Ä¸ÀvÀPÀÌzÀÄÝ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ (J), (©) ªÀÄvÀÄÛ (¹) ¥ÀæªÀUÀðUÀ½UɸÉãjzÀ ªÀåQÛUÀ½AzÀ ¸ÁPÀµÀÄÖ ¸ÀASÉåAiÀÄ°è Cfð ¨ÁgÀ¢zÀÝgÉ DUÀ F ¥ÀæªÀUÀðUÀ½UÁV«ÄøÀ°j¸À¯ÁzÀ G½zÀ ¤ªÉñÀ£ÀUÀ¼À£ÀÄß (f) ¥ÀæªÀUÀðPÉÌ ªÀUÁð¬Ä¸ÀvÀPÀÌzÀÄÝ. «ªÀgÀuÉUÉ GzÁºÀgÀuÉ.-- ¥Áæ¢üPÁgÀªÀÅ, ¸ÀªÀiÁ£À, CAxÀzÉà UÀÄtªÀÄlÖUÀ½gÀĪÀCfðzÁgÀ£À£ÀÄß DAiÉÄÌ ªÀiÁqÀ¨ÉÃPÁzÀ ºÀAaPÉAiÀÄ£ÀÄß aÃn JvÀÄÛªÀ ªÀÄÆ®PÀ ªÀiÁqÀvÀPÀÌzÀÄ. 21 On conjoint reading of both the provision would indicate that a person who has been allotted or granted with site by any Urban Development Authority or KHB or Government or any other agency of the Government are to be held ineligible for obtaining allotment of sites. And at the time of considering the application for allotment of site, the committee members are required to adhere to the guidelines as enumerated under Rule 13 and on that basis necessary points are required to be ordered to the applicants.
22 In order to better appreciate the allegations which has been leveled against the aforesaid accused persons it would be 35 Spl.CC 867/2019 appropriate to look in to the documents which have been collected by the investigating officer. The document with respect to accused No.1 R.M.Nandeesha is marked at Ex.P.43. The said document when conjointly looked into with documents pertaining to accused No.2 R.M.Shilpa indicates that the investigating officer had collected materials indicating that their father Mallikarjunappa and mother S.G.Rathna were owning immovable properties in the State of Karnataka and also it is narrated that accused No.2 R.M.Shilpa had purchased site at HSR Extension Bengaluru on 24.1.2011 which is after allotment of site in the above proceedings. The documents which have been produced at Ex.P.43 and EX P. 44 indicate that it was not at all allotted by any of the Governmental Agency or KHB or by Urban Development Authority. With respect to the said aspect the I.O. who had conducted investigation i.e., PW19 Mustaq Ahmed is also thoroughly cross-examined by the learned counsel. During the course of cross-examination he has specifically admitted that he had verified the relevant rules and provisions and also he was aware of Rule 12(2) and also Rule 13 of the KUDA Rules. It is his specific assertion that though accused No.1 and 2 were not allotted with any sites, they had filed an affidavit indicating that they had not owned any property in their name or in the name of their family members. It 36 Spl.CC 867/2019 is also admitted by him that no immovable properties were found in the name of accused No.1 and 2, but they were standing in the name of their parents. It is relevant to note that he has specifically admitted that none of the sites were allotted or granted as contemplated under Rule 12(2). That apart he has admitted that CW19 Jayaprakash Narayan, the then Commissioner of DHUDA had given a statement before the Investigating officer that allotment of site were made as per Rule 13 of KUDA Rules and also on verification he has noticed certain deviation. However, no such observation or materials are forthcoming in this regard either in the documents collected by him or in the documents pertaining to the Minutes of the Sub Committee. All that it has been stated by him is that they had filed a false affidavit declaring that they were not owning any immovable properties in their name. At the outset if the said aspect is appreciated though it seems to be appropriate and correct, the court will have to appreciate the aforesaid provision in the back drop of the definition which has been given to Sec.198 of the IPC. For the sake of convenience, the provision is extracted which reads as under:
"Sec.198. Using as true a certificate known to be false. Whoever corruptly uses or attempts to use any such certificate as a true certificate,
37 Spl.CC 867/2019 knowing the same to be false in any material point, shall be punished in the same manner as if he gave false evidence."
23 The aforesaid provision of law clearly indicates that when a person uses a certificate clearly knowing that it is false or corruptly uses as true certificate, then the rigors of the aforesaid provision of law is attracted. The underlining aspect in the aforesaid aspect is knowledge on the part of the person using such certificate. The above aspect requires to be clarified at this juncture, since the Public Notification called upon by the DHUDA for allotment of site did not indicate that they should not own any immovable properties even in their individual capacity. Hence, the contention of prosecution that a false certificate/affidavit was used by the accused persons for allotment of site with clear knowledge is not proper. I have also bestowed my anxious reading to the allegations leveled against accused No.1 and 2 and on comparing the same with the cross examination of the investigating officer it indicates that he has specifically admitted that the site owned by accused No.2 at Bengaluru was purchased by her subsequently after the allotment process was completed. It is the contention of the prosecution that accused No.13 G.Mallikarjunappa being the father of accused No.1 38 Spl.CC 867/2019 and 2 had exerted political influence to get the sites allotted. However, during the course of cross-examination he has specifically admitted that G.Mallikarjunappa was neither Member of a Sub- Committee nor had any positive role to play in the allotment of sites. The only reason why such suspicion has arose probably for the investigating officer is that he had noticed that accused No.13 G.Mallikarjunappa was Member of a Political party which was incidentally Ruling Party and the then District In-Charge Minister accused No.14 S.A.Ravindranath had belonged to said Political Party. At this juncture, it is to be ascertained that whether mere Membership to a Political Party would be suffice to draw inference and also when incidentally children of such a Political Party worker being allotted with certain sites would be suffice in normal parlance to hold that there was exertion of political pressure. No doubt, it has been alleged that accused No.2 R.M.Shilpa had not obtained necessary points for allotment of sites and in spite of it she was allotted with site, the prosecution should have produced materials to indicate the deliberations which had taken place in the Sub Committee prior to placing the final list of allotees who were found eligible for allotment of sites. It is rather unfortunate to note at this juncture, that the Investigation Agency has conducted the 39 Spl.CC 867/2019 investigation in a callous manner and they have only collected application Forms and check list and they are unable to point out what had transpired on each day of the meeting of Sub-Committee. When allegation of exerting political pressure is leveled against a particular accused person, it would be the bounden duty of the Investigation Agency to explain the circumstances on which they were indicating of exerting pressure on the Sub-Committee Members. In other words, the prosecution should have pointed out how the deliberations in the Sub-Committee had taken place and on what basis such an allegation is leveled against some of the Members of the Sub-Committee. Just for the reason that particular person whose father is incidentally a Member of Political Party to which the then District In charge Minister also belonged cannot be a ground for arriving at a conclusion of the guilt of the accused. The law is well settled that when a particular assertion and allegation is made by the prosecution, it is their bounden duty to prove the same beyond reasonable doubt. In other words, the prosecution have to establish the fact that how many persons had applied for allotment of sites in that particular category and how much marks / score they had obtained during the scrutiny and whether there were more eligible persons than the present applicant and if the applicant is left out or if 40 Spl.CC 867/2019 an ineligible person is allotted with the site, his points and minutes deliberated (if any in the Meeting) with respect to ignoring the claim of such a applicant. However, in the entire investigation process nothing as such has been produced before the Court. And rather he had only produced the certified copy of the Minutes of the Resolution passed by the Sub-Committee on 22.9.2010.
