Bangalore District Court
Smt. Uma Rao vs State By Cbi/Acb/Bangalore on 27 January, 2016
IN THE COURT OF THE XXI ADDL CITY CIVIL &
SESSIONS JUDGE & PRL. SPECIAL JUDGE FOR CBI
CASES AT BANGALORE CITY. (CCH-4)
Dated this the 27th day of January, 2016.
PRESENT : Sri.Bheemanagouda K. Naik,
B.Com. LL.B., (Spl.),
XXI Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge,
Prl. Spl. Judge for CBI Cases, Bangalore.
Crl. Appeal No.356/2015
Appellants: 1. Smt. Uma Rao
W/o L. Mallari Rao,
Aged about 42 years,
R/at No.117, "Lavanya"
Karnataka Layout,
Mahalakshmipuram Post,
West of Chord Road
Bangalore - 86.
2. Sri. Mallari Rao
S/o L. Srikanta Rao
Aged about 52 years
R/at No.117, "Lavanya"
Karnataka Layout,
Mahalakshmipuram Post,
West of Chord Road
Bangalore - 86.
(By Sri. S. Mahesh, Advocate)
Vs.
Respondent : State by CBI/ACB/Bangalore,
(By Public Prosecutor).
****
2
Crl.A.356/2015
JUDGMENT
This criminal appeal has been preferred by the appellants u/s 374(3) of Cr.P.C., being aggrieved by the judgment and order of sentence passed by the learned XVII Addl. Chief Metropolitan Magistrate (Special Court for CBI Cases), Bangalore in C.C.No.19685/2006 dt:
31.01.2015.
2. It is urged by the appellants that they have not committed any offences alleged against them. The conviction and sentence passed against them is contrary to law, evidence and probabilities of the case. There are no reasonable grounds to believe that they have committed an offence and there is no motive on their part to commit the offences as alleged. The court below ought to have accepted the defence of the appellants and acquitted them. The learned Magistrate has committed serious error in convicting them and the prosecution has miserably 3 Crl.A.356/2015 failed to prove their case beyond all reasonable doubt against them.
3. The prosecution has initiated the proceedings u/s 13(2) r/w 13(1)(d) of PC Act also, for the reasons best known to them, not included the offence while filing the charge sheet and hence none of the offences alleged against the appellants have been established. The mandatory provision of Section 6 of the Delhi Special Police Establishment Act, 1946 is violated by the prosecution since without obtaining prior consent from the State Govt., the respondent has launched the investigation which is illegal and hence the entire proceedings including the conviction is vitiated and the same is liable to be set aside. The CBI would not get jurisdiction to investigate the matter without the consent from the State Govt., as per law and even though without any locus standi, the investigation conducted by the CBI is illegal and without 4 Crl.A.356/2015 jurisdiction. Based on such investigation report trial has been held, conviction has been recorded and the same is in the gross abuse of process of the court.
4. The prosecution has failed to produce neither notification according consent by the State Govt., enabling the CBI to investigate, nor they have produced the authorization issued by the Superintendent of Police empowering the Investigating Officer to investigate which is contrary to law and the decisions rendered by the court. The prosecution has not at all examined any of the CBI Officers, who have registered the FIR, also received the information, thus, have failed to prove with regard to the consent by the State Govt., authorization or consideration of the materials collected by the Investigating Agency. The learned Magistrate has committed serious error in convicting the appellants for the offence punishable under Sec. 5
Crl.A.356/2015 120B of IPC though there is no evidence forthcoming to prove the said allegation. Though the case was registered against bank officials also for the alleged conspiracy subsequently they have been dropped, not been charge sheeted for the alleged offences before the court. As per the evidence, it was the accused No.3, 4, 5 and others have submitted the applications to the bank seeking loans and alleged to have committed certain offences and appellants have not submitted any application to the bank and the applicants would be the main conspirators and not the appellants herein. The alleged main members of the conspiracy have been acquitted and no case is made out against the appellants for the alleged criminal conspiracy. The learned Magistrate has committed serious error in convicting the appellants for the offence under Sec. 420 IPC, when the prosecution has not at all proved beyond all reasonable doubt, the said offence. There is no evidence to establish the ingredients of Sec.420 IPC. The prosecution has not proved that the loss to the tune of Rs.131.09 lakhs is 6 Crl.A.356/2015 caused to the SBI and no evidence is forthcoming against the appellants for the said allegation. The prosecution has not produced the material witness with regard to the allegations against them. The prosecution has failed to examine the Investigating Officer in the present case. Therefore, the same is fatal to the case of the prosecution and has caused immense prejudice to the defence of appellants. Though several documents have been marked by the prosecution, no witnesses have given any details about the same or spoken to the contents of the same. Hence, the documents cannot be said to have been proved as required by law. The entire approach to the case by the learned Magistrate in convicting and sentencing the appellants is illegal, erroneous and the same has resulted in miscarriage of justice. Hence, pray for allowing the appeal and to set aside the conviction and order of sentence passed in the matter.
5. In response to the service of notice, the respondent appeared before this court through learned Public Prosecutor.
7
Crl.A.356/2015
6. The entire records pertaining to the criminal case have been secured for reference from the trial court.
7. I have heard the detail arguments advanced by the learned counsel for appellants and learned P.P. for respondent.
8. The learned counsel for appellants submitted memorandum of written arguments along with citations.
9. The points that would arise for my consideration are:-
(1) Whether the prosecution has proved beyond all reasonable doubts that appellants have committed an offence of criminal conspiracy punishable u/s 120B of IPC?
(2) Whether the prosecution has proved beyond all reasonable doubts that the appellants have committed cheating and thereby dishonestly induced delivery of 8 Crl.A.356/2015 property by SBI punishable u/s 420 of IPC?
(3) Whether the finding of conviction and order of sentence passed by the learned Magistrate against the appellants is against the evidence placed on record, contrary to law and erroneous and the same requires interference?
(4) What order?
