Bangalore District Court
Lingegoda, Aee vs Ragahvendra C.R on 12 January, 2026
KABC030752532021
Presented on : 13-10-2021
Registered on : 13-10-2021
Decided on : 12-01-2026
Duration : 4 years, 2 months, 30 days
IN THE COURT OF THE 30TH ADDL.CHIEF
JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE, BENGALURU
Dated: This the 12th day of January-2026
Present: Sri. Thimmaiah.G. B.A., LL.B.
XXX ACJM, Bengaluru.
C.C.No.28234/2021
(Judgment U/s.355 of Cr.P.C.)
Date of Offence 06.01.2020
Complainant State by Konanakunte Police Station.
R/by. Learned Senior APP
V/s.
Accused A1. Raghavendra.C.R
S/o.Ramaswamy,
Aged about 38 years,
Judgment 2 C.C.No.28234/2021
R/at. No.19, Angadi Beedi,
Basavanagudi,
Bengaluru Nagara.
A2. Ramesh.S.B
S/o. Srinivas,
Aged about 38 years,
R/at. No.29, 5th D Main,
5th Cross, Bhovi Colony,
Basaveshwara Nagara,
Bengaluru City.
Offences U/sec,. 227 of IPC and Sec., 23
of Karnataka Lake Conservation
and Development Act 2014.
Plea/Charge Recorded on 27.09.2023 and
accused persons are Pleaded not
guilty.
Examination U/sec., 313 of On 12.01.2026
Cr.P.C recorded on:
Final Oder Accused No.1 & 2 are Acquitted
Date of Order 12.01.2026
(Thimmaiah.G)
30th A.C.J.M., B'lore.
Judgment 3 C.C.No.28234/2021
JUDGMENT
The Police Sub-Inspector of Konanakunte Police Station has filed charge sheet against accused persons for the offences punishable U/sec,. 227 of IPC and Sec., 23 of Karnataka Lake Conservation and Development Act 2014.
02. The brief facts of the prosecution case is as follows:-
It is alleged that, the Accused persons were inform that they will repair the manhole near Chunchaghatta Lake on the RBI Layout Main Road, within the jurisdiction of Konanakunte Police Station border and stop the sewage from flowing into the lake. On 06.01.2020 Cw-1 and the accused No.2, during joint site inspection the Cw.1 said to the accused persons to stop the sewage water flow to the lake but, the accused persons did not stop the water flow even for several days. Due to the continuous flow of sewage water into the lake, the basic nature of the lake has been damaged and instead of rain water, the sewage water is standing in the lake, causing problems to the public and the possibility of health problems for the people living in the vicinity of the lake and thereby the accused Judgment 4 C.C.No.28234/2021 persons have committed the above said offences punishable U/sec,. 227 of IPC and Sec., 23 of Karnataka Lake Conservation and Development Act 2014.
03. After filing the charge sheet, cognizance taken for the offence punishable U/sec,. 227 of IPC and Sec., 23 of Karnataka Lake Conservation and Development Act 2014, against the accused persons. The accused persons were released on bail. Copy of the prosecution papers furnished to the accused persons as required U/Sec.207 of Cr.P.C. Heard before charge. Charge has been framed and read over to the accused persons wherein they have denied the same and claim to be tried.
04. In order to secure the Cw.2 to 6 witnesses, this court issued so many times Summons and Proclamation to the said witnesses, even though given the sufficient time give to the concerned police, the said concerned police have failed to secure these witnesses. Hence, dropped the same. In this regard I relied on the following Judgment of the Madras High Court, passed in The State ( Tamil Nadu) V/s Veerappan and Others, on 24 March 1980, AIR 1980 MAD260-ILR 3 MAD 245 where in it held as below:
Judgment 5 C.C.No.28234/2021
2. Of the two questions which have been referred to this Full Bench, the first one, namely, whether under Section 255(1) Cr. P. C., a Magistrate can acquit the accused if the prosecution fails to apply for the issue of summons to any witness and does not produce the witness for several hearings and does not serve summons on the witnesses despite having been granted sufficient opportunity to serve the summons or to produce the witnesses, is the one that directly arises for determination in these appeals. The second question which arises for determination by us incidentally is whether a Magistrate can acquit the accused under Section 248(1) Cr. P. C., if the prosecution does not apply for the issue of summons to any of the witnesses and does not produce the witness for several hearings and does not serve the summons on the witnesses despite having been granted sufficient opportunities to serve the summons on the witnesses or to produce the witnesses.