24 With respect to other accused persons also the Court has appreciated the documents which have been furnished in order to consider the contentions urged by the prosecution. Accused No.3 has sworn to the affidavit which is enclosed at Ex.P.101. It is stated that he had filed a false affidavit though he was having a house property in No.1966/64 at Davanagere which was standing in the name of his son Dr.D.J.Abhishek. The relevant records pertaining to that house property are furnished at Ex.P.114 and 115.
25 With respect to accused No.4 K.Prakash, it is alleged that certain immovable properties were standing in the name of his wife Manjula at Gandhinagara Extension, Shivamogga, Atal Bihari Vajapeyi Extension, Shivamogga and Gopala Gowda Extension Shivamogga. It is relevant to note that the affidavit is at annexed 41 Spl.CC 867/2019 along with document at Ex.P.102 and the documents pertaining to property are produced at Ex.P.68 to 73.
26 With respect to accused No.6 M.C.Vidyashankar it is submitted by the prosecution that though his father and wife were having house at Malebennur, Harihar, he has not disclosed the same along with his application at Ex.P.104 and its affidavit. The property details pertaining to him were produced and marked at Ex.P.65 to 67.
27 Further with respect to accused No.8 N.Basavaraju, it is stated that he was having site at Siddaveerappa Extension at Davanagere as per the affidavit which is annexed along with application at Ex.P.106 and his property details were at Ex.P.75 to 79.
28 It is also narrated that the accused No.9 Mallikarjunaswamy had filed a false affidavit though he was having a house property jointly in the name of his wife at Chitradurga and the affidavit which is annexed along with application at Ex.P.107 was a false information.
29 It has been narrated that accused No.10 Ramachandra Hebbar had purchased site at SS Layout and the same was not mentioned in his affidavit at Ex.P.108.
42 Spl.CC 867/2019 30 With respect to accused No.11 Sunil Kumar it is stated that he was having property at S.S.Extension in the name of his wife Mangala.
31 Further, accused No.12 R.Ramesh has not furnished details of having site property at MCC 'B' Block, Davanagere as per the affidavit which is along with application at Ex.P.110.
32 When the entire allegation is carefully appreciated with the cross-examination of Investigating officer, he has specifically admitted that none of the above properties were allotted either by Urban Development Authority, Government or any other Governmental Agencies. If the said aspect is to be appreciated, then the question which lingers in the mind of the court is whether owning a property independently which was not allotted by Government or any of its agency would create a bar as per stipulation No.7 in the Notification. In this regard, the judgment furnished by the learned Counsels for the accused is to be looked. In the judgment rendered by the Hon'ble Apex Court reported in (2007) 9 SCC 67 (Chandigarh Housing Board Vs. Major General Devender Singh (Rtd) and another) wherein it has been held:-
43 Spl.CC 867/2019
28. A plain reading thereof indicates that the same consists of the following ingredients:
(1) The Applicant should not have acquired a house/residential site anywhere in India:
(2) Such acquisition must be through Government/Semi Government/ Municipal Committee / Corporation/ Improvement Trust.
(3) Such acquisition must be at a concessional rate i.e. at reserved/fixed price.
(4) Such acquisition may be in own name or in the name of any dependent members of his/her family.
29. Ms. Issar, learned counsel submits that the word `through' must be given its due meaning in construction of the eligibility conditions and in view of the fact that some allotment at concessional rate had been made by the Ministry of Housing and Urban Development to the Societies.
Respondents being part of the Society would come within the purview of the said restriction.
44 Spl.CC 867/2019
30. We are unable to accept the said submission. The word `through' in this context would imply `agency' Thus only when a person acquires some property through the `agency' specifically mentioned therein, the condition of eligibility which, it will be a repetition to state, impose a restriction on a valuable right of a citizens must be held to be applicable and not otherwise.
31. Acquisition of any property through any other source or through any other agency is not prohibited. Right to acquire property is a human right. A deed must be construed reasonably and in its entirety. If acquisition of any property through any agency other than specified therein is not prohibited, evidently, the restriction clause in the condition of eligibility will have no application. The same, in our opinion, must be construed strictly. A clause impinging the right of a citizen must, in our opinion, receive strict construction and the principle of contextual interpretation will have no application in such a case.
33 In the said authority, the Hon'ble Apex Court has clearly held that acquisition of any property through any other source or 45 Spl.CC 867/2019 through any other agency is not prohibited and right to acquire property is human right and a deed must be construed reasonable and in its entirety. When the aforesaid ratio is applied to the case on hand, it indicates that none of the applicant/accused persons were allotted or granted with any sites or immovable property by Urban Development Authorities or any other Agencies of the State Government.
34 With respect to appreciating the stipulation, the other judgment furnished by the learned counsel for accused reported in ILR 2012 KAR 268 (K.Pankaja Prabhudev @ Pankaja Prabhudev Vs. BDA) is relied upon wherein it has been held as under:
"9. This court in similar circumstances, wherein MUDA was party in Writ Petition No.22649/2018 clubbed with writ petition No.31341/2018 disposed of on 19.12.2019 at paras 15 and 16 with regard to Rule 12(2) of the Rules has held as follows:-
"15. The judgments referred to above relied upon by the petitioners are 46 Spl.CC 867/2019 applicable for the present case. A plain reading of Rule 12(2) of the Rules would indicate that ineligibility is only if the applicant has been an allottee of a site or house by Urban Development Authority, Karnataka Housing Board or any other agency of the Government or a site allotted by Housing Co-operative Societies.
16. Clearly, the explanation of eligibility under Rule 12(2) of the Rules as contended by Urban Development Authority to include acquisition of house er site by any other source apart from what is specified is contrary to the plain wordings of the Rule. The condition excluding persons from applying for a site is an exclusionary clause and ought to be interpreted strictly. Accordingly, the endorsements at Annexure-A in both the writ petitions are rejected."
10. It is not open for the 2nd respondent-MUDA to raise technical objections such as delay and that the petitioner has accepted the refund of initial deposit. When the 2nd respondent-
47 Spl.CC 867/2019 MUDA has failed to discharge its statutory duty under the 1991 Rules and this Court has already interpreted similar Rule in PANKAJA PRABHUDEV's case cited supra in the year 2010 itself, the respondent-MUDA could not have passed a resolution contrary to Rule 12 of the 1991 Rules to exclude a person, who owns a site or house by any other mode, other than mentioned in Rule 12 (2) of the Rules.
The other contention of the 2nd respondent-MUDA that the petitioner had filed false affidavit stating that he had no house or site even though he possessed own house would not merit any consideration, since the facts and circumstance of the case would not disentitle the petitioner for allotment of a site. The affidavit filed by the petitioner which is produced as Annexure-R3 could be construed as affidavit in terms of Rule 12(2) of 1991 Rules and not more than that.
11. Taking note of the submission of the learned counsel for the 2nd respondent-MUDA that allotment of site 48 Spl.CC 867/2019 in respect of R.T.Nagar, Mysore was completed in the year 2012, I deem it appropriate for the 2nd respondent-
MUDA to consider the request of the petitioner for allotment of site in any of the layouts formed by 2nd respondent-
MUDA.
12. For the reasons stated above, writ petition is allowed in part. The endorsement Annexure-A dated 20.11.2019 bearing No.My. Na.
Pra:A.Sha: 20/2019-20 is quashed. The 2nd Respondent-MUDA is directed to consider the petitioner's application for allotment of a site and allot a site in any of the layouts of 2nd respondent-
MUDA.
35 The said judgment is quite similar to the facts and circumstances of the case. The facts of the aforesaid case are that BDA had allotted sites to persons who owned properties within its jurisdiction that were not allotted either by the government or any other agencies. More specifically the findings rendered by the Hon'ble High Court at para-9 of the aforesaid judgment are very much similar to the stipulation No.7 imposed in the public 49 Spl.CC 867/2019 notification. Even in that case, the Hon'ble High Court had dwelt upon a specific question: whether the applicant, his wife, his dependent children, dependent parents, or dependent brothers and sisters own any site or house at Bengaluru Metropolitan can be considered a bar for allotment of site by BDA. Even the instant case, the stipulation imposed in the notification is quite akin to the aforesaid facts in the judgment referred. In the aforesaid referred case, the BDA authorities had contended that it was a false assertion being made by the applicants and accordingly, they had challenged the same before the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka. After examining various aspects, the Hon'ble High Court determined that the suppression of material facts was not appropriate. They concluded that a comprehensive consideration of the relevant rule is necessary to determine if the imposed stipulations can extend to the point where individual property purchases are subject to the afore mentioned rules. The very same aspect is being agitated by the prosecution in the above case also. However, as per the dictum of the Hon'ble Apex Court and also on the basis of the ratio laid down by the Hon'ble High court the contentions urged by the prosecution does not holds water and is liable to be rejected.
50 Spl.CC 867/2019 36 I have also bestowed my anxious reading to the other authorities which have been furnished by the learned counsels for accused which are all unreported judgments. For instance, in W.P.No.52690/2019 dt.9.2.2021 the similar facts were questioned. The Hon'ble High Court by relying upon the earlier judgment of the Co-Ordinate Bench in Smt.Pankaja Prabhudev @ Pankaja Prabhudev Vs. BDA had specifically held that possessing or owning a site or house from any other source stated in the Rules cannot be construed as ineligibility for seeking allotment of sites. When the said ratio is applied to the case on hand, it would clearly indicate that even though some of the accused persons own any other properties either in their name or in the name of their family members, the same cannot be a bar for allotment of site for the reason that it is not a granted / allotted site by the Governmental Agency. In the instant case also it is specifically urged that though the properties are standing in some of the accused person's name, they were not allotted / granted by any governmental agencies or authorities.
37 With this factual aspect, now the relevant provision of Sec.198 of IPC is required to be appreciated, which is already extracted supra in this judgment. On careful examination of the 51 Spl.CC 867/2019 same, the provision indicates that a false statement is to be made or whoever corruptly uses such certificate as true certificating knowing it to be false, in any material point is to be held of committing offence. Though in the instant case, instead of certificate an affidavit has been furnished by the accused/ applicants, even if the same is looked to ascertain whether the applicants had corruptly used or attempted to use it as true certificate. On conjoint reading of the affidavit along with the relevant provision of law would indicate that at no point of time they had intended to use it as a false certificate. Admittedly, the accused No.1 to 4, 6, 8 to 12 had not obtained or not grantees or allottees of any site or house property by any Governmental Agencies. All that it is to be pointed out is that they owned certain properties and in some cases i.e., as narrated with respect to accused No.1 R.M.Nandeesh, accused No.2 R.N.Shilpa the properties were owned by their father. It is relevant to note that accused No.2 R.N.Shilpa was a married woman and she is residing separately and the question which arises is can she be termed as family member of accused No.13 G.Mallikarjunappa. In strict sense, she cannot be considered as Family Member of accused No.13 Mallikarjunappa and even otherwise accused No.13 52 Spl.CC 867/2019 G.Mallikarjunappa was not allotted / granted with any sites by Governmental Agency.
38 With respect to accused No.3 Dr.Jayadevappa the property was standing in the name of his son Dr.D.J.Abhishek. On appreciation of the records at Ex.P.114 and 115, it indicates that it was not allotted site.
39 With respect to accused No.4 Prakash, it is stated that his wife Manjula was owning several other properties at Shivamogga and the documents at Ex.P.68 to 73 indicates that it was not a allotted site.
40 It is a similar situation with respect to accused No.6 M.C.Vidyashankar against whom it is alleged of furnishing false affidavit, whereas his father and wife owned house property at Malebennur, Harihar Tq., as per ExP.65 to 67 which is once again not a allotted or granted property.
41 With respect to accused No.8 Basavaraju it is stated that he was having a site at Siddaveerappa Extension of Davanagere as per Ex.P.75 to 79 which is also not a allotted or granted site.
53 Spl.CC 867/2019 42 With respect to accused No.9 Mallikarjunaswamy, his wife was having a house property at Chitradurga as per Ex.P.83 and 84 which was once again not a allotted site.
43 The allegations leveled against accused No.10 Ramachandra Hebbar, accused No.11 Sunil Kumar and accused No.12 Dr.Ramesh are very similar wherein the documents indicate that they were not owning a granted or allotted site.
44 For the sake of argument, if owning a site or property through some other means is to be considered an offence and furnishing false information, then once again the prosecution would be at a loss to explain that why the present Investigating officer P.W-21 Manjunath Gangal has not been arraigned as accused person. During the course of cross-examination PW21 Manjunath Gangal who was working as Police Inspector at Karnataka Lokayukta, Davanagere from 1.9.2012 to March 2013 and October 2013 to June 2015 is also one of the beneficiaries of the site. It is pertinent to note that during the course of his cross-examination, he has specifically admitted that he was allotted with a site and he too had filed affidavit wherein he has stated that no property was owned by him. During the course of his further cross-examination at Para-38 he has admitted 54 Spl.CC 867/2019 that his ancestors owned property at Hanchinal village and he has not disclosed about the same in his affidavit. If the same yardstick is applied to all the applicants, then the Investigating officer who has filed charge sheet would have to answer that why PW21 Manjunath Gangal was not arraigned as accused person. If the provision of law is applicable to the applicants, then the Investigating Agency should have applied the same to PW21 also. The court is not stating that PW21 Manjunath Gangal should have been arraigned as accused or has sworn to a false affidavit, but the endeavor of the court is to indicate that the basis of investigation is not solid and as robust it should be 45 That apart the cross-examination of PW19 Mustaq Ahmed and PW20 S.T.Wodeyar who were the main Investigation Officers is to be looked into. They have specifically admitted during the course of their cross-examination that they had verified the applications pertaining to the names mentioned in the private complaint which was lodged before the learned District and Sessions Judge Court at Davanagere by PW1 Manikanta Sarkar. For the sake of argument, if a matter was referred by the learned Court to investigate and to report, it was the bounden duty of the Investigating 55 Spl.CC 867/2019 Agency to ascertain the total number of applications which were filed and they should have looked into the aspect that whether any illegality was committed by any of the Committee Members. Admittedly, the main allegation which has been leveled in the above case is of showing partisan attitude by some of the Sub-Committee members and also favouring their cronies. If an allegation is leveled against accused No.13 Mallikarjunappa that he had exerted some influence on the Sub-Committee Members, then the prosecution should have explained that how and in what manner the said influence was exerted by him. No doubt exerting of influence will not be made through any document in writing, but by indicating the circumstances it should have been explained.
46 It is also pertinent to note that a serious allegation is leveled against accused No.5 Sapna of obtaining allotment of 12X18 Mtrs site at General Category. It is stated that out of 52 sites there were 144 applicants and in that the application of accused No.5 Sapna was at Sl.No.120 and she was allotted with zero point. The court has carefully appreciated the entire file which has been furnished pertaining to the each of the accused. The Investigating Officer has specifically deposed that they had not looked in to the 56 Spl.CC 867/2019 veracity of the applications filed by all applicants but had only verified the documents against whom the private complaint was filed. If for a moment the application which has been filed by accused No.5 N.Sapna is to be appreciated it indicates that she was allotted with points by the Scrutiny Committee. The court is handicapped from looking in to the entire materials for the reason that the prosecution has not produced all relevant documents which would indicate the deliberations which had taken place prior to passing final resolution by the Sub Committee. As per Ex.P.143 the Minutes of the Meeting dated 22.9.2010 has been furnished. The resolution was passed by the Sub-Committee on 22.9.2010 wherein the name of persons has been culled out and also the points they have obtained is narrated. However, the resolution is not indicating that why some of the applicants were given preferential position when others had also obtained similar or equal marks. Though the learned SPP had argued that it was a deviation on which the court has to draw an inference that illegality was committed the same would not be suffice in the eyes of law and that too for invoking the provision of Sec.8 of the P.C.Act.