10. My findings on the above points are as follows:
Point No.1 : In the negative Point No.2 : In the negative Point No.3 : In the affirmative Point No.4 : As per final Order For the following:
REASONS 11. POINT NOs.1 TO 3: Since the Point No.1 to 3 are interconnected, they are dealt with together in order to avoid repetition of discussion.9
Crl.A.356/2015
12. It is the case of the prosecution that, Accused No.1 is the Proprietor of M/s. Uma Builders, having its office at No.3, Prospero, Byatarayanapura, Bellary Road, Bangalore and in the business of construction of residential flats. Accused No.2 was associated with the managing the affairs of M/s. Uma Builders. Accused No.12 is the Khatha holder of property held at Katha No. 315/1 at Kaggadasapura village, K.R. Puram Hobli, Bangalore and had received the said property in gift from his father Shri. T. Papaiah Reddy vide Gift Deed Document No.779/01-02 dated 10-01-2001. He had entered into a joint Development agreement dated 29-01-
2003 with M/s. Uma Builders for the construction of an apartment having six flats. As per the agreement, owner was to sell 74% of the undivided right, title and interest in the property to the developer and handed over 26% of the super built-up area of the apartment and proportionate car parking units to be constructed on the property to the owner of the land. In furtherance of the said agreement A-12 executed a General Power of 10 Crl.A.356/2015 Attorney in favour of M/s. Uma Builders represented by A-1 to enable the builder to sell the undivided share and super built up area to the extent of 74% in favour of the prospective purchasers. For the purpose of construction of the said apartment, the land owner had obtained town planning approval from Bangalore Mahanagara Palike vide L.P. ADTP(E)-552/02-03 dated 3-2-03 for the construction of six flats on the aforesaid land which was valid upto 02-02-2005.
13. It is further alleged that accused No.1, accused No.2 and accused No.12 entered into a criminal conspiracy during June, 2003 to Nov. 2003 with Shri Wilfred Sequiera who was working as the Manager, State Bank of India, Personal Banking Branch, Indiranagar, Bangalore, Shri Ramesh Rao who was working as the Deputy Manager, Advances, State Bank of India, Personal Banking Branch, Indira Nagar, Bangalore and accused No.6 in the matter of sanction and disbursal of housing loans in the names of Accused No.3, 4, 5, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11 and 13. In furtherance of the said conspiracy 11 Crl.A.356/2015 accused No.12 had executed another contract agreement with M/s. Uma Builders for constructing 12 flats and one pent house at No.315/1 at Kaggadasapura village, K.R. Puram Hobli, Bangalore in violation of the approved building plan for availing the housing loan from the State Bank of India, Personal Banking Branch, Indiranagar, Bangalore. Accused No.6 had issued the title clearance certificate for ten flats, when the town planning approval was only for the construction of six flats, out of which two flats were to be given to the owner of the land, as per the Joint Development Agreement. Accused No.3, 4, 5, 7, 8, 9, 10, 13, 11 obtained housing loan from State Bank of India, Personal Banking Branch, Indira Nagar, Bangalore by submitting forged salary slips, Income tax returns etc., and diverted the proceeds of the housing loans by issuing authorization letters, in favour of M/s. Uma Builders thereby facilitating Accused No.1 and 2 to misappropriate the proceeds of loan for purposes other than for which it was sanctioned. The loan disbursed in favour of A3, A4, A5, A7, A8, A9, A10, A11 and A13 and 12 Crl.A.356/2015 one Balakrishna Pillai (10 borrowers) to their loan account numbers and caused loss to SBI, PBB, Indiranagar, Bangalore to the tune of Rs.131.09 lakhs.
14. It is further alleged that in pursuance of the above said criminal conspiracy both A1 and A2 had dishonestly obtained the authorization letters from the borrowers for transferring the proceeds of the loan to their accounts with different banks and have not utilized the proceeds of the loan for constructing the flats at the Project "Maranga Enclave" but have instead utilized the loan proceeds for settling the outstanding in their loan account No.11141 held with the State Bank of India, PBB, Indiranagar, Bangalore. A2 had fraudulently obtained the signatures of two borrowers viz., M.N. Balakrishna Pillai and Shri V.S. Ganeshan and used the same for obtaining loans in their names without their consent or knowledge. Accused No.1 and 2 had in conspiracy with Wilfred Sequeira, the then Branch Manager and Shri Ramesh Rao, the then Deputy Manager, Advances, SBI, PPB, Indiranagar, Bangalore 13 Crl.A.356/2015 did not submit the original title deed of the scheduled property bearing Corporation Khatha No.315/1, 19th Cross, Kaggadasapura, Bangalore building plan approved by the town planner, with a fraudulent intention of raising multiple housing loans against the same set of flats designated as 'Maranga Enclave" and did not enter into Triplicate agreement for the creation of the Equitable Mortgage on registration of the flat in the names of borrowers. By utilizing the original title deeds, A1 and A2 availed housing loans from different banks/financial institutions in the names of various borrowers by resorting to different nomenclature to identify the flats to make it appear as if they are a different property. That in pursuance of the above said criminal conspiracy, A-1 to A-13 had dishonestly and fraudulently induced the State Bank of India, (PPB), Indiranagar, Bangalore to part with the funds as housing loan to the tune of Rs.129.90 lakhs without creating equitable mortgage against the flats in favour of the bank and did not repay the loan amount 14 Crl.A.356/2015 and caused loss to the State Bank of India to a tune of Rs.131.09 lakhs.
15. On the source of information, the CBI lodged FIR, investigated the matter and filed the charge sheet against Accused No.1 to 13 for the offences punishable under Sections 120B r/w sec. 420, 467, 468, 471 of IPC. After filing the charge sheet, case against accused No.5 is abated in view of his death and proceedings against accused No.6 has been quashed by the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka by an order dated 3.6.2014 in Criminal Revision Petition No.1118/2011. After the trial, present appellants who were accused No.1 and 2 have been found guilty and convicted and accused No.3, 4, 7 to 13 have been acquitted.
16. Now the appellants in this appeal have challenged the legality of their conviction and order of sentence. It is an admitted fact that the competent authority of public servants involved in this case has not accorded sanction for prosecution. Therefore, they have not been charge sheeted before the court. 15
Crl.A.356/2015
17. Before going to consider the case of the prosecution and the evidence placed before the court, it is proper to consider the admitted facts. It is an admitted fact that Appellant No.1 is the Proprietor of M/s. Uma Builders having its office at No.3, Prospero, Byatarayanapura, Bellary Road, Bangalore and in the business of construction of residential plots. It is further admitted that appellant No.2 who is the husband of appellant No.1 was associated with the managing affairs of M/s. Uma Builders.