3. In all these appeals, the learned Magistrate acquitted the accused under Section 255(1) Cr. P. C., on the ground that even though the cases had been posted for hearing on various dates and summons had been issued to the witnesses for all the hearings, the Judgment 6 C.C.No.28234/2021 witnesses were not produced on any of the hearing dates and in spite of a notice issued that the case would be disposed of without examining the witnesses if they are not produced the prosecution did not choose to let in any evidence and as such the Magistrate found that the prosecution had no evidence to let in.
15. In State of Madh. Pra. v. Kaluthawar, 1972 Cri LJ 1639, a Division Bench of the Madhya Pradesh High Court observed as follows: "It was the duty of the prosecution to make necessary arrangements for the production of its witnesses.... The Police must always remember that it has got a duty to the court and they cannot just send a challan and think that the rest will be done by the court. When nobody appeared in t he court to inform what the reason was for non-appearance of the witnesses, the court could legitimately come to the conclusion that the police was not very serious in prosecuting the offence which was a minor one. Under Section 245, the Magistrate can record an order of acquittal if there is no evidence to hold the accused guilty. If the prosecution did not take proper steps to produce the witnesses, or ask the court to give them time to do the same, or to issue fresh Judgment 7 C.C.No.28234/2021 summons, the court was not bound to fix another date. The police has a duty towards the citizen. When the accused is brought before the court and the prosecuting department does not take any steps it will be an abuse of the process of the court to continue the trial. Bringing a person before the court accusing him of some offence is a serious matter and however petty the offence may be, the prosecuting department, must do its duty towards the accused as well as the court. When once the accused is challaned there is no privilege given to the police to remain absent".
16. There are quite a number of decisions in which it had been held that an acquittal of the accused on the failure of the prosecution to produce the witnesses is not legal. (Vide State v. Kaliram Nandlal, ), the State of Mysore v. Ramu, 1973 Mad LJ (Crl.) 116: (1973 Cri LJ 1257) (Mys); State of Mysore v. Kalilulla Ahmed Sheriff. AIR 1971 Mys 60; Kanduri Misra v. Sabadev Kunda, (1962) 2 Cri LJ 295; State of Orissa v. Sibcharan Singh, ; State of Mysore v. Somala, 1972 Mad LJ (Cri) 476: (1972 Cri LJ 1478) (Mys); State of Mysore v. Shanta, 1972 Mad LJ (Cri) 589 (Mys); State v. Nagappa, 1973 Cri LJ 548 (Mad); Public Prosecutor v.
Sambangi Mudaliar, ; State of Kerala v.
Judgment 8 C.C.No.28234/2021 Kunhiaraman, 1964 Mad LJ (Cri) 330 (Ker); State of Mysore v. Narasimha Gowda, AIR 1965 Mys 167; State of Gujarat v. Thakorbhai Sukhabhai, , State of U.P. v. Ramjani, All LJ 1126; Lakshmiamma Kochukuttiamma v.
Raman Pillai, AIR 1952 Trav-Co 268; State v. Madhavan Nair, 1959 Mad LJ (Cri) 633 (Ker); Emperor v. Varadarajulu Naidu, AIR 1932 Mad 25 (2); State of Kerala v. Desan Mary, 1960 Mad LJ (Cri) 378 (Ker); Kesar Singh v. State of Jammu and Kashmir, 1963-1 Cri LJ 765: (AIR 1963 J & K 23); R. K. V. Motors and Timbers Ltd. v. Regional Transport Authority, Trivandrum, ; K. K. Subbier v. K. M. S. Lakshmana Iyer, 1942 Mad WN (Cri) 64: (AIR 1942 Mad 452 (1)); State of Tripura v. Niranjan Deb Barma, 1973 Cri LJ 108 (Tripura); Apren Joseph v. State of Kerala, 1972 Mad LJ (Cri) 10: (1972 Cri LJ 1162) (Ker). As against these decisions, there are the following decisions in which it has been held that acquittal on the ground of non-production of witnesses by the prosecution was proper.
