Bangalore District Court
State By Central Crime Branch (F And M) ... vs Pruthviraj S/O Late Gopal ... on 2 November, 2016
IN THE COURT OF THE I ADDL.C.M.M, Bengaluru
Present: Smt. Hema Pastapur
B.A.,LL.B.,
I Addl. C. M. M, Bengaluru
C.C.No.51890/2010
Dated this the 2nd day of November 2016
Judgment under section 355 of the Code of Criminal Procedure
Complainant:- State by Central Crime Branch (F and M) Squad,
N.T. Pet, Bengaluru.
(By Learned Senior Assistant Public Prosecutor)
VS
Accused:- 1. Pruthviraj s/o Late Gopal Krishnamurthy,
age:42 years, r/o No.145, 9th main, R.M.V. 2nd
Stage, Bengaluru,
2. Janardhan s/o B. Venkatarathnaiah, age:34 years,
r/o No.28/1, 1st main, Sudhamanagar, Bengaluru.
3. Imran @ Irfan s/o Nissar Ahamed, age:23 years,
r/o Sangam Service Station, Computerized vehicle
Emission Testing Centre, L.P.O. road,
Vyalikaval, Bengaluru,
2 C.C.No.51890/2010
4. Madi s/o Doreswamy, age:36 years, r/o No.896,
18th main, 5th block, Rajajinagar, Bengaluru.
(Accused no.1 by Shri R.U. Advocate, accused no.2
and 3 by Shri K.S.A. Advocate and accused no.4 by
Shri N.S.R. Advocate)
Offences complained : U/secs 465, 468 and 420 of the Indian Penal
Code r/w sec 117 of Indian Motor Vehicles
Act and u/sec 15 of Environment Protection
Act.
Opinion of the Court : Accused no.1 to 4 are not found guilty
Date of Judgment : 02.11.2016.
JUDGMENT
That, the Police Inspector of (F and M) Squad, N.T. Pet, Bengaluru, has filed the Final report against the accused for the offence punishable under sections 465, 468 and 420 of the Indian Penal Code r/w section 177 of the Indian Motor Vehicles Act and under section 15 of Environment Protection Act. 3 C.C.No.51890/2010
1. That, the gist of the prosecution case is that the accused no.1 is the owner of the Sangam Service Station, Computerized Emission Testing Centre, situated at No.27, Lower Palace Archards, Bengaluru and accused no.2 and 3 are running the said centre. It is allegation of the prosecution that, all accused with their common intention to make wrongful gain, without following the rules of emission test for diesel vehicles and adopting a fake software in their computer uses to issue false emissions certificates to the customers by receiving more money.
2. That, on complaint being lodged the Vyalikaval Police, Bengaluru, have registered the case against the accused persons and thereafter, the matter was transferred to Central Crime Branch (F and M) Squad, Bengaluru for investigation. That, the Investigating Officer after completion of investigation filed the Final report against the accused for aforesaid offences.
3. That, this court after taking the cognizance of the aforesaid offences issued summons to the accused and inpursuance of said summons the accused have appeared before this court through their Learned counsel and they were enlarged on bail. That, the provisions 4 C.C.No.51890/2010 of section 207 of Code of Criminal Procedure, have complied here with. That, the charge of the accused has framed and read over to them in language known to them and they have not pleaded guilty and claimed to be tried. That, after completion of prosecution side evidence, the statement of the accused as contemplated under section 313 of Code of Criminal Procedure, has recorded and read over to them in language known to them and they have denied all incriminating evidence appearing against them and have not chosen to lead either oral or documentary evidence on their behalf.
4. That, I have heard the arguments and perused the materials placed on record. That, the following points arise for My consideration and determination:-
1. Whether the prosecution has proved beyond all reasonable doubt that, all accused with their common intention to make wrongful gain, without following the rules of emission test for diesel vehicles and adopting a fake software in their computer uses to issue false certificates to the customers by receiving more money and thereby have committed the offence punishable under sections 465, 468 and 5 C.C.No.51890/2010 420 of the Indian Penal Code r/w section 177 of the Indian Motor Vehicles Act and under section 15 of Environment Protection Act ?
2. What order?
5. That, the prosecution to prove its above case has got examined PWs1 to 4 and got marked the documents at EXsP1 to P8 and also got marked MOs1 to 9 and closed its side.
That, the accused in cross-examination of PW2 have got marked the EXD1 and in cross-examination of PW4 have got marked the EXD2.