18. It is further admitted that accused No.12 is the khatha holder of property bearing Khatha No.315/1, Kaggadasapura village, K.R. Puram Hobli, Bangalore and had received the said property in Gift from his father under a Gift Deed dated 10.1.2001. It is further admitted that on 29.1.2003 there was a Joint Development Agreement between M/s. Uma Builders and accused No.12 for the construction of an apartment having six flats. It is further admitted that as per the agreement, accused No.12 was to sell 74% of the 16 Crl.A.356/2015 undivided right, title and interest in the property of accused No.12. It is further admitted that accused No.12 executed a GPA in favour of M/s. Uma Builders represented by Appellant No.1 to enable the builder to sell the undivided share and super built up area to the extent of 74% in favour of the prospective purchasers. It is further admitted that the necessary permission for construction of apartment was obtained from the Town Planning of BBMP.
19. It is further admitted that accused No.3 to 5, 7 to 11 and 13 agreed to purchase apartment from M/s. Uma Builders, entered into an agreement and borrowed housing loan from SBI, PBB, Indiranagar, Bangalore to the tune of Rs.129.90 lakhs. It is further admitted that the borrowers authorized the bank for release of loan amount in favour of M/s. Uma Builders, accordingly the amount has been released in favour of the developer from time to time.
20. It is the specific allegation of the prosecution that appellant No.1 and 2 along with other accused and 17 Crl.A.356/2015 public servants entered into a criminal conspiracy to cheat the State Bank of India, PBB, Indiranagar and got released the housing loan of borrowers diverted the said amount for some other purpose and cheated the bank.
21. Now, I will consider the oral and documentary evidence placed before the court by the prosecution to substantiate the allegations made against appellant No.1 and 2, and see whether the prosecution has established its case against the appellants 1 and 2 also beyond all reasonable doubt for the offences punishable u/s 120B and 420 IPC.
22. In this regard, firstly, the prosecution has adduced and relied upon the evidence of PW.1 Sri. Shantaram Shenoy who was the Chief Manager, Personal Banking Branch, Indiranagar, SBI from May 2004 to September 2006. He has deposed that in the year 2005, the CBI Officers had called him to produce the original documents relating to the loan transaction of M/s. Uma Builders and he went with the original documents to the CBI office and produced them. Then he has deposed that 18 Crl.A.356/2015 the loan for the same flats were also obtained from Syndicate Bank, Indiranagar Branch and he came to know about it on the basis of the anonymous letters received in their Head Office. Then he has deposed that he has produced Ex.P1 to P126 before the CBI Officer. Ex.P1 to P126 are loan applications, inspection report and enclosures said to have been submitted by the borrowers to State Bank of India, PBB, Indiranagar Branch for availing the loan.
23. As seen from the evidence of PW.1, he has taken the records from the bank and produced before CBI Officer. In his cross-examination made by learned counsel for appellant No.1 and 2 he has admitted that in the said branch, there is a person to handle the loan section and at that time one Ramesh Rao had handled the loan and Chief Manager was Wilfred Sequeira. He has further admitted that they knew the exact transaction and he does not know about the loan transactions pertaining to this case. As per his evidence, he has done the work of Postman to produce the 19 Crl.A.356/2015 documents from the bank before the CBI Officer. He was not in the said branch when the loan applications were submitted, sanction was made and disbursement has taken place. He has further admitted that he is not personally aware of the documents marked in this case. He has further admitted that the documents are marked since the CBI requested. He has not deposed anything against appellant No.1 and 2 about their alleged role in the loan transactions or for disbursement of the loan. Simply producing the documents and marking them as exhibit from the person who has produced them before the Investigating Officer cannot be said to have been proved the due execution and contents of those documents.
24. Secondly, the prosecution has adduced and relied upon the evidence of PW.2 Sri. Lokesh, who worked as Asst. Manager in SBI, PBB Branch, Indiranagar, Bangalore from 2003 to 2005. He has deposed that at that time Chief Manager was one Wilfred Sequeira and Deputy Manager was R.S. Ramesh Rao and 20 Crl.A.356/2015 he was assisting the loans and advance section. Then he has deposed that at that time the power to sanction the loans was given to the Branch Manager. Then he has deposed that the borrowings of the borrowers and their documents submitted to the bank along with the application. His evidence is proving that the borrowers submitted the loan application along with necessary documents and loans have been sanctioned to them by the authorized Branch Manager. He has not deposed that there was any dishonest intention in availing the loan from their bank by the borrowers. He has not whispered anything against the appellant No.1 and 2 or about their alleged role in the loan transactions. Even he has not deposed that the loan amount was disbursed and paid to the developers. Therefore, his evidence is not helpful to the prosecution to connect the appellants 1 and 2 to the allegations.
25. Thirdly, the prosecution has adduced and relied upon the evidence of PW.3 Sri. K.V. Srinivas Murthy, Retired Engineer and approved valuer for SBI. He has 21 Crl.A.356/2015 deposed about his valuation report Ex.P91 in respect of super built up area of flat of Krishna Kumar, No.UMG,
002. Then he has deposed about the valuation reports Ex.P87(f), Ex.P27, Ex.P101, Ex.P94, Ex.P92(f), Ex.P109, Ex.P89(b), Ex.P103, Ex.P88(ee). On perusal of his evidence and valuation reports, the work of development was in progress for construction of flats. His evidence is only proving the valuation reports submitted by him to SBI regarding the flats agreed to be purchased by the borrowers. He has not deposed anything against appellants 1 and 2.
26. Fourthly, the prosecution has adduced and relied upon the evidence of PW.4 Sri. N.G. Jaya Prasad who worked as Manager, concurrent audit in SBI, Bangalore. He has deposed about the housing loan procedure and the required documents. Then he has deposed about the legal opinion, pre-sanction inspection of property and documents to be obtained. There is no dispute about his evidence.
22
Crl.A.356/2015
27. Fifthly, the prosecution has adduced and relied upon the evidence of PW.5 Sri. B. Krishna Kamat who worked as Senior Manager in Syndicate Bank, Palace Guttahalli Branch, Bangalore, he has deposed that the Investigating Officer shown Ex.P112(a), (f), (j), (n), (q), (t),
(x) and (cc) 8 cheques which were in favour of M/s. Uma Builders for different amount and those cheques were presented for collection and cheques have been honoured. Then he has deposed about the account extract Ex.P131 and the transactions shown therein. In his cross-examination he has admitted that when the cheques were presented by the customer he has not handled them. As per his evidence, he has only identified the cheques presented for collection and honouring of cheques in favour of M/s. Uma Builders. He has deposed his evidence on the basis of the records shown to him by the Investigating Officer. He has not deposed in evidence against the accused No.1 and 2 to show their involvement as alleged.