23. On the question as to whether the Magistrate can acquit an accused at all under Section 251A (11), Cr. P. C., if the prosecution failed to produce their witnesses, a Division Bench of the Gujarat High Court observed in Judgment 9 C.C.No.28234/2021 State of Gujarat v. Bava Bhadya (1962)'2 Cri LJ 537 (2), as follows: "Where a charge Is framed In a warrant case on police report, if owing to the failure of the prosecution to produce their witnesses and owing also to the failure of the prosecution to make full endeavour to serve the summonses according to the provisions contained in Sections 69, 70 and 71, Cr. P. C., 1890, there is no evidence before the Magistrate, the Magistrate can acquit the accused under Section 251A (11)."
" In State of Karnataka v. Subramania Setti 1980 Mad LJ 138: (1980 CA LJ NOC 129), a Division Bench of the Karnataka High Court referring to the decisions in State of Mysore v. Narasimha Gowda (1964) 2 Mys LJ 241: (AIR 1965 Mys 167) and the State of Mysore v. Abdul Hameed Khan (1969) 1 Mys LJ 4: (1970 Cri LJ 112 (Mys)), observed that the real distinction between the two decisions is as to whether there was remissness and want of diligence on the part of the prosecuting agency in producing the witnesses before the Court and therefore the principle laid down in Abdul Hameed Khan's case applied to the facts of the case with which the Division Bench was concerned. We may riots here that in Abdul Hameed Khan's case, it was found on the facts Judgment 10 C.C.No.28234/2021 that the prosecution was not at all diligent as the non-bailable warrants issued to the witnesses had neither been served nor returned to the court by the concerned police and it was therefore held that where the prosecution was not diligent in producing its witnesses and had failed to serve the bailable warrants on the witnesses and return the same the Magistrate would be justified in refusing to grant an adjournment and to proceed to acquit the accused on the material on record. We may note here that in State of Karnataka v. Subramania Setti 1980 MLJ 138 the Division Bench was dealing with a24. After carefully considering all the aforesaid decisions and the views expressed therein, we are of the view that if the prosecution had made an application for the issue of summons to its witnesses either under Section 242(2) or 254(2) of the Criminal Procedural Code it is the duty of the court to issue summons to the prosecution witnesses and to secure the witnesses by exercising all the powers given to it under the Criminal Procedure Code, as already indicated by us and if still the presence of the witnesses could not be secured and the prosecution also either on account of pronounced negligence or recalcitrance does Judgment 11 C.C.No.28234/2021 not produce the witnesses after the Court had given it sufficient time and opportunities to do so, then the Court, being left with no other alternative would be justified in acquitting the accused for want of evidence to prove the prosecution case, under Section 248, Cr. P. C., in the case of warrant cases instituted on a police report and under Section 255(1), Cr. P. C. in summons cases, and we answer the two questions referred to us in the above terms.
05. Thus, present case on hand, the Cw.2 to 6 are not secured since long time. Hence, Cw.2 to 5 witnesses are dropped. In order to prove the guilt of the accused persons, the prosecution has examined only 02 witnesses as PW.1 & PW.2 and 05 documents are marked Ex.P.1 to P.5.
06. Thereafter examination of the accused persons under Sec.313 of Cr.P.C. is recorded, the accused persons had denied the incriminating evidence in the prosecution case and not chosen to lead their side evidence. No documents are got marked their behalf.
07. Heard both the side and perused the material evidence on record.
Judgment 12 C.C.No.28234/2021
08. The following points would arise for my
consideration.