6. That, My answer to the aforesaid points are as under:-
Point No.1:- In the NEGATIVE Point No.2:- As per the final order for the following:-
REASONS
7. Point No.1:- It is the case of the prosecution that, the accused no.1 is the owner of the Sangam Service Station, Computerised Emission Testing Centre, situated at No.27, Lower Palace Archards, Bengaluru and accused no.2 and 3 are running the said centre. It is allegation of the prosecution all accused with their common intention to make wrongful gain, without following the rules of emission test 6 C.C.No.51890/2010 for diesel vehicles and adopting a fake software in their computer are uses to issue false emission certificates to the customers by receiving more money.
It is pertinent to note here that, the prosecution to prove its above case has got examined CW1-Shri G. V. Udaya Bhaskar s/o G. Veerappa- the then Police Inspector, C.C.B. (F and M Squad), Bengaluru and Complainant as PW1. It is pertinent to note here that, PW1 in his examination-in-chief has deposed that on 30-07-2016 he visited the Sangam Service Station and at that time the accused no.3 was present in said centre and in that place he found that the accused persons uses to issue false emission certificates to the customers by receiving more money. It is pertinent to note here that, PW1 in his examination-in-chief has further deposed that on alleged date he seized Rs.300/- from accused no.3 and also got seized computer and other articles and drawn the seizure mahazar as per EXP1 and thereafter, lodged the complaint against the accused persons in Vyalikaval Police Station as per EXP2. It is pertinent to note here that, the prosecution in examination-in-chief of PW1 has got marked Netel smoke meter and strings at MO1, O.S. pipe at 7 C.C.No.51890/2010 M.O.2, Netel multi gas analyser at M.O.3, Computer monitor at M.O.4, C.P.U at M.O.5, Printer at M.O.6, Key board M.O.7, Mouse at M.O.8 and Web camera at M.O.9.
It is significant to note here that, in the instant case inspite of affording sufficient opportunities, PW1 has failed to tender for cross- examination and for that reason this court had discarded his entire evidence. It is pertinent to note here that, when the party does not offer himself to be cross-examined by the other side, the assumption would arise that the case set up by him is not correct. It is to be noted here that, in the instant case the evidence of PW1 cannot be looked into.
8. It is pertinent to note here that, the prosecution to prove its above case has further got examined CW7-Shri L. Hemanthkumar s/o Lakshmigowda-the then Transport Commissioner as PW2. It is pertinent to note here that, PW2 in his examination-in-chief has deposed that on 30-08-2010 he received a letter from Assistant Commissioner of Police and in which he sought the details pertaining to eight points and for which he gave his reply as per EXP4. 8 C.C.No.51890/2010 It is pertinent to note here that, PW2 in his cross-examination at page no.2 at para no.1 in 6th line has deposed that:- ¤¦-4 C£ÀÄß DAiÀÄÄPÀÛjUÉ Cqïð¸ï ªÀiÁrzÁVzÀÄÝ CzÀÄ ªÉÆzÀ®Ä DAiÀÄÄPÀÛjUÉ vÀ®Ä¥À¨ÃÉ PÀÄ JAzÀgÉ ¸Àj. DAiÀÄÄPÀÛgÀÄ ¤¦-3PÉÌ GvÀÛgª À £ À ÀÄß ªÀiÁqÀ®Ä £À£U À É C¸ÉÊ£ï ªÀiÁrgÀĪÀÅ¢®è. ¤¦-4 GvÀÛgª À £ À ÀÄß PÉÆqÀĪÀ ªÉÆzÀ®Ä £Á£ÀÄ J¯Áè zÁR¯ÉU¼ À £ À ÀÄß ¥Àj²Ã°¹gÀÄvÉÛãÉ. ¸ÀAUÀªÀiï ¸À«ð¸ï ¸ÉÖõÀ£ïUÉ PÉÆlÖAvÀºÀ ¯ÉʸɣïìUÀ¼À §UÉÎ ºÁUÀÆ CªÀgÀ ªÀ媺 À ÁgÀzÀ §UÉÎ £ÀªÄÀ ä PÀbÃÉ jAiÀÄ zÁR¯ÉU¼ À ° À è AiÀiÁªÀÅzÉà PÀ¥ÀÅàZÀÄPÉÌAiÀÄ ªÀg¢ À EgÀĪÀÅ¢®è JAzÀgÉ £É£À¦®è. ¸ÀAUÀªÀiï ¸À«ð¸ï ¸ÉÖõÀ£ï CªÀgÀÄ ¥Àæw wAUÀ¼ÀÄ ªÀ媺 À ÁgÀzÀ §UÉÎ ªÀg¢ À AiÀÄ£ÀÄß ¤AiÀÄ«ÄvÀªÁV ¸À°ègÀÄvÁÛgÉ JAzÀgÉ ¸Àj. £ÀªÀÄä E¯ÁSÉ C¢üPÁjUÀ¼ÀÄ ¥Àæw 3 wAUÀ½UÉƪÉÄä J«ÄµÀ£ï mɸïÖ §UÉÎ ¸¥ÉÊð¸ï gÉÊqï PÉÆqÀÄvÁÛgÉ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ ¸ÀAUÀªÀiï ¸À«ð¸ï ¸ÉÖõÀ£ï §UÉÎ AiÀiÁªÀÅzÉà PÀ¥ÀÅà ZÀÄPÉÌ EgÀĪÀÅ¢®è JAzÀgÉ ¸Àj. £ÀªÀÄä C¢üPÁjUÀ¼ÄÀ E£ïì¥ÉPÀë£ïUÉ ºÉÆÃzÁUÀ J«ÄµÀ£ À ï mɸïÖAUï «ÄµÀÀ£ï CªÀÅUÀ¼À §UÉÎ PÀÆqÀ ªÉj¥sÉÊ ªÀiÁqÀÄvÁÛgÉ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ CzÀÄ ¸ÀjAiÀiÁV E®è¢zÀÝgÉ £ÀªÀÄUÉ j¥ÉÇÃmïð PÉÆqÀÄvÁÛg.É D jÃw ¸ÀAUÀªÀiï ¸À«ð¸ï ¸ÉÖõÀ£ï §UÉÎ AiÀiÁªÀÅzÉà £ÉUn É ªï j¥ÉÆÃmïð §A¢gÀĪÀÅ¢®è JAzÀgÉ ¸Àj. ¨sÁgÀvÀ ¸ÀPÁðgÀ £ÉëĹzÀAvÀºÀ KeɤìUÀ¼É J«ÄµÀ£ À ï mɸïÖAUï£À ¹¸ÀÖªÀiï ªÀÄvÀÄÛ ¸Á ¥sïÖªÉÃgïUÀ¼£ À ÄÀ ß 9 C.C.No.51890/2010 ¸À¥ÉÊèªÀiÁqÀÄvÁÛgÉ JAzÀgÉ ¸Àj. DxÁgÉʸïØ Keɤì CªÀgÀÄ PÉÆlÖ PÀA¥ÀÇålgï ªÀÄvÀÄÛ ¸Á¥sïÖªÉÃgÀ£ÀÄß AiÀiÁgÀÄ PÉÆnÖgÀÄvÁÛgÉ JAzÀÄ ªÉj¥sÉÊ ªÀiÁr £ÁªÀÅ DgÉÆæ-1 CªÀjUÉ ¯Éʸɣïì PÉÆnÖgÀÄvÉÛêÉ. ¯Éʸɣïì£À PÁè¸ï 7 gÀ ¥ÀæPÁgÀ AiÀiÁªÀ AiÀiÁªÀ ªÉ»PÀ¯ïUÀ¼ÀÄ J«ÄµÀ£ À ï mɸïÖ ¸ÉAlgïUÉ §gÀÄvÀÛªÉ CAvÀ JªÀéj ¸ÀPï¹ÃrAUï ªÀÄAvï j¥ÉÇÃmïð PÉÆqÀ¨ÃÉ PÀÄ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ ¸ÀAUÀªÀiï ¸À«ð¸ï ¸ÉÖõÀ£ï CªÀgÀÄ D §UÉÎ j¥ÉÇÃmïð PÉÆnÖgÀÄvÁÛg.É ¸ÀAUÀªÀiï ¸À«ð¸ï ¸ÉÖõÀ£ï §UÉÎ ¢£ÁAPÀ 30.7.2010 AiÀiÁjAzÀ®Æ £ÀªÀÄUÉ zÀÆgÀÄ §A¢gÀĪÀÅ¢®è JAzÀgÉ ¸Àj. £ÁªÀÅ ¯Éʸɣïì PÉÆmÁÖUÀ EzÀÝ PÀArõÀ£ï C£ÀÄß ¸ÀAUÀªÀiï ¸À«ð¸ï ¸ÉÖõÀ£ï CªÀgÀÄ ¥sÁ¯ÉÆà ªÀiÁrPÉÆAqÀÄ §A¢gÀÄvÁÛgÉ. FUÀ £À£U À É vÉÆÃj¹zÀ ¯Éʸɣïì£À eÉgÁPïì ¥ÀæwAiÀÄ£ÀÄß ¸ÀAUÀªÀiï ¸À«ð¸ï ¸ÉÖõÀ£ïUÉ £ÀªÀÄä PÀbÃÉ j¬ÄAzÀ PÉÆnÖgÀÄvÁÛgÉ JAzÀgÉ ¸Àj. ¸Àzj À ¯Éʸɣïì £À eÉgÁPïì ¥ÀæwAiÀÄ£ÀÄß ».¸À.¸À.C gÀªg À ÀÄ vÀPg À ÁjUÉ M¼À¥l À ÄÖ ¤r-1 JAzÀÄ UÀÄwð¸À¯Á¬ÄvÀÄ. ¤¦-4 C£ÀÄß ªÉÊAiÀiÁ°PÁªÀ¯ï ¥Éǰøï oÁuÉUÉ Cqïð¸ï ªÀiÁrgÀĪÀÅ¢®è JAzÀgÉ ¸Àj. ¸ÀAUÀªÀiï ¸À«ð¸ï ¸ÉÖõÀ£ï CªÀgÀÄ ¢£ÁAPÀ 30.7.2010 gÀªg À ÉUÉ J«ÄµÀ£ À ï mɸïÖAUï §UÉÎ AiÀiÁªÀÅzÉà C¥ÀgÁzÀsª£ À ÀÄߪ¸É V À gÀĪÀÅ¢®è PÁ£ÀÆ£À¤£À ¥ÀæPÁgÀ ªÀ媺 À ÁgÀ ªÀiÁrgÀÄvÁÛgÉ JAzÀgÉ ¸Àj.
10 C.C.No.51890/2010It is pertinent to note here that, the said admissions of PW2 have entirely nullified the prosecution case. It is pertinent to note here that, from the said evidence of PW2 it clearly appears that PW1 has falsely implicated the accused persons.
9. It is pertinent to note here that, prosecution to prove its above case has further got examined CW9-Shri H. M. Mahadevaiah s/o Marichikkaiah-the Seizure mahazar witness as PW3. It is pertinent to note here that, PW3 has partly tuned hostile and in his examination-in-chief has deposed that he was working as a jeep driver for PW1 and in the year 2010 PW1 took him and CWs10 and 11 to the emission testing centre, situated at Vyalikaval and in said place one person by name Shri Irfan was present. It is pertinent to note here that, PW3 in his examination-in-chief has further deposed that he do not know what PW1 had did in said place and on being asked by him he signed on EXP1- Seizure mahazar. It is pertinent to note here that, in cross-examination of PW3, the prosecution has tried to elicit the facts alleged by it, but, failed in it. It is pertinent to note here that, on cross-examination being made by accused no.2 and 3, PW2 has clearly deposed that he signed on EXP1 in C.C.B. 11 C.C.No.51890/2010 Police Station. It is pertinent to note here that, from entire evidence of PW3 it clearly appears that on alleged he was not at all present in the spot. It is pertinent to note here that, the evidence of PW3 is not worthwhile and it cannot be believed.
10. It is pertinent to note here that, the prosecution to prove its above case has further got examined CW8-Samuel Prasad s/o M. P. Peter-the Regional Manager in Netel India Limited, Chennai as PW4. It is pertinent to note here that, PW4 has partly turned hostile. It is pertinent to note here that, PW4 in his examination-in- chief has deposed that on 21-10-2010 he received the requisition from CW1 and he asked him whether in said CPU emission software pertaining to Netel India Limited has been installed or not and he checked the same and not found the software in said CPU and for which he gave his reply as per EXP6. It is pertinent to note here that, PW4 in his examination-in-chief at page no.2 at para no.1 has deposed that actually he inspected a CPU asked by Mr. Udayshankar- CW1 that is related to different FIR and not of this case.
It is significant to note here that, PW4 in his cross-examination at page no.4 has specifically admitted that he is having no personal 12 C.C.No.51890/2010 knowledge about the incident of this case and the accused no.4 was taking annual maintenance charges and there is no bad remarks to Netel products. It is pertinent to note here that, the said admissions of PW4 are quite sufficient to hold that the accused have not committed any offence as alleged by the prosecution.
11. It is pertinent to note here that, in the instant case the accused in cross-examination of PW2 have got marked the xerox copy of the Licence bearing no.903/08-09 at EXD1. It is pertinent to note here that, from perusal of EXD1 it appears that at Sl.No.6 it has been mentioned that its validity period is 12-05-2008 to 11-05-2011 and at sl.no.5 it has been mentioned as M/s Netel (India). It is pertinent to note here that, the accused persons in cross-examination of PW4 have got marked the xerox copy of Invoice at EXD2. It is pertinent to note here that, from perusal of EXD2 it appears that the accused no.1 had purchased the Netel Multi Gas Analyzer model NPM MGA-1 with one printer and RS 223 with serial no.89 dated 02-06-2006. It is pertinent to note here that, from perusal of EXD2 it appears that the said invoice has been issued by the authorized signatory of Madhi Micro Technologies. It is pertinent to note here that, from perusal of 13 C.C.No.51890/2010 EXsD1 and D2 it clearly appears that the accused no.1 had obtained the licence from the concerned authorities to run the said centre and he had purchased the said software from Madhi Micro Technologies. It is pertinent to note here that, as stated above PW1 has failed to tender for cross-examination and inview of the same, the assumption would arise that the case set up by him is not correct. It is further pertinent to note here that, in the instant case the said admissions of PWs2 and 4 are quite sufficient to hold that the accused have not committed any offence as alleged by the prosecution and they have been falsely implicated in present case. It is pertinent to note here that, in the instant case the prosecution has failed to prove the essential ingredients of sections 465, 468 and 420 of the Indian Penal Code, section 177 of the Indian Motor Vehicles Act and section 15 of Environment Protection Act. In view of the same, point no.1 is answered in the NEGATIVE.
12. Point No.2:- That, as discussed on point no.1, I proceed to pass the following:-
14 C.C.No.51890/2010
ORDER That, acting under section 248(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the accused no.1 to 4 are acquitted for the offence punishable under section 465, 468 and 420 of the Indian Penal Code r/w section 177 of the Indian Motor Vehicles Act and under section 15 of Environment Protection Act.
That, the bail and surety bonds of the accused no.1 to 4 are stands cancelled.
That, the accused no.1 to 4 shall comply with the provisions of section 437(A) of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
That, the orders passed in respect of M.Os.1 to 9 shall be made as absolute.
(Dictated to the stenographer, transcript thereof, computerized and then corrected by me and then pronounced in open Court on this the day of 2nd day of November 2016) Date:02.11.2016 (Hema Pastapur) Place:Bengaluru I Addl. C. M. M, Bengaluru. 15 C.C.No.51890/2010
Annexure List of witnesses examined on behalf of the prosecution PW1: Shri G. V. Udaybhaskar s/o G. Veerappa;
PW2: L. Hemanthkumar s/o Lakshmigowda;
PW3: Shri H. M. Mahadevaiah s/o Marichikkaiah and
PW4: Shri Samuel Prasad s/o M. P. Peter.
List of documents marked on behalf of the prosecution EXP1: Seizure Mahazar;
EXP1(a): Signature of PW1;
EXP1(b): Signature of PW3;
EXP2: Complaint;
EXP2(a): Signature of PW1;
EXP3: Letter;
EXP4: Letter of PW2;
EXP4(a): Signature of PW2;
EXP5: Letter dated 21-10-2010;
EXP6: Reply of PW4;
EXP6(a): Signature of PW4;
EXP7: Computer printed operational manual
(xerox) and
EXP8: Statement of PW4.
List of witnesses examined on behalf of the accused Nil List of documents marked on behalf of the accused EXD1: Xerox copy of licence no.903/08-09 and 16 C.C.No.51890/2010 EXD2: Xerox copy of Invoice.
List of material objects marked on behalf of the prosecution M.O.1 : Netel stroke meter and strings;
M.O.2: O.S. pipe;
M.O.3: Netel multi gas analyser;
M.O.4: Computer monitor;
M.O.5: C.P.U;
M.O.6: Printer;
M.O.7: Key board;
M.O.8: Mouse and
M.O.9: Web camera.
Date:02.11.2016 (Hema Pastapur)
Place:Bengaluru I Addl C. M. M, Bengaluru.
17 C.C.No.51890/2010
18 C.C.No.51890/2010
(Judgment pronounced in the Open Court, vide separate order) ORDER That, acting under section 248(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the accused no.1 to 4 are acquitted for the offence punishable under section 465, 468 and 420 of the Indian Penal Code r/w section 177 of the Indian Motor Vehicles Act and under section 15 of Environment Protection Act.
That, the bail and surety bonds of the accused no.1 to 4 are stands cancelled.
That, the accused no.1 to 4 shall comply with the provisions of section 437(A) of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
That, the orders passed in respect of M.Os.1 to 9 shall be made as absolute.
(Hema Pastapur) I Addl.CMM, Bangalore.