23
Crl.A.356/2015
28. Sixthly, the prosecution has adduced and relied upon the evidence of PW.6 Sri. K.S. Nagabhusan who worked as Asst. Manager in Syndicate Bank, Indiranagar Branch, Bangalore from 2003 to 2006. He has deposed that he received a letter from CBI office to appear and to explain about the loans sanctioned to M/s. Uma Builders and accordingly he went to CBI office. Then he has deposed that accused No.3, 5, 7 and 8 were sanctioned loan from Syndicate Bank and he has issued the details as per Ex.P132 and the letter of their Senior Manager is Ex.P133. Then he has deposed that Ex.P134 and 135 are the copy of the letters of Bank of Baroda to their Senior Manager. Then he has deposed about Ex.P137 and 138. As per his evidence, the loan was sanctioned to the purchasers and not to M/s. Uma Builders. Further, the loan was sanctioned by Senior Manager Sri. K. Mohan Shenoy. PW.6 has admitted that he is not having any personal knowledge about the loan sanctioned to the purchasers. As per his evidence, he has seen the records and given his statement before the Investigating Officer. 24
Crl.A.356/2015 He has no personal knowledge about the applications, sanction of loan and contents of documents. He has simply seen the correspondence of the Bank of Baroda and deposed about them though he is an employee of Syndicate Bank and not Bank of Baroda. Further, he has not whispered anything about the appellants 1 and
2. His evidence which is deposed by seeing to the records cannot be said to be helpful to the prosecution.
29. Seventhly, the prosecution has adduced and relied upon the evidence of PW.7 Sri. Arun Shanbhag who worked as Branch Manager in Bank of Baroda, M.G. Road Branch, Bangalore from August 2004 to May 2005. He has deposed that on the request of CBI Officers he went to CBI office, wherein he was shown some documents and his statement was recorded. Then he has deposed about Ex.P139 to 150 which are all the correspondence. On perusal of his evidence, he is not the author of the letters or signatory to the documents. He has simply seen the documents and given his statement about the correspondence. He has not stated 25 Crl.A.356/2015 anything against the appellant No.1 and 2. Therefore, his evidence is only based on the records, though he has no personal knowledge about them.
30. Eighthly, the prosecution has adduced and relied upon the evidence of PW.8 Sri. C. Suresh, Branch Manager, Bank of Baroda, who has deposed that Balakrishna Pillai, Nagaraj, Malini, Ravi Kumar, Shivanna obtained loan from their bank. Then he has deposed about the correspondence, Ex.P141, 142, 143, 144 to 148. Then he has deposed about the letter Ex.P136. In his cross-examination he has admitted that at the time of sanction of loan they verified all the documents and as per the guidelines of the bank, they have sanctioned the loan. Then he has admitted that the loan amount has been disbursed to the builders as per the request made by the borrowers. As per his evidence he has also deposed based on the records and correspondence. He has no personal knowledge about the contents of the documents deposed by him. More 26 Crl.A.356/2015 over he has also not deposed anything against appellants No.1 and 2.
31. Ninthly, the prosecution has adduced and relied upon the evidence of PW.9 Sri. R.V. Mukund, Bank Consultant who verified the documents of property for Bank of Baroda. He has deposed that he received letter as per Ex.P143 and accordingly verified the documents pertaining to M/s. Uma Builders and submitted his report as per Ex.P144. There is no dispute about the verification of records made by him and report submitted by him as per Ex.P144.
32. Tenthly, the prosecution has adduced and relied upon the evidence of PW.10 Sri. T.P. Chandra Babu, Accounts Assistant, GIC Housing Finance Ltd., Bangalore. He has deposed that in his presence CBI officers have prepared the mahazar as per Ex.P152. His evidence is not disputed. On perusal of contents of Ex.P152, it is forthcoming that only four floors consisting of 12 flats were under construction.
27
Crl.A.356/2015
33. Eleventhly, the prosecution has adduced and relied upon the evidence of PW.11 Sri. S. Nagaraj, Retired Engineer who served as Asst. Director of Town Planning, BBMP, Bangalore. He has deposed about the building construction plan Ex.P115 and permission accorded by the BBMP. His evidence and the contents of Ex.P115 is not disputed.
34. Twelfthly, the prosecution has adduced and relied upon the evidence of PW.12 Smt. Latha Ganeshan, who has deposed that her husband Ganeshan had submitted the loan application before the SBI, PBB, Indiranagar Branch, Bangalore for the purchase of flat at Kaggadasapura, Bangalore. Then she has deposed that Ex.P1 is the loan application and loan was sanctioned and the builders have not given the flat and she does not know who have made the transaction for bank loan. Then she has deposed that her husband expired on 17.10.2012 and they have not obtained any loan from GIC. As per her evidence, she has no personal 28 Crl.A.356/2015 knowledge about any transaction. She has not deposed anything against appellants 1 and 2.
35. Thirteenthly, the prosecution has adduced and relied upon the evidence of PW.13 Smt. Nagamani Venkatesh who has deposed that accused No.11 is her husband and she submitted loan application to SBI as per Ex.P42 along with enclosures for sanction of loan of Rs.8 lakhs and the loan was sanctioned and the loan was credited to the loan account of builders and flat was not given to her. Further, she has deposed that accused No.1 and 2 have cheated her. In her cross-examination, she has admitted that she agreed to purchase the flat, applied for loan with the bank and submitted all the necessary documents to the bank. Further, she has admitted that case was pending before the court on that ground she was not able to get the flat.
36. As seen from the evidence of PW.13, she agreed to purchase the flat, applied for loan, loan was sanctioned and loan amount was paid to the developer. Further, as per her evidence, it is forthcoming that a case 29 Crl.A.356/2015 was pending before the court, therefore flat was not given to her. When the case was filed and pending before the court how to believe that there was any dishonest intention on the part of the appellant No.1 and 2. The loan transaction pertaining to her has been done in the normal banking business and disbursed as agreed by her. Nothing wrong is forthcoming in the procedure followed for such sanction and disbursement of loan. Simply because the flat was not given to her due to dispute pending before the court it cannot be said that appellant No.1 and 2 cheated her. Therefore, her evidence is only proving the availment of loan by her for purchase of flat and disbursement to the builder.