POINTS
1. Whether the prosecution has been
proved beyond reasonable doubt that, the Accused persons were inform that they will repair the manhole near Chunchaghatta Lake on the RBI Layout Main Road, within the jurisdiction of Konanakunte Police Station border and stop the sewage from flowing into the lake. On 06.01.2020 Cw-1 and the accused No.2, during joint site inspection the Cw.1 said to the accused persons to stop the sewage water flow to the lake but, the accused persons did not stop the water flow even for several days. Due to the continuous flow of sewage water into the lake, the basic nature of the lake has been damaged and instead of rain water, the sewage water is standing in the lake, causing problems to the public and the possibility of health problems for the people living in the vicinity of the lake and thereby the accused persons have committed an offence punishable U/sec,227 of IPC?
Judgment 13 C.C.No.28234/2021
2. Whether the prosecution has been proved beyond reasonable doubt that, the accused persons violated the conditions of the of department KLCB and thereby the accused persons have committed an offence punishable U/Sec., 23 of Karnataka Lake Conservation and Development Act 2014?
3. What order.?
09. My findings on the above points are as follows:
Point No.1 : In The Negative Point No.2 : In The Negative Point No.3 : As per final order REASONS
10. Point No.1 & 2: These points are inter connected to each other and have taken for discussion in common to avoid repetition of the facts and evidence. The case of the prosecution is already narrated at the inception of this judgment hence, without repeating the same, I proceed to appreciate the evidence on records.
Judgment 14 C.C.No.28234/2021
11. The Cw.1 Lingegowda, who is examined as Pw.1 and the Executive Engineer in BBMP, in his evidence he deposed before the court that, Chunchaghatta Lake was developed by the BBMP Lakes Division in 2018-19 and 2019-20.
Accordingly, only clean rainwater was discharged into the said lake. No polluted water was discharged into the said lake. However, on January 2, the Bangalore Water Board and Sewerage Board did not maintain the drainage system of the said lake properly and discharged sewage directly into Chunchaghatta Lake. Later, he had informed the Executive Engineer of the South Division of B.W.S.S.B. (Maintenance) about this through a letter dated 09-01-2020 and have also been informed several times over the phone, Later, on 06.01.2020, during a joint inspection with him and his staff, it was noticed that sewage was flowing into the said lake and immediate action was taken on the spot to prevent the sewage from flowing into the lake. Later, the accused persons were told that they would fix it within three days, but the accused persons did not take any action to prevent the sewage from flowing into the lake. The original nature of the lake has been damaged by the water from the said drain, and instead of rain, the sewage water from the drain has stagnated in the lake, Judgment 15 C.C.No.28234/2021 causing inconvenience to the public. On 22.01.2020, he filed a complaint against the accused persons at the Konanakunte Police Station and then on 24.01.2020, the police conducted a panchanama in the presence of the pancha's at the place shown by him.
12. Further the learned counsel for the accused persons had cross examined the said witness, where in he state that, he did not check whether the sewage of the drain has not been tested for discharge into the lake, further admitted that, the polluted water as stated in the report was coming from Brigade Gardeni Apartment to the lake, further he did not take any photographs of the sewage overflowing from the manual and flowing into the lake that day. Similarly, he did not present the press releases that said that the water from the manual was entering the lake from the newspaper publication and further he he do not know, that the Brigade Gardenia Apartment was flowing the polluted water to the alleged lake, further he do not know that the water pipe connections of the BWSSB and Brigade Gardenia apartments are separate and Brigade Gardenia Apartment has not been given any notice regarding the water being released into the lake by them and further Judgment 16 C.C.No.28234/2021 denied the rest of the suggestions put by the learned counsel for the accused persons.
