Bangalore District Court
Indiranagar Ps vs Vijay on 16 December, 2024
KABC0D0019052013
IN THE COURT OF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE TRAFFIC COURT-I AT
MAYOHALL, BANGALORE.
Present : Neelam Nitin Rao
Judicial Magistrate
Traffic Court-I Bengaluru
DATED 16th DAY OF DECEMBER 2024
C.C. No. 1770/2013
Complainant : Indiranagar PS
Bangalore
V/s
Accused : 1. Vijay @ Yuvaraj.K.
S/o. Mahesh
Aged about 25 years
R/at: No. 101, Ejipura, 27th Main
1st Cross, Bangalore
(Split up)
2. Pandiyan @
S. Sundarapandiyan
S/o. V. Shivakumar
Aged about 35 years
R/at. No. 33, 17th Cross
9th 'A' Main road
Padarayana pura
Bangalore - 26
3. Manu
S/o. Late. Kumar
Aged about 23 years
Behind Marayamma Temple
Near Sunnada Goodu
Ujinipura, Bhadravathi
4. Mojan Variyath
(Split up)
2
C.C. No. 1770/2013
5. Vargis
Manager, Cloud-9
Residency No. 1328, 2nd Main
13th Cross, Indiranagar
2nd Stage, Bangalore
6. Naveen
No. 101, Ejipura, 27th Main
1st Cross, Bangalore
7. Kishore
No. 101, Ejipura, 27th Main
1st Cross, Bangalore
(A.6 & 7 absconded)
(Rep by: A.2,3 & 5 - Adv Sri.
G.C.C)
1. Date of commission of offence : 04.08.2013
2. Offence alleged : P/U/S.3, 4, 5 & 7 ITP Act
3. Date of recording of evidence : 23.01.2024
4. Date of Judgment : 16.12.2024
JUDGMENT
This case is arising out of charge sheet filed by PI of Indiranagar Police Station against accused for the alleged offences P/U/S. 3, 4, 5 and 7 of ITP Act.
2. Brief facts of the prosecution case are as follows:
On 04.08.2013, at about night 11:00 pm CW.1 received credible information that in an internet locanto.dom website, some people were involved in prostitution through mobile number and asking the customers for prostitution at Indiranagar, 13th Cross, Cloud-9 residency. They used girls for the purpose of prostitution. The CW.1 along with his staff CW.4 to 11 had been to the spot. In order to confirm the information CW.1 sent CW.2 and 3. CW.1 has confirmed the information and in the presence 3 C.C. No. 1770/2013 of CW.2 & 3 mahazar witnesses conducted the raid on the spot. CW.1 has sent CW.9 as decoy to the 1 st floor room No. 206, wherein, he has found with CW.12. On inquiry, she told that accused No.1, 6 & 7 brought her for prostitution and accused No.2, 3 & 5 were assisting them conducting prostitution. The raiding party conducted the raid, inquired seized 4 condoms, one mobile phone and again conducted a raid on 4 th Floor, room No. 403 wherein, the decoy CW.10 was found with CW.13. On inquiry she has also told that accused were brought her and involved her in prostitution. The raiding party recovered 4 durex condoms, 1 mobile phone in the presence of mahazar witnesses. Also seized the decoy amount of Rs. 4,000/- from accused No.1. The raiding party has detained the accused and secured the victims of the prostitution. They conducted mahazar in the presence of mahazar witnesses and seized all items. CW.1 along with his staff conducted mahazar and seized items, returned to the police station and lodged crime no. 289/2013.
3. After investigation the IO filed Charge Sheet against accused for alleged offences p/u/s 3, 4, 5 and 7 of ITP Act. After receipt of charge sheet, this court considering that there are prima facie materials on record, this court has taken cognizance for the said offences and a criminal case has been registered against accused in register