37. Fourteenthly, the prosecution has adduced and relied upon the evidence of PW.14 Sri. Akash Agarwal who also agreed to purchase flat from appellant No.1 and 2. He has deposed that he availed a loan of Rs. 6 lakhs and entered into an agreement. Then he has deposed that the loan amount was credited to the loan account of builders and later on he sent intimation to the 30 Crl.A.356/2015 bank stating that he does not need flat and to close his loan account. He has admitted that the loan was sanctioned in his name. His evidence is only proving the availment of loan for purchase of flat. He has not deposed any evidence against the appellants 1 and 2. Therefore, his evidence is not helpful to the prosecution to support its case.
38. Fifteenthly, the prosecution has adduced and relied upon the evidence of PW.15 Smt. Subhasini.V., who was a Recovery Manager in LIC Housing Finance Ltd. She has deposed that accused No.3 had submitted loan application to LIC Housing Finance as a GPA holder of her husband for purchase of flat and loan was sanctioned on producing necessary documents and borrowers have repaid the entire loan amount and account came to be closed. Her evidence is not disputed in any manner. She has not deposed anything against the appellants 1 and 2. Therefore, her evidence is not helpful to the prosecution to support its case against appellants 1 and 2.
31
Crl.A.356/2015
39. Sixteenthly, the prosecution has adduced and relied upon the evidence of PW.16 Sri. N. Ananda Kumar, retired District Registrar who worked as Head Quarter Sub-Registrar in K.R. Puram. He has deposed that in his covering letter Ex.P153 he has produced certified copies of 16 sale deeds marked at Ex.P154. Then he has deposed that those sale deeds have been executed by accused No.12 and they have been registered in K.R. Puram Sub-Registrar's office. In his cross-examination he has admitted that before the CBI officer he has stated that accused No.1 has executed the sale deeds as GPA Holder of accused No.12. The evidence of PW.16 proves only the production of the certified copies of the registered sale deeds under his covering letter Ex.P153.
40. Seventeenthly, the prosecution has adduced and relied upon the evidence of PW.27 Sri. K.S. Goutham Chand who discounted the cheques Ex.P156. There is no dispute about his evidence.
41. Eighteenthly, the prosecution has adduced and relied upon the evidence of PW.18 Sri. G.V. Kumar, 32 Crl.A.356/2015 Advocate who prepared the Joint Development Agreement Ex.P116 and GPA Ex.P117 and there is no dispute.
42. Nineteenthly, the prosecution has adduced and relied upon the evidence of PW.19 Sri. S. Ayyappan, retired AGM who has deposed that under his covering letter Ex.P157 he has produced the statement of account of persons who have paid the Income Tax as per Ex.P158. His evidence is not disputed.
43. Twentiethly, the prosecution has adduced and relied upon the evidence of PW.20 Sri. Pramod P.P., Regional Manager, Savex Co. Ltd., who has deposed that he produced the salary particulars of accused No.4 as per Ex.P159. There is no dispute.
44. Twenty firstly, the prosecution has adduced and relied upon the evidence of PW.21 Sri. C.J. Prabhakara, Junior Sub-Registrar, K.R. Puram. He has deposed that CBI officers called him and shown the documents issued from their office as per Ex.P160 and he verified it and verified the EC and other documents as per Ex.P161 to 166 and gave his statement. He has no personal 33 Crl.A.356/2015 knowledge and simply verified the documents and gave his statement.
45. Twenty secondly, the prosecution has adduced and relied upon the evidence of PW.22 Sri. Dharamchand, Money lender, who has deposed that accused No.2 was discounting the cheques with him. His evidence is not supported from any documentary evidence. His evidence is not useful to the prosecution in any manner.
46. Lastly, the prosecution has adduced and relied upon the evidence of PW.23 Sri. K. Nagaraj who has deposed that accused No.2 told to provide one flat to his sister and his brother-in-law, applied for loan through his wife as GPA holder and loan was availed from Bank of Baroda and subsequently they received a notice from SBI, Indiranagar, GIC Housing Finance to repay the loan installments. In his cross-examination he has admitted that he has not applied for any loan and accused No.2 obtained signatures on the documents. He has not deposed anything against appellant No.1 and 2. 34
Crl.A.356/2015
47. After the prosecution evidence, the accused No.4 has deposed his defence evidence as DW1 and deposed about Ex.D3.
48. As seen from the evidence of the prosecution, witnesses who have no personal knowledge about the transactions and contents of documents have produced the documents before the CBI officers during investigation. Since they have produced the documents before the Investigating Officer during the investigation, in their evidence before the court, the documents have been marked as exhibits. Simply producing and marking the documents as exhibits cannot be said that the contents of those documents have been proved before the court in accordance with law. The Officers before whom the documents have been executed, aware about the contents are not brought before the court by the prosecution. The successor officers of the SBI, Syndicate Bank, Bank of Baroda and officers of Government Department have been examined who have specifically admitted that they have simply produced the documents 35 Crl.A.356/2015 and not having personal knowledge about the documents of this case. The mere marking of documents as exhibit does not dispense with the proof of the contents of those documents. In the present case, most of the documents are marked as exhibits without proving the contents of those documents as required by law.
49. On perusal of evidence of prosecution, some of the witnesses have only seen the documents and given their statements before the CBI Officers. Such evidence is only hearsay evidence and as per rules such evidence is not admissible evidence before the court. The witnesses have deposed that they saw the correspondence and documents and given their statements. The officers who have actually done the correspondence and know about the documents are not cited as witnesses in order to examine them before the court. The reliance placed by the prosecution on the evidence of the witnesses who have seen the documents and given their statements is not a relevant and 36 Crl.A.356/2015 admissible evidence to prove the allegations in a criminal case.
50. The evidence discloses that the Chief Manager Sri. Wilfred Sequeira and Deputy Manager Sri. Ramesh Rao were the proper witnesses to speak about the execution and contents of the documents before them. It is admitted that Sri. Wilfred Sequeira, Head of the Branch of SBI, PBB, Indiranagar was having power of sanction of loan to the borrowers of this case. It is also admitted that the Deputy Manager Sri. Ramesh Rao who was dealing with loan section, properly scrutinized the documents and placed for sanction before the Head of the Branch. It appears that based on the records submitted to them, they have acted in a good faith for processing and sanctioning of the loan as per banking norms in the regular course of banking business. Therefore, looking to their bonafide act, the competent authority has not accorded permission for prosecution to prosecute them in this case. Their evidence was the 37 Crl.A.356/2015 proper evidence to the prosecution to support the allegations.