13. The Cw.7 Venkateshaiah, who is examined as Pw.2 and IO in this case, he has deposed in his evidence before the court that, On 23.01.2020, Cw-1 appeared at the police station and received a computerized complaint, registered a case as and submitted the report to the Honorable Court. Then on 24.01.2020, he conducted the spot panchanama in the presence of pancha's from 10-00 to 11-30 am at the place shown by the Cw.1. Later on 27.01.2020, he had issued notice to the accused persons to appear at the station for questioning. On 23.11.2020, he had issued a request letter to the Chief Engineer, Kaveri Bhavan, to send the accused persons to the station for questioning. On 18.12.2020, he had verbally directed Cw-5 and 6, and accordingly, they brought the accused No.1 and 2 to the station at 05-15 pm on the same day, Cw.5 gave a report and Cw-6 gave a statement. He had interrogated the accused persons, taken custody and released them on appropriate bail. Later, after completing the investigation and since there are prima facie evidence against the accused persons, he had submitted a final report to the Honorable Court.
Judgment 17 C.C.No.28234/2021
14. On the other hand, the prosecution/IO has failed to secure the rest of the prosecution witnesses, ie., Cw.2 to 6. Hence, dropped the same.
15. I have carefully gone through the oral and documentary evidence, the Pw.1 who is the complainant, before lodging the complaint, neither verified nor conducted any scientific test to ascertain whether sewage or polluted water was in fact flowing into the lake. No water samples were collected, examined, or sent for laboratory analysis to establish contamination of the lake water. In the absence of such verification, the allegation of pollution remains a mere assumption without any evidentiary support. Again careful ---- of the evidence of prosecution side evidence -with oral evidence of Pw.1 and 2.
16. It is clearly reveals, that, which is alleged waste water is really it is polluted waste water is concerned, there is no material availability in this case. On the other hand, the Cw.1 or IO did not made any efforts to rest the said alleged water, which is joined to the tank is polluted waste water. Further, admittedly there is no proof where polluted waster water was flowing as alleged by them, by taking any photos or video Judgment 18 C.C.No.28234/2021 graphed or any spot panchanama and also admitted that, only on the basis of the paper publications of Cw.1 has alleged against the accused persons. Further the Cw.1 and 2 are admitted that, which polluted waste water, whether it is flowed by the BWSS manhole water or used water of the Brigade Gardenia Apartment.
17. On the other hand, the accused persons have taken specific contention in his cross examination that, the alleged polluted waste water flowed by used water connection of Brigade Gardenia Apartment, it is not the manhole water for that, defense, the Cw.1 did not denied the same at any point of time. Further, the Pw.2 is admitted that, beside the alleged incident place Brigade Gardenia Apartment is located. Thus, the above said witness is admitted that, there is no any material and cogent proof as alleged by them. Further, there is no any proof that, the alleged offence is committed by the accused persons. On the other hand, Cw.1's allegation is concerned, there is no any independent eye witness, like effected public or neighbors of the incident place. Further, in support of the prosecution case is concerned, the Pw.1 and 2 did not placed any oral and material evidence.
Judgment 19 C.C.No.28234/2021
18. Further, the Pw.1 has categorically admitted that, he was not aware of the exact source of the alleged polluted water. He did not ascertain whether the polluted water, if any, was emanating from Brigade Gardenia Apartment or from any other source. It is also evident from the records that no notice was issued to Brigade Gardenia Apartment prior to filing the complaint, calling upon them to explain or rectify the alleged discharge of polluted water. This omission clearly indicates a lack of due diligence on the part of the complainant and creates serious doubt about the genuineness of the allegations.
19. Moreover, the Investigating Officer, in the course of his evidence, has admitted that he did not take any photographs of the lake showing contamination or sewage inflow. On the contrary, he has further deposed that the lake water was clean and was being used as drinking water by the public. The Investigating Officer has also admitted that he did not verify or confirm whether any polluted water was actually coming from BWSS the man hole or Brigade Gardenia Apartment, despite the said apartment being located near the lake. No inspection report, sketch, or documentary material has been produced to establish a nexus between the accused and the alleged pollution water in flow by manhole. The failure Judgment 20 C.C.No.28234/2021 of the complainant and the Investigating Officer to conduct a proper enquiry, collect scientific evidence, or identify the actual source of pollution strikes at the root of the prosecution case.