57 Spl.CC 867/2019 47 It is relevant to note that as per the Resolution dated 22.9.2010 it indicated of 5 members in the Sub-Committee. For the sake of convenience their names has been culled out as follows:-
(1) Sri Yashawanthrao Jadav - President -
Accused No.15 (2) Smt.Shashikala Eshwarappa - Member - Accused No.16 (3) Commissioner of DHUDA - Member ( not arraigned as accused) (4) Executive Engineer - Member (not arraigned as accused)
5) District Health and Welfare Officer, Davanagere (not arraigned as accused) 48 The investigating officer's only claim is that they did not play a part in the investigation. When an allegation is leveled against some of the Committee Members, i.e., against accused No. 15 and 16 being the then President and Members of the Committee, it was the bounden duty of the prosecution to pin point the role played by them and also reasons for not arraigning the Commissioner, Executive Engineer, and District Health and Welfare Officer as accused persons. If for the sake of arguments it is to be accepted that they had played only minimum role, it was the bounden duty of the 58 Spl.CC 867/2019 prosecution to produce all the materials that had take place prior to passing of resolution by the Sub-Committee on 22.9.2010. Admittedly, the resolution was not passed on a single day and several deliberations might have taken place before arriving at a conclusion to select the name of allottees. Further, it is relevant to note that at that point of time, accused No.14 S.A.Ravindranath was the District In-charge Minister. All that it has been stated is that he being the District In-charge Minister had meddled with the allotment of sites. If for the sake of arguments, the said contention is to be accepted, then the prosecution has to indicate the manner and role played by him and also the nature of exerting influence. Nowhere in the statement of witnesses it is forthcoming that he had exerted pressure on any of the members of the Committee and just because by virtue of his position as the then District In-charge Minister he was the Member of the Allotment Committee; he cannot be arraigned as accused person. It is also well settled principle of law that the court cannot solely depend upon the assumptions and presumptions and whenever an allegation under P.C.Act or under IPC is made, it is the bounden duty of the prosecution to prove their case beyond reasonable doubt.
59 Spl.CC 867/2019 49 In the instant case, the prosecution has contended that accused No.1 to 6, 8 to 13 had committed an offence under Sec.8 of P.C. Act. However, in the absence of specific materials to indicate an overt act the provision of Sec.8 cannot be invoked. For better appreciating of the fact, it would be appropriate to cull out the ingredients which are required to establish the offence under section 8 of the P. C. Act. For the sake of brevity it could be as follows:
(i) That the accused accepted or obtained, or agreed to accept, or attempted to obtain, from someone;
(ii) For himself or for some other person;
(iii) Any gratification whatever;
(iv) As a motive or reward for inducing by corrupt or illegal means any "public servant" to do or forbear to do any official act or to show favour or render any service to any of the persons specified in the section.
50 When the ingredient is appreciated, firstly the prosecution has to establish that the accused had accepted or agreed to obtain gratification from someone either for himself or for some other person and the said gratification was the motive or reward for inducing by corrupt or illegal means any "public servant" to do or forbear from doing any official act or render service. In the instant 60 Spl.CC 867/2019 case, though sesquipedalian chargesheet is filed by the investigating agency nowhere it is forth coming that the members of the Sub Committee had accepted or agreed to obtain gratification and even there are no materials are present to indicate such an act being committed by the aforesaid accused persons. The duty of the investigating agency doesn't ceases on mere production of application or the materials, but it the sacrosanct duty wherein the investigating agency are required to accurately point out the incriminating materials which would point out towards the guilt of the accused persons. In the instant case, it is not forth coming whether the aforesaid accused persons who are the members of Sub Committee had played such a role. Apart from that it is alleged that the accused NO.13 G Mallikarjunappa had exerted his political pressure on the members of the Sub Committee and had ensured allotment of site in favour of his children, accused No.1 and Accused No.2. However, the said contention is not backed by any materials. Even otherwise the allegation against Accused No.14 - Sri S A Ravindranath who was the then District in charge Minister is also not backed by any reasons. Admittedly there are no materials to indicate that he had taken active participation in the deliberation of the Sub Committee. He was the member of the Committee which was formed 61 Spl.CC 867/2019 for allotment of sites. If for the sake of argument, it is to be held that on the basis of the recommendations made by the members of the Sub Committee, allotment of sites were made, then once again the prosecution will be at loss to explain why other members of Sub Committee are left out and in other way around if it is to be contended that the act of the Accused No.14 Sri S A Ravindranath attracts the rigors of section 8 of the P. C. Act then also the investigating agency has to specifically explain how the basic ingredients of section 8 of the P C Act would be attracted. In this regard reliance is placed on the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex court reported in (2018)17 SCC 732 ( Babji V State of A.P) wherein the basic requirements to attract the provision of section 8 of P. C Act is discussed and held as follows:
5. In order to establish the offence under Section 8 of the Prevention of Corruption Act it must be proved:
(i) That the accused accepted or obtained, or agreed to accept, or attempted to obtain, from someone;
(ii) For himself or for some other person;
(iii) Any gratification whatever;
62 Spl.CC 867/2019
(iv) As a motive or reward for inducing by corrupt or illegal means any "public ser- vant" to do or forbear to do any official act or to show favour or render any service to any of the persons specified in the section.
6. In order to constitute an offence under Section 8 of the Act, three things are essen- tial. In the first place there must have been the solicitation or receipt of the gratifica- tion. Secondly, such gratification must have been asked for or paid as a motive or re-
ward for inducing a public servant to do an act or do a favour or render some service as stated under Section 8 of the Act. In the present case, the evidence adduced by the prosecution is vague for whom the appel- lant had demanded the money and whether the person for whom the appellant de-
manded and received the money is a public servant. Though the receiver of the money, like in the present case may not be a public servant, the prosecution has to establish by convincing evidence that the amount must have been received for inducing a public servant for doing something by that public servant in his official capacity. So far as 63 Spl.CC 867/2019 confirmation of the seat in the Indian Air- lines, there may be persons in the middle who may be a public servant or a travel agency or others. In the absence of convinc- ing evidence to show that the appellant had received the money from PW 4, to induce a public servant to get the confirmation of the ticket, the conviction of the appellant under Section 8 of the PC Act cannot be sustained. In the result, the appeal is allowed and the appellant is acquitted 51 With respect to invocation of Sec.13(1)(c) r/w 13(2) of P.C.Act it is alleged that the accused No.15 Yashwanthrao Jadav, accused No.16 Shashikala Eshwarappa, accused No.19 Dr.B.R.Sumitradevi had indulged in corrupt practices amounting to criminal misconduct. What amounts to criminal misconduct has been succinctly explained by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the judgment reported in (2016) 12 SCC 273 ( A Shivaprakash V State of Kerala) wherein it is held as:
17. Section 13(1)(d) of the PC Act reads as under:
64 Spl.CC 867/2019 "13. Criminal misconduct by a public ser-
vant.--(1) A public servant is said to commit the offence of criminal misconduct--
***
(d) if he--
(i) 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 ser- vant, obtains for himself or for any other person any valuable thing or pecuniary ad- vantage; or
(iii) while holding office as a public servant, obtains for any person any valuable thing or pecuniary advantage without any public in- terest; or"
18. The prosecution has sought to cover the case of the appellant under sub-clause (ii) of Section 13(1)(d) and not under sub-clause (i) and sub-clause (iii). Insofar as sub-clause
(ii) is concerned, it stipulates that a public servant is said to commit the offence of crim-
inal misconduct if he, by abusing his position as a public servant, obtains for himself or for any other person any valuable thing or pecu-
65 Spl.CC 867/2019 niary advantage. Thus, the ingredients which will be required to be proved are:
(1) The public servant has abused his posi- tion.
(2) By abusing that position, he has obtained for himself or for any other person any valu-
able thing or pecuniary advantage.
19. It was not even the case set up by the prosecution that the appellant had taken that money from some person and had obtained any pecuniary advantage thereby. It was the obligation of the prosecution to satisfy the aforesaid mandatory ingredients which could implicate the appellant under the provisions of Section 13(1)(d)(ii). The attempt of the prosecution was to bring the case within the fold of sub-clause (ii) alleging that he mis- used his official position in issuing the cer- tificate utterly fails as it is not even alleged in the charge-sheet and not even an iota of evi- dence is led as to what kind of pecuniary ad- vantage was obtained by the appellant in is- suing the said letter.
52 The aforesaid judgment clearly indicates how the provision of section 13(1)(c) is required to be appreciated to consider 66 Spl.CC 867/2019 the allegation of criminal misconduct. I have also bestowed my anxious reading to the allegation leveled against accused No.5 N.Sapna. It is relevant to note that as per the resolution passed in the Minutes of the Meeting, N.Sapna was allotted with site at Sri J.H.Patel Extension of dimension 12 X 18 meters. It has also been noted down by the Investigating Officer that there were totally 144 applicants who had applied for 52 available sites. It is also submitted by the Investigating Officer that Smt.N.Sapna was allotted with zero point and in spite of it was allotted with site. In order to appreciate the same, I have perused Minutes of the Sub-Committee meeting. It is relevant to note at this juncture, that though she has been allotted with zero point, the name of some other person for example Seema Banakar at Sl.No.81 indicates of allotted with 2 point, who has also been allotted with a site. That apart, the applicant at Sl.No.111 Sunil S.Byadagi also been allotted with site and the applicant at Sl.No.107 M.Chethan was allotted with 1 point also been allotted with a site. It indicates that the yardstick for determining the awarding of points is not consistent. However, I have also bestowed my anxious reading to the cross-examination of Investigating Officer, in particularly, PW19 Mustaq Ahmed. During the course of his cross-examination he has admitted only on the basis of assumptions he had arrived at 67 Spl.CC 867/2019 conclusion that accused No.13 G.Mallikarjunappa had exerted influence towards allotment of site. Further, with respect to accused No.6 also he deposed that there were no materials to indicate exertion of influence, but on the circumstance he had arrived at a conclusion. The aforesaid cross-examination only indicates that he had not conducted investigation in conclusive manner. The investigating officer is not specific that whether accused No.9 Mallikarjunaswamy was allotted with any site from Governmental Agency. Apart from that the Investigating Officer has admitted that in the resolutions passed by the Sub-Committee, the Superintendent of Police had also affixed his signature to the decisions of the Main Committee and it is his submission that it was based on the recommendation of the Sub-Committee. If for the purpose of argument, the Members of Sub-Committee are to arraigned as accused persons, it would be appropriate for Investigating Officer to decipher and clearly indicate that against whom the allegations is based and on what grounds said allegations are fortified. Without pointing out the same, merely taking the name of the some of the members of the Sub-Committee as the persons who had succumbed to the political influence or had succumbed to the influence of the applicants would not be appropriate. Further, he has also admitted 68 Spl.CC 867/2019 that they had enquired only against the persons against whom the complaints were received. If for the purpose of arguments, once again if the case of accused No.5 N.Sapna is revisited, it is to be appreciated that some of the persons in General Category who had applied for site of dimension of 12X 18 Meters were allotted sites though they were having marks allotted as 1 point, 2 point and some of the applicants who carried 0 (zero) point were also allotted. If the investigating officer contends that he had enquired only against the persons against whom the private complaint was lodged, then it cannot be termed as conclusive investigation. For example, the Investigation Officer should have ascertained whether any illegality or irregularity was committed towards allotment of site in that particular category. Admittedly, as per the KUDA Act and Rules certain proportionate of sites were to be ear-marked for particular category of persons. Then the Investigating Officer should have appreciated whether rejection of applications by the Scrutinizing Committee was proper and whether any irregularities were committed in rejecting the claim of the eligible applicants. After that the Investigating Officer should have necessarily collected the materials to ascertain whether awarding of points was in proper manner by the Sub-Committee and what were the criteria adapted by 69 Spl.CC 867/2019 them towards awarding of points to the applicants. Unless said material is placed before the Court and brought out in a proper manner the court will not be in a position to ascertain whether any irregularities committed by the Sub-Committee.
53 That apart it is rather interesting to note that the Investigating Officer has conducted investigation only against the persons whose name was forthcoming in the Private complaint. The larger conspiracy or the allegation which was leveled in the complaint by the PW1 Manikanta Sarkar was that the accused persons in connivance with the members of the Sub-Committee had flouted all the Rules and Regulations and had allotted sites in derogation of the prevailing rules and laws. In that event, the Investigating Officer was duty bound to conduct a conclusive investigation. Further, the cross-examination of PW19 itself indicates that he had admitted of conducting enquiry against applicants whose names were forthcoming in the complaint and had not proceeded to ascertain the fate of the applicants who were either rejected or not considered by the Sub-Committee. He has also admitted that the investigation conducted by him was not conclusive. In the wake of such admissions and also the manner in which the investigation is 70 Spl.CC 867/2019 conducted, the court cannot accept the contention of the prosecution of proving the guilt beyond reasonable doubt. It is well settled principle of law that whenever two views are possible, the court will have to accept the view which favours the accused persons. In this regard, reliance in this regard is placed on the authoritative judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court reported in (1979)1 SCC 355 ( K Gopala Reddy V State of A.P) wherein it is held as:
9. The principles are now well settled. At one time it was thought that an order of acquittal could be set aside for "sub-
stantial and compelling reasons" only and Courts used to launch on a search to discover those "substantial and com- pelling reasons". However, the "formu- lae" of "substantial and compelling rea- sons", "good and sufficiently cogent reasons" and "strong reasons" and the search for them were abandoned as a result of the pronouncement of this Court in Sanwat Singh v. State of Ra-
jasthan [AIR 1961 SC 715 : (1961) 3 SCR 120 : (1961) 1 Cri LJ 766] . In Sanwat Singh case, this Court harked back to the principles enunciated by the 71 Spl.CC 867/2019 Privy Council in Sheo Swarup v. Em-
peror [61 IA 398 : AIR 1934 PC 227] and reaffirmed those principles. After Sanwat Singh v. State of Rajasthan this Court has consistently recognised the right of the appellate court to review the entire evidence and to come to its own conclusion bearing in mind the consid-
erations mentioned by the Privy Council in Sheo Swamp case. Occasionally phrases like "manifestly illegal", "grossly unjust", have been used to de-
scribe the orders of acquittal which war- rant interference. But, such expressions have been used more as flourishes of language, to emphasise the reluctance of the appellate court to interfere with an order of acquittal than to curtail the power of the appellate court to review the entire evidence and to come to its own conclusion. In some cases (Ramab-
hupala Reddy v. The State of A.P. [(1970) 3 SCC 474 : 1971 SCC (Cri) 80 :
AIR 1971 SC 460] Bhim Singh Rup Singh v. State of Maharashtra [(1974) 3 SCC 762 : 1974 SCC (Cri) 238 : AIR 1974 SC 286] ), it has been said that to
72 Spl.CC 867/2019 the principles laid down in Sanwat Singh case may be added the further principle that "if two reasonable conclu- sions can be reached on the basis of the evidence on record, the appellate court should not disturb the finding of the trial court". This, of course, is not a new principle. It stems out of the fundamen- tal principle of our criminal jurispru- dence that the accused is entitled to the benefit of any reasonable doubt. If two reasonably probable and evenly bal-
anced views of the evidence are possible, one must necessarily concede the exis-
tence of a reasonable doubt. But, fanci- ful and remote possibilities must be left out of account. To entitle an accused person to the benefit of a doubt arising from the possibility of a duality of views, the possible view in favour of the ac-
cused must be as nearly reasonably probable as that against him. If the pre- ponderance of probability is all one way, a bare possibility of another view will not entitle the accused to claim the ben- efit of any doubt. It is, therefore, essen- tial that any view of the evidence in 73 Spl.CC 867/2019 favour of the accused must be reason-
able even as any doubt, the benefit of which an accused person may claim, must be reasonable. "A reasonable doubt", it has been remarked, "does not mean some light, airy, insubstantial doubt that may flit through the minds of any of us about almost anything at some time or other; it does not mean a doubt begotten by sympathy out of reluctance to convict; it means a real doubt, a doubt founded upon reasons [ Salmon, J. in his charge to the jury in R. v. Fan-
tle reported in 1959 Criminal Law Re-
view 584] . As observed by Lord Den-
ning in Miller v. Minister of Pensions [(1947) 2 All ER 372] "Proof beyond a reasonable doubt does not mean proof beyond a shadow of a doubt. The law would fail to protect the community if it admitted fanciful possibilities to deflect the course of justice. If the evidence is so strong against a man as to leave only a remote possibility in his favour, which can be dismissed with the sentence "of course it is possible but not in the least probable", the case is proved beyond 74 Spl.CC 867/2019 reasonable doubt, but nothing short of that will suffice." In Khem Karan v.
State of U.P. [(1974) 4 SCC 603 : 1974 SCC (Cri) 689 : AIR 1974 SC 1567] this Court observed:
"Neither mere possibilities nor re- mote possibilities nor mere doubts which are not reasonable can, without danger to the administration of justice, be the foundation of the acquittal of an accused person, if there is otherwise fairly credible testimony."
54 Last but not the least; it is also pertinent to note that the court cannot proceed to award an order of conviction on the basis of assumptions and presumptions. The prosecution is duty bound to prove each and every aspect of the allegation which are leveled by them beyond reasonable doubt. Proving the case beyond reasonable doubt would clearly indicate that the investigating agency are able to point out specific role which has been played by the accused persons. Certain time, the case will be based on circumstantial evidence and even at that time, the prosecution are required to establish the fact on the basis of chain of events and when the case are partly based on documentary evidence once again it is the duty of the investigating 75 Spl.CC 867/2019 agency to co relate the documents which could be termed as incriminating against the accused persons. In the instant case, though the investigating officer has collected the application forms which were filed by the applicants, he is unable to point out which of the materials are incriminating material or which would suggest that the applicants had violated the provisions of KUDA act and Rules to obtain allotment of site and which of the document indicates specific overt act against the members of Sub Committee to arrive at a conclusion that their act attracts the rigors of section 13 of the P. C Act. Unfortunately, in the above case, the documentary evidence and also the ocular evidence are quite oxymoron to each other wherein the Investigating Officer himself is not sure whether owning the site in their personal capacity either through purchase or inheritance would act as a bar to the prevailing rules of KUDA. Unless the Investigating Officer is specifically sure of the provision of law, the filing of the final report itself indicates of conducting investigation in an inconclusive manner. The duty of the Investigating Agency is to unravel the truth and always the criminal trial indicates of journey of discovery of truth. However, in the instant case, the Investigating Agency has totally forgotten to conduct investigation in a proper manner. Due to the aforesaid 76 Spl.CC 867/2019 aspects the benefit of doubt always has to be given to the accused persons. The role of the investigating agency has been succinctly explained by the Hon'ble Apex court in the judgment reported in 1992 Supp (1) 222 ( State of Bihar V P P Sharma) wherein it is held as:
47. The investigating officer is the arm of the law and plays pivotal role in the dispensation of criminal justice and maintenance of law and order. The po-
lice investigation is, therefore, the foun- dation stone on which the whole edifice of criminal trial rests -- an error in its chain of investigation may result in mis- carriage of justice and the prosecution entails (sic) with acquittal. The duty of the investigating officer, therefore, is to ascertain facts, to extract truth from half-truth or garbled version, connect- ing the chain of events. Investigation is a tardy and tedious process. Enough power, therefore, has been given to the police officer in the area of investigatory process, granting him or her great lati- tude to exercise his discretionary power to make a successful investigation. It is 77 Spl.CC 867/2019 by his action that law becomes an actual positive force. Often crimes are commit- ted in secrecy with dexterity and at high places. The investigating officer may have to obtain information from sources disclosed or undisclosed and there is no set procedure to conduct investigation to connect every step in the chain of prose- cution case by collecting the evidence except to the extent expressly prohibited by the Code or the Evidence Act or the Constitution. In view of the arduous task involved in the investigation he has been given free liberty to collect the nec- essary evidence in any manner he feels expedient, on the facts and in given cir- cumstances. His/her primary focus is on the solution of the crime by intensive in- vestigation. It is his duty to ferret out the truth. Laborious hard work and atten-
tion to the details, ability to sort through mountainous information, recognised behaviourial patterns and above all, to co-ordinate the efforts of different peo- ple associated with various elements of the crime and the case, are essential. Di- verse methods are, therefore, involved in 78 Spl.CC 867/2019 making a successful completion of the investigation.
48. From this perspective, the function of the judiciary in the course of investi- gation by the police should be comple-
mentary and full freedom should be ac-
corded to the investigator to collect the evidence connecting the chain of events leading to the discovery of the truth, viz., the proof of the commission of the crime. Often individual liberty of a wit- ness or an accused person are involved and inconvenience is inescapable and unavoidable. The investigating officer would conduct in-depth investigation to discover truth while keeping in view the individual liberty with due observance of law. At the same time he has a duty to enforce criminal law as an integral process. No criminal justice system de- serves respect if its wheels are turned by ignorance. It is never his business to fabricate the evidence to connect the suspect with the commission of the crime. Trustworthiness of the police is the primary insurance. Reputation for investigative competence and individual 79 Spl.CC 867/2019 honesty of the investigator are necessary to enthuse public confidence. Total sup- port of the public also is necessary.
61. An Investigating Officer who is not sensitive to the constitutional mandates, may be prone to trample upon the per-
sonal liberty of a person when he is ac-
tuated by mala fides. But as stated, the accused at the earliest should bring to the notice of the court the personal bias and his reasonable belief that an objec- tive investigation into the crime would not be had at the hands of the investiga-
tor by pleading and proving as of fact with necessary material facts. If he stands by till the charge-sheet was filed, it must be assumed that he has waived his objection. He cannot turn down (sic round) after seeing the adverse re- port to plead the alleged mala fides.
Equally laying the information before the Station House Officer of the com-
mission of cognizable crime merely sets the machinery of the investigation in motion to act in accordance with the procedure established by law. The find- ing of the High Court, therefore, that 80 Spl.CC 867/2019 the FIR and charge-sheet violate the constitutional mandate under Article 21 is without substance.
-:SUMMATION:-
55 PW1 Manikanta Sarkar filed a private complaint in the instant case against accused Nos. 1 to 19, arguing that DHUDA had allotted sites at Sri J.H. Patel Extension to the applicants, despite their ineligibility. The specific contention was that Accused No. 13 B. Mallikarjunappa, a member of the political party, conspired with Accused No. 14 S.A. Ravindranath and other members of the Sub-
Committee appointed for site allocation, including Accused No. 15 Yashwanthrao Jadav, Accused No. 16 Shashikala Eshwarappa, Accused No. 19 Dr. B.R. Sumitradevi, and others, to secure the allotted sites. However, the investigating agency interpreted the site allotment provision incorrectly. Some of the accused persons, including accused No. 1 R.M. Nandeesha, accused No. 2 R.M. Shilpa, accused No. 3 B.K. Jayadevappa, accused No. 4 K. Prakash, accused No. 6 M.C. Vidyashankar, accused No. 8 N. Basavaraj, accused No. 9 B. Mallikarjunaswamy, accused No. 10 Ramachandra Hebbar, accused No. 11 Sunil Kumar, and accused No. 12 Dr. Ramamesh R., allegedly provided false information in their affidavit, 81 Spl.CC 867/2019 thereby committing an offense under Sec. 198 of the IPC. However, Rule 12(2) of the KUDA Rules of 1991 clearly states that bar would be applicable only when the sites are allotted by the Urban Development Authority, the Government, the Karnataka Housing Board, or any other government agency. By interpreting the law incorrectly and gathering evidence that the applicants owned properties through inheritance or their own site purchases, they came to the conclusion that they had committed the offense of furnishing false information. Said proposition is totally incorrect and based on a wrong proposition of law, the accused cannot be held guilty. Further there are no materials to indicate that the members of the Sub Committee had committed any act which would attract the rigors of section 8 and section 13 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. Accordingly, I answer points No.1 to 3 in the Negative.
56 Point No.4: In view of my findings on points No.1 to 3, I proceed to pass the following order:
ORDER Accused No.1 to 6, 8 to 16 and 19 are found not guilty and hence Acting under Sec.235(1) of Cr.P.C., they are hereby acquitted for the charges leveled against them for the offences punishable under Sec.198 of IPC and 82 Spl.CC 867/2019 under Sec.8, 13(1)(c) r/w 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.
Bail bonds and surety bonds of the accused stand cancelled.
(Dictated to the Stenographer Grade-I, transcribed by him, revised and corrected by me and then pronounced in the Open Court on this the 4th day of July, 2024) (Santhosh Gajanan Bhat) LXXXI Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge, Bengaluru City (CCH-82) (Special Court exclusively to deal with criminal cases related to elected former and sitting MPs/MLAs in the State of Karnataka) ANNEXURES
1. Witnesses examined by the prosecution:-
PW1 Manikanta Sarkar
PW2 H.Vijayakumar
PW3 Vasudeva
PW4 Ravi.B
PW5 Karibasavanagowda
PW6 S.Rangaswamy
PW7 Swetha.G.
PW8 Achutha Murthy K.A.
PW9 Dr.N.Mahanthesh
PW10 Varalakshmi
PW11 C.K.Basavarajappa
83 Spl.CC 867/2019
PW12 Chinnappa @ Jakkappa
PW13 Prasad Kumar
PW14 Javed
PW15 Vasanna
PW16 Gnanappa
PW17 Venkateshappa Gaddada
PW18 Vasim.A.
PW19 Mustaq Ahmed
PW20 S.T.Odeyar
PW21 Manjunath Gangal
2. Witnesses examined by the defence/accused.- NIL
3. Documents exhibited by the prosecution.
Ex.P.1 Private complaint PCR No.2/13
Ex.P.1(a) Signature of complainant
Ex.P.2 Verification affidavit
Ex.P.2(a) Signature of complainant
Ex.P.3 Private complaint in PCR No.4/2013
Ex.P.3(a) Signature of complainant
Ex.P.4 Verification affidavit
Ex.P.4(a) Signature of complainant
Ex.P.5 Private complaint in PCR No.16/2013
Ex.P.5(a) Signature of complainant
Ex.P.6 Verification affidavit
Ex.P.6(a) Signature of complainant
Ex.P.7 Private complaint in PCR No.18/2013
Ex.P.7(a) Signature of complainant
84 Spl.CC 867/2019
Ex.P8 Verification affidavit
Ex.P.8(a) Signature of complainant
Ex.P.9 Private complaint in PCR No.20/2013
Ex.P.9(a) Signature of complainant
Ex.P.10 Verification affidavit
Ex.P.10(a) Signature of complainant Ex.P.11 Private complaint in PCR No.22/2013 Ex.P.11(a) Signature of complainant Ex.P.12 Verification affidavit Ex.P.12(a) Signature of complainant Ex.P.13 Private complaint in PCR No.24/2013 Ex.P.13(a) Signature of complainant Ex.P.14 Verification affidavit Ex.P.14(a) Signature of complainant Ex.P.15 Private complaint in PCR No.30/2013 Ex.P.15(a) Signature of complainant Ex.P.16 Verification affidavit Ex.P.16(a) Signature of complainant Ex.P.17 Private complaint in PCR No.32/2013 Ex.P.17(a) Signature of complainant Ex.P.18 Verification affidavit Ex.P.18(a) Signature of complainant Ex.P.19 Private complaint in PCR No.34/2013 Ex.P.19(a) Signature of complainant Ex.P.20 Verification affidavit Ex.P.20(a) Signature of complainant Ex.P.21 Private complaint in PCR No.36/2013 Ex.P.21(a) Signature of complainant 85 Spl.CC 867/2019 Ex.P.22 Verification affidavit Ex.P.22(a) Signature of complainant Ex.P.23 Private complaint in PCR No.38/2013 Ex.P.23(a) Signature of complainant Ex.P.24 Verification affidavit Ex.P.24(a) Signature of complainant Ex.P.25 Seizure Mahazar Ex.P.25(a) Signature of PW2 Ex.P.25(b) Signature of PW20 Ex.P.26 File Ex.P.26(a) Signature of PW2 on first page of the file Ex.P.27 Mahazar Ex.P.27(a) Signature of PW3 Ex.P.27(b) Signature of PW20 Ex.P.28 File pertaining to Shilpa w/o Deepak Ex.P.28(a) Signature of PW3 on the first page of the file Ex.P.29 Mahazar pertaining to Cr.No.25/2013 Ex.P.29(a) Signature of PW4 Ex.P.29(b) Signature of PW20 Ex.P.30 Mahazar pertaining to Cr.No.27/2013 Ex.P.30(a) Signature of PW4 Ex.P.30(b) Signature of PW20 Ex.P.31 Mahazar pertaining to Cr.No.29/2013 Ex.P.31(a) Signature of PW4 Ex.P.31(b) Signature of PW20 Ex.P.32 Mahazar pertaining to Cr.No.31/2013 Ex.P.32(a) Signature of PW5 Ex.P.32(b) Signature of PW20 86 Spl.CC 867/2019 Ex.P.33 Mahazar pertaining to Cr.No.33/2013 Ex.P.33(a) Signature of PW5 Ex.P.33(b) Signature of PW20 Ex.P.34 Mahazar pertaining to Cr.No.39/2013 Ex.P.34(a) Signature of PW5 Ex.P.34(b) Signature of PW20 Ex.P.35 Mahazar pertaining to Cr.No.41/2013 Ex.P.35(a) Signature of PW5 Ex.P.35(b) Signature of PW20 Ex.P.36 Mahazar pertaining to Cr.No.43/2013 Ex.P.36(a) Signature of PW5 Ex.P.36(b) Signature of PW20 Ex.P.37 Mahazar Ex.P.37(a) Signature of PW6 Ex.P.37(b) Signature of PW20 Ex.P.38 Mahazar Ex.P.38(a) Signature of PW6 Ex.P.38(b) Signature of PW20 Ex.P.39 Check list pertaining to Nandish.R.M. Ex.P.39(a) Signature of PW7 Ex.P.40 Check list pertaining to Susheeladevi Ex.P.40(a) Signature of PW7 Ex.P.41 Check list pertaining to Basavarajappa.N Ex.P.41(a) Signature of PW7 Ex.P.42 Check list pertaining to Dr.Ramesh.R Ex.P.42(a) Signature of PW7 Ex.P.43 Letter dated 28.2.2014 Ex.P.43(a) Signature of PW9 87 Spl.CC 867/2019 Ex.P44-53 Copies of demand register extracts Ex.P.54 Letter dt.16.8.2014 Ex.P.54(a) Signature of Pw9 Ex.P.55 Copy of demand register extract Ex.P.56 Letter dt.9.3.2015 Ex.P.56(a) Signature of Pw9 Ex.P.57 Copy of demand register extract Ex.P.58 Letter dt.22.8.2014 Ex.P.58(a) Signature of Pw10 Ex.P.59 Copy of house and vacant site extract Ex.P.59(a) Signature of PW10 Ex.P.60 Letter dt.6.6.2014 Ex.P.61 Sale deed dt.27.1.2011 Ex.P.62 Check list pertaining to Sapna.N Ex.P.62(a) Signature of PW11 Ex.P.63 Check list pertaining to K.Prakash Ex.P.63(a) Signature of PW11 Ex.P.64 Check list pertaining to M.D.Vidyashankar Ex.P.64(a) Signature of PW11 Ex.P.65 Letter dated 5.8.2014 Ex.P.65(a) Signature of PW12 Ex.P.66 Katha extract belong to M.P.Rambhat Ex.P.67 Katha extract belong to Smt.Jyoti Ex.P.68 Letter dated 12.8.2014 Ex.P.68(a) Signature of PW13 Ex.P.69 Attested copy of registered sale deed dt.6.10.2003 Ex.P.70 Attested copy of registered sale deed dt.8.10.2004 88 Spl.CC 867/2019 Ex.P.71 Attested copy of registered sale deed dt.21.04.2005 Ex.P.72 Attested copy of lease cum sale deed dated 7.3.2012 Ex.P.73 Attested copy of sale deed 14.8.2013 Ex.P.74 Order sanction to prosecute Accused No.9 Ex.P.74(a) Signature of PW14 Ex.P.75 Letter dated.19.2.2015 Ex.P.75(a) Signature of PW15 Ex.P.76 Katha extract Ex.P.77 Letter Ex.P.77(a) Signature of PW15 Ex.P.78-79 Two katha extracts Ex.P.80 Letter Ex.P.80(a) Signature of PW15 Ex.P.81-82 Two katha extracts Ex.P83 Letter dated 22.8.2014 Ex.P.83(a) Signature of PW18 Ex.P.84 Katha extract Ex.P.85 Letter dated 28.2.2015 Ex.P.86 Sanction to prosecute A4-K.Prakash dt.7.11.2017 Ex.P.87 P.F.No.10/2013 Ex.P.87(a) Signature of PW20 Ex.P.88 FIR in Cr.No.25/2013 dt.2.7.2013 Ex.P.88(a) Signature of PW20 Ex.P.89 FIRregisteredin Cr. No.27/2013 dated 02.07.2013 Ex.P.89(a) Signature of PW20 89 Spl.CC 867/2019 Ex.P.90 FIR in Cr.No.29/2013 dt.2.7.2013 Ex.P.90(a) Signature of PW20 Ex.P.91 FIR in Cr.No.31/2013 dt.3.7.2013 Ex.P.91(a) Signature of PW20 Ex.P.92 FIR in Cr.No.33/2013 dt.3.7.2013 Ex.P.92(a) Signature of PW20 Ex.P.93 FIR in Cr.No.39/2013 dt.3.7.2013 Ex.P.93(a) Signature of PW20 Ex.P.94 FIR in Cr.No.41/2013 dt.4.7.2013 Ex.P.94(a) Signature of PW20 Ex.P.95 FIR in Cr.No.43/2013 dt.4.7.2013 Ex.P.95(a) Signature of PW20 Ex.P.96 FIR in Cr.No.45/2013 dt.4.7.2013 Ex.P.96(a) Signature of PW20 Ex.P.97 FIR in Cr.No.47/2013 dt.4.7.2013 Ex.P.97(a) Signature of PW20 Ex.P.98 PF No.12/2013 Ex.P.98(a) Signature of PW20 Ex.P.99 Letter dt.17.8.2013 Ex.P.100 Letter dt.17.8.2013 Ex.P.101 P.F.No.45/2013 Ex.P.101(a) Signature of PW20 Ex.P.102 PF No.46/2013 Ex.P.102(a) Signature of PW20 Ex.P.103 PF No.47/2013 Ex.P.103(a) Signature of PW20 Ex.P.104 PF No.48/2013 Ex.P.104(a) Signature of PW20 90 Spl.CC 867/2019 Ex.P.105 PF No.49/2013 Ex.P.105(a) Signature of PW20 Ex.P.106 PF No.52/2013 Ex.P.106(a) Signature of PW20 Ex.P.107 PF No.53/2013 Ex.P.107(a) Signature of PW20 Ex.P.108 PF No.54/2013 Ex.P.108(a) Signature of PW20 Ex.P.109 PF No.55/2013 Ex.P.109(a) Signature of PW20 Ex.P.110 PF No.56/2013 Ex.P.110(a) Signature of PW20 Ex.P.111 Letter dated 24.4.2014 Ex.P.112 Document dated 24.04.2014 Ex.P.113 Letter dated 22.11.2014 with respect to A3-
Jayadevappa
Ex.P.114 Letter dated 2.3.2015
Ex.P.115 Katha extract
Ex.P.116 Letter dated 25.11.2014
Ex.P.117 Letter dated 18.8.2014
Ex.P.118 Letter dated 25.11.2014
Ex.P.119 Letter dated 18.8.2014
Ex.P.120 Letter dt.19.01.2015
Ex.P.121 Letter dated 25.11.2014
Ex.P.122 Letter dated 25.11.2014
Ex.P.123 Letter dated 18.8.2014
Ex.P.124 Letter dated 20.08.2014
Ex.P.125 Death Certificate of accused No.7
91 Spl.CC 867/2019
Ex.P.126 Letter dated 25.11.2014
Ex.P.127 Letter dated 8.9.2014
Ex.P.128 Letter dated 25.11.2014
Ex.P.129 Letter dated 25.11.2014
Ex.P.130 Original FIR in Cr.No.8/2013
Ex.P.131 Original FIR in Cr.No.10/2013
Ex.P.132 Letter dated 22.11.2014 to PW21 of A11
Ex.P.133 PDO information with respect to A11
Ex.P.134 Letter dated 22.11.2014 to PW2
Ex.P.135 PDO information of A12
Ex.p.136 Letter dated 7.7.2014 details of Member
committee
Ex.P.137 Letter dated 7.7.2014 to PW21
Ex.P.138 Letter dated 28.6.2014 to PI Davanagere from
MD, BWSSB
Ex.P.139 Letter dated 5.3.2014 PI to KLA, Davanagere
Ex.P.140 Letter dated 27.6.2014 to PW21 by Health and
Family Welfare Department
Ex.P.141 Letter dt.5.7.2014 to PW21 by Commissioner,
DHUDA, Davanagere
4. Documents exhibited by the Defence/Accused:- Nil
5. List of Material Objects marked by the prosecution:- Nil Digitally signed by SANTHOSHGAJANANABHAT SANTHOSHGAJANANABHAT Date: 2024.07.05 17:30:28 +0530 LXXXI Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge, Bengaluru City (CCH-82) (Special Court exclusively to deal with criminal cases related to elected former and sitting MPs/MLAs in the State of Karnataka)