51. Though the prosecution has examined number of witnesses in the present case, not a single witness has deposed any evidence against the appellant No.1 and 2. They have not deposed that there was any criminal conspiracy between the appellant No.1 and 2 with other accused persons and they had dishonest intention to cheat the State Bank of India.
52. It is pertinent to note that officers of State Bank of India have not filed any complaint before the CBI alleging any acts by any of the accused. The State Bank of India who alleged to have suffered loss due to the loan transactions of this case have not come forward to lodge any complaint before the CBI. None of the witnesses have deposed that there was any loss to the SBI due to the loan transactions of this case. The CBI has registered a case on the source of information, investigated the matter and filed a final report before the court. The banking institution who alleged to have 38 Crl.A.356/2015 suffered a loss has not made any allegations against the appellant No.1 and 2 for any of the offences. Even considering that CBI has got authority to register a case on the source of information, there must be sufficient evidence to link the accused to the allegations. In the present case, though the case was registered and investigated by the CBI on the source of information, no iota of evidence is forthcoming before the court to connect the appellant No.1 and 2 to the allegations made against them.
53. It is an admitted fact that after filing the final report before the court, the main Investigating Officer Sri.P.G. Gunaseelan is expired. Therefore, the prosecution is unable to examine the Investigating Officer who has conducted the investigation in this case. When the Investigating Officer is expired, it cannot be said that there is deliberate intention on the part of the prosecution for not examining the Investigating Officer in this case and such a situation is fatal to the case of prosecution.
39
Crl.A.356/2015
54. On perusal of the FIR, Sri. Biju George Joseph, Superintendent of Police, CBI, ACB, Bangalore has registered a case on the source of information and submitted FIR to the court and firstly entrusted the investigation to Sri. P.K. Jacob, Addl. S.P., CBI and then to Sri. P.G. Gunaseelan, Police Inspector, CBI. When the main Investigating Officer is expired, the officer who registered a case ought to have been examined by the CBI as a witness before the court. The FIR lodged in this case by the CBI is not marked as exhibit.
55. The learned counsel for appellants vehemently argued that there is no consent of State Govt., authority to the CBI to investigate the present case and the notifications are not produced to prove the authority to the CBI to conduct the investigation. Therefore, the entire investigation conducted by the CBI is without any authority and the same is illegal. He further argued that on such investigation done by the CBI, conviction of appellants 1 and 2 is not sustainable in the eye of law. In support of his arguments, he placed reliance on the 40 Crl.A.356/2015 decision reported in 2005 Crl.L.J. 180 in the case of Dharmendra Deo Mishra vs. CBI wherein Hon'ble Allahabad High Court held that: -
Delhi Special Police Establishment Act (25 of 1946), S.6 - Investigation by C.B.I. - Prior consent of State Govt. necessary - Suo motu investigation by C.B.I. not permissible.
There is complete bar in S. 6 of Delhi Special Police Establishment Act (1946), to exercise powers by the C.B.I. conferred to it under S. 5, without consent of the State Govt. Since, it is a statutory provision, violation of the same is not permissible and would frustrate the purpose of S.6. It is also a matter of consideration that in case the C.B.I. is permitted to investigate a matter suo motu, there are other investigating agencies in the State of U.P. i.e., C.B.CID, U.P. Vigilance Deptt. And the Special Investigation Squads and if all these investigating agencies are allowed to make investigations suo motu without getting authority or consent, of State Government in that case so many parallel investigations would go on and there may be 41 Crl.A.356/2015 possibility that some agency may file charge- sheet and some agency may submit final report in respect of the same incident/offence. Thus, it would affect the administration of justice.
56. On the other hand, learned Spl.Public Prosecutor argued that there are notifications of State Govt., Central Govt., issued under Sec.5 and 6 of DSPE Act and the copies of the same were submitted to the court along with FIR and subsequently, during the trial, the copies of those notifications have been produced before the court and based on those documents, the court has rightly taken juridical notice of the same as contemplated under Sec.57 of Indian Evidence Act and it cannot be said that there was no authority to the CBI to investigate and there is no merit in the argument advanced by the learned counsel for appellants.
57. In the present case, along with the FIR, the Xerox copies of the notification issued by the Govt., of Karnataka and Govt. of India under Sec.5 and 6 of DSPE 42 Crl.A.356/2015 Act were submitted to the court. Subsequently, the prosecution has submitted memo with the copies of notifications issued by the Govt. of Karnataka and Govt. of India, according consent by the State Govt. and authority by the Central Govt. to the CBI to investigate the allegations made in the present case. Considering those notifications, the learned trial judge has taken judicial notice of those notifications and held that there were consent of State Govt., and authority of the Central Govt. to the CBI to investigate the present matter.
58. As per Article 13(3)(a) of the Constitution of India defines "law" includes any Ordinance, order, bye- law, rule, regulation, notification, custom or usage having in the territory of India the force of law.
59. As per Section 57 of the Indian Evidence Act, the court shall taken judicial notice of all laws in force in the territory of India. When the notification is coming within the purview of law as defined under Article 13(3)(a) of Constitution, the court shall take judicial notice of 43 Crl.A.356/2015 such notifications though not marked as exhibit during the trial of the case.
60. When the notifications were produced before the trial court by the prosecution along with the memo and brought them to the notice of the court, the learned magistrate has taken judicial notice of those notifications and arrived to a proper conclusion that there was valid authority to the CBI to investigate the present case.
61. When there was consent of State Govt., and permission of Central Govt., to the CBI to investigate the present case and when the trial court has taken judicial notice of the notifications, it cannot be said that the principles of the decision relied upon by the learned counsel for the appellants are attracted to the facts and situation of the present case. Therefore, the investigation of the present case done by the CBI cannot be said as without authority and the same is illegal as urged by the appellants.
62. Further, the learned counsel for appellants argued that there was no written order produced by the 44 Crl.A.356/2015 prosecution to show the authority to the Investigating Officer to investigate the matter, therefore the investigation is bad and hit by Sec.17 of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. In support of his arguments, he placed relied on the principles of decision reported in 2006 Crl.L.J. 4598 in the case of State, Inspector of Police, Visakhapatnam vs. Surya Sankaram Karri wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that: -
(A) Prevention of Corruption Act (49 of 1988), S. 17
- Investigation - Authorization by Superintendent of Police in favour of an officer to carry out investigation - Has to be in writing - Issuance of an oral direction is not contemplated under Act - No explanation offered by Investigating Officer (I.O.,) for not filing authorizing letter - Further non-
consideration of relevant documentary evidence by I.O., also not explained - Respondent - accused had suffered miscarriage of justice as investigation made by I.O., was not fair - Investigation illegal.
63. On the other hand, the learned Spl. P.P argued that there was written authority to the investigating officer to investigate the present case and that order is maintained in the office and there is no merit in the contentions of the appellants that the investigating officer 45 Crl.A.356/2015 was not having written authority to investigate the present case. He further argued that in the present case, the case is not alleged against the appellants for the offences under Prevention of Corruption Act and there is no conviction recorded against them under the said Act, therefore, they cannot challenge the authority of the investigating officer to investigate the present case.
64. Admittedly, the case was registered by the Superintendent of Police, CBI for the offences punishable u/s 120B r/w 420, 468, 471 IPC and u/s 13(2) r/w 13(1)(d) of PC Act against public servants and others. There are no allegations or charge against the appellants for the offences under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. Without the allegation under the PC Act, the validity of the investigation raised by the learned counsel appears to be not acceptable one. Therefore, the principles of the above decision rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court are not attracted to the case on hand to say that the investigation carried out in this case was illegal.
46
Crl.A.356/2015
65. Further, the learned counsel for the appellants argued that most of the documents are simply marked as exhibit, not proved as required by law to consider them as evidence in the matter. In this regard, the learned counsel for the appellants relied upon a decision 2001 (6) Kar.L.J. 499 (DB) in the case of Chakravarthy vs. State by Koramangala Police, Bangalore wherein our Hon'ble High Court held that: -
(B) Indian Evidence Act, 1872, Section 61 -
Indian Penal Code, 1860, Section 300 -
Murder - Spot Panchanama report recording oral evidence of witnesses relating to - Mere marking of panchanama report as exhibit without examining Investigating Officer who prepared report and of witnesses mentioned therein is of no consequence - Production of document does not dispense with proof of document.
66. Further, the learned counsel for appellants relied upon a decision reported in ILR 1995 KAR 2266 in the case of Basappa vs. State of Karnataka wherein our Hon'ble High Court held that: -
Criminal Trial - Non-examination of material witnesses.47
Crl.A.356/2015 HELD:
In the absence of examination of vital witnesses prosecution must fail and the benefit of doubt must go to the accused.
67. Further, the learned counsel for appellants relied upon a decision reported in (2004) 11 SCC 291 in the case of Sakatar Singh and others vs. State of Haryana. Wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that:
-
"C. Evidence Act, 1872 - S. 60 - Hearsay evidence - Statement of witness not based on his personal knowledge but on what he heard from others - Held inadmissible".
68. The principles of the above decisions are well applicable to the documents marked in this case on behalf of the prosecution. In the present case, as stated earlier, most of the documents have been marked through the witnesses who have simply produced the documents without having personal knowledge about those documents and about their contents. The persons who have got personal knowledge and competent to speak are not cited as a witnesses nor summoned to 48 Crl.A.356/2015 depose evidence before the court. Therefore, mere marking of documents as exhibits cannot be said to have been proved their contents. The evidence deposed by the witnesses who have no personal knowledge about the documents can be said as only hearsay and such evidence is inadmissible.
69. It is the main allegation of the prosecution that public servants named in the FIR along with other accused persons entered into a criminal conspiracy to cheat and to cause financial loss to the State Bank of India. After the investigation, the charge sheet is also filed for the offence u/s 120B of IPC.
70. The learned counsel for appellants argued that though the basic allegation was against the public servants for the criminal conspiracy, those main conspirators have not been charge sheeted and sent for trial before the court, thus the very offence of conspiracy attributed to the public servants in collusion with builders and private persons is not established and not sustainable in the eye of law.
49
Crl.A.356/2015
71. In this regard, the learned counsel for appellants relied upon a decision reported in 1995 Crl.L.J. 4181 in the case of B.H. Narasimha Rao vs. Govt. of Andhra Pradesh, rep. by CBI wherein the Hon'ble Andhra Pradesh High Court held that: -
(A) Penal Code (45 of 1860), S. 120-B -
Conspiracy - Accused charged for commission of offence in conspiracy with seven others - All other co-accused acquitted
- Accused cannot be convicted for offence under S. 120-B - Conviction under S. 120-B on mere ground that accused was head of section of branch where fraud was alleged to be committed - Cannot also be sustained. (B) Penal Code (45 of 1860), S. 409, 471 -
Charges under, read with S. 120-B against bank's officer - Failure of charge under S. 120-B against accused - Other charges lose their roots - Complicity of accused to loss of money which bank had suffered on account of fictitious and forged telegraphic transfers, not proved - No person from mailing branch of bank charged for such offence - Accused entitled to acquittal.
72. Further, the learned counsel for appellants relied upon the principles of another decision reported in 1985 Crl. L.J. 1479 = AIR 1985 Supreme Court 1224 50 Crl.A.356/2015 in the case of State of U.P. vs. Sukbasi and others wherein Hon'ble Supreme Court held that: -
(A) Penal Code (45 of 1860), S. 120-B -
Criminal conspiracy must be established.
To substantiate a charge under S. 120-B of the Code, there must be a criminal conspiracy at least between two or more persons.
Where there was not an iota of evidence to establish that the three accused prior to the commission of the offences had conspired together with the fourth accused and got forged from him the ruqqa to secure an entry into the house of the deceased and there is nothing to show that the fourth accused had been associating with the other accused, the fourth accused is entitled to be acquitted.
73. On the other hand, the learned Spl.P.P argued that since the public servants were not given sanction for prosecution, they were not charge sheeted and there is a sufficient evidence to prove the conspiracy and cheating of the present appellants and accordingly, the conviction and order of sentence passed by the learned Magistrate is proper and does not require any interference.
74. In the present case, the alleged main conspirators who are the public servants are not charge 51 Crl.A.356/2015 sheeted and sent for trial. The prosecution charge sheeted accused No.1 to 13 who are the builders and private persons. The case against accused No.3, 4, 7 to 13 is not proved for criminal conspiracy or for other offences alleged.
75. In the present case, no evidence is forthcoming to prove that there was any prior meeting of minds of appellant No.1 and 2 with public servants and other accused and there was an agreement to do an illegal act to cheat the State Bank of India. Most of the alleged conspirators who alleged to have been involved in the conspiracy are not sent for trial or acquitted.
76. As per the evidence of the prosecution, none of the witnesses examined by the prosecution have whispered that there was any conspiracy between the appellants No.1 and 2 along with others. In the absence of any iota of evidence, it is not justified to arrive to a conclusion that there was criminal conspiracy between appellants No.1 and 2 and others. There is no evidence forthcoming in this case to establish the ingredients of 52 Crl.A.356/2015 the criminal conspiracy alleged against appellants No.1 and 2.
77. In the present case, the appellants 1 and 2 are the builders who entered into Joint Development Agreement with accused No.12 for building the flats on the property of accused No.12. Accused No.3, 4, 5, 7 to 11 and 13 are the borrowers of loan from State Bank of India. They have authorized the bank for disbursement of the loan amount to the developers as per the progress made in the construction. It is admitted by the witnesses that the bank has released the loan amount looking to the progress made in the construction. Simply because, the loan was disbursed to the developers on the authority of the borrowers, it cannot be said that they were having dishonest intention to cheat the bank. There is no allegation against appellants No.1 and 2 that they have dishonestly induced State Bank of India for release of the loan amount in their favour.
78. As per Sec. 420 of IPC, it has to be proved that whoever cheats and thereby dishonestly induce the 53 Crl.A.356/2015 person deceived to deliver any property. This basic ingredient is not at all proved by the prosecution. In fact the prosecution has not produced any iota of evidence through any of the witnesses especially witnesses PW1 and 2 relating to State Bank of India that they were delivered the housing loan. Further it has to be proved that at the inception of the transaction, the appellants 1 and 2 had dishonest intention to cheat. Even this basic ingredient of dishonest intention at the inception to cheat the State Bank of India, so as to attract Sec. 420 IPC has not been proved by the prosecution.
79. In this regard, the learned counsel for appellants relied upon a decision reported in (2005) 10 SCC 336 in the case of Uma Shankar Gopalika vs. State of Bihar and another wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that:-
A. Penal Code, 1860 - Ss. 420/120-B - Cheating - Requisites to constitute an offence of - Breach of contract, held, would amount to cheating only if intention to cheat was existing at the very inception - If such intention developed later on, the same would not amount to cheating - Remedy in 54 Crl.A.356/2015 the latter case lies before the civil court by filing a properly constituted suit - Accused U and his deceased brother (Directors of a finance company) financing the truck purchased by complainant C on hire- purchase agreement - Subsequently, the said truck becoming traceless - C submitting claim before insurance company
- U asking C to permit him to handle the insurance claim - C acceding to said request on assurances given by U that out of the claim of Rs.4,20,000 received, C would be paid Rs.2,60,000 - Despite the claim being allowed, U however failing to pay to C the assured amount - In the absence of any allegation in complaint that at the very inception there was any intention on behalf of the accused to cheat, held, offences under Ss. 420/120-B not made out.
80. In the present case, there is no evidence forthcoming to prove that appellant No.1 and 2 were having dishonest intention to cheat the State Bank of India was existing at the very inception. Therefore, the ingredients of Sec. 420 of IPC are not established against appellants 1 and 2.
81. Then the learned counsel for appellants relied upon the principles of the following decisions: -2004 55 Crl.A.356/2015 Crl.L.J. 2255 in the case of State vs. Peddahanumappa and others wherein it has been held that: -
(B) Evidence Act (1 of 1872), S. 135 -
Examination of Investigating Officer - Case of murder - Investigating Officer is principal architect and executor of entire investigation - He is a crucial witness for purposes of establishing that these are omissions and contradictions - Investigation is defective for non-examination of Investigating Officer.
82. In the present case, when the Investigating Officer is expired, the question of examining him does not arise and it cannot be said as serious infirmity and fatal to the case of the prosecution.
83. On appreciating the oral and documentary evidence placed before the court, I am of the view that the prosecution has utterly failed to establish the ingredients of Sec.120B and 420 of IPC against the appellants 1 and 2 beyond all reasonable doubt.
84. Therefore, the view taken by the learned Magistrate based on the inadmissible and lack of evidence against the appellants 1 and 2 is not sustainable in the eyes of law. Therefore, the conviction 56 Crl.A.356/2015 of appellants 1 and 2 for the offences punishable u/s 120B and 420 of IPC is not proper. Hence, the finding of conviction and order of sentence passed by the learned XVII Addl. Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bengaluru is erroneous, requires interference and liable to be set aside. Hence, on the grounds urged by the appellants, their appeal is liable to be allowed.
85. Accordingly, point Nos.1 and 2 are held in the negative and point No.3 is held in the affirmative.
86. Point No.4: For the foregoing reasons, I proceed to pass the following :
ORDER The Criminal Appeal preferred by the appellants/accused No.1 and 2 u/s 374(3) Cr.P.C., is hereby allowed.
Consequently, the judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed by XVII ACMM, Bangalore dated 31.1.2015 in CC No.19685/2007 is hereby set aside.
Appellants No.1 and 2 are acquitted for the offences punishable u/s 120B and 420 of IPC and their bail bonds stand cancelled.57
Crl.A.356/2015 Further, it is ordered to refund the fine amount, if any deposited by the appellants before the trial court.
Send the copy of the judgment along with the records of trial court immediately.
(Dictated to the Judgment-Writer, transcribed by him, transcript corrected and some paras are added directly on the computer and then pronounced by me in open Court on this the 27th day of January, 2016).
(BHEEMANAGOUDA K. NAIK) XXI Addl.City Civil & Sessions Judge & Prl. Spl. Judge for CBI cases, Bangalore.
58 Crl.A.356/2015 Judgment pronounced in open court, vide separate detailed order.
The Criminal Appeal preferred by the appellants/accused No.1 and 2 u/s 374 (3) Cr.P.C., is hereby allowed.
Consequently, the judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed by XVII ACMM, Bangalore dated 31.1.2015 in CC No.19685/2007 is hereby set aside.
Appellants No.1 and 2 are acquitted for the offences punishable u/s 120B and 420 of IPC and their bail bonds stand cancelled.
Further, it is ordered to refund the fine amount, if any deposited by the appellants before the trial court.
Send the copy of the judgment along with the records of trial court immediately.
(BHEEMANAGOUDA K. NAIK) XXI Addl.City Civil & Sessions Judge & Prl. Spl. Judge for CBI Cases, Bangalore.