20. Further, It is the paramount duty of the prosecution to establish the guilt of the accused persons beyond all reasonable doubt. Unless the guilt is established beyond all reasonable doubt, the accused persons cannot be held guilty of the alleged offences. Regarding the same, this court relied on the following judgment held in, (2016) 10 SCC 519 - AIR 2016 SC 4581 in para 56, Hon'ble Apex held thus hereunder:
''56. It is a trite proposition of law, that suspicion however grave, it cannot take the place of proof and that the prosecution in order to succeed on a criminal charge cannot afford to lodge its case in the realm of ''may be true''' but has to essentially elevate it to the grade of ''must be true''. In a criminal prosecution, the court has a duty to ensure that mere conjectures or suspicion do not take the place of legal proof and in a situation where a reasonable doubt is entertained in the backdrop of the evidence available, to prevent Judgment 21 C.C.No.28234/2021 miscarriage of justice, benefit of doubt is to be extended to the accused. Such a doubt essentially has to be reasonable and not imaginary, fanciful, intangible or non-existent but as entertainable by an impartial, prudent and analytical mind, judged on the touchstone of reason and common sense. It is also a primary postulation in criminal jurisprudence that if two views are possible on the evidence available one pointing to the guilt of the accused and the other to his innocence, the one favourable to the accused ought to be adopted.''
21. In view of the above said decisions of the, it is evident that the prosecution has failed to prove beyond reasonable doubt that sewage or polluted water was discharged into the lake, much less that such discharge was attributable to Brigade Gardenia Apartment. The complainant's evidence is based on assumptions and conjectures, unsupported by scientific testing or verification.
22. The Investigating Officer's admissions further weaken the prosecution case, as no photographs, samples, or independent material have been produced to establish pollution or its source. Therefore, the accused persons are Judgment 22 C.C.No.28234/2021 entitled to the benefit of doubt as discussed supra. As such the accused persons have certainly would be entitled to benefit of the doubt, since no corroborative evidence of the witnesses against the accused persons to prove the prosecution case. Hence, the accused persons are entitled to the benefit of the reasonable doubt. By considering all these aspects the prosecution utterly failed to prove the guilt of the accused persons beyond all reasonable doubt. Therefore, I answer to the Point No.1 & 2 in the Negative.
23. Point No.3: In view of the Negative findings on the above Point No.1 & 2, I proceed to pass the following.
ORDER In the exercise of powers Confirmed U/sec,.248(1) of Cr.P.C., the Accused No.1 & 2 are hereby Acquitted for the alleged offences punishable U/sec,. 227 of IPC and Sec., 23 of Karnataka Lake Conservation and Development Act 2014.
The bail bond of Accused No.1 & 2 and surety extended for further 6 months in Judgment 23 C.C.No.28234/2021 order to comply Sec.437A of Cr.P.C.
Thereafter, this bail bond automatically stands cancelled.
(Dictated to the Stenographer directly on computer and after corrections made by me and then pronounced by me in the Open Court on the 12th day of January-2026) (Thimmaiah.G) 30 A.C.J.M., B'lore.
th ANNEXURE
1. LIST OF THE WITNESS EXAMINED FOR THE PROSECUTION:
P.W.1 : Sri. Lingegowda
P.W.2 : Sri. Venkateshaiah
2. LIST OF THE DOCUMENTS MARKED FOR THE PROSECUTION:
Ex.P.1 : Complaint
Ex.P.1(a) : Signature of Pw.1
Ex.P.2 : Spot Mahazar
Ex.P.2(a) : Signature of Pw.1
Ex.P.3 : FIR
Ex.P.3(a) : Signature of Pw.2
Ex.P.4 : Requisition letter to BWSSB
Ex.P.5 : Report of Cw.5
Judgment 24 C.C.No.28234/2021
3. LIST OF THE WITNESS EXAMINED AND DOCUMENTS MARKED FOR THE DEFENCE:
NIL
4. LIST OF THE METERIAL OBJECTS MARKED FOR THE PROSECUTION: Digitally signed by THIMMAIAH G THIMMAIAH NIL G Date:
2026.02.03 13:02:04 +0530 (Thimmaiah.G) 30th A.C.J.M., B'lore.
Judgment 25 C.C.No.28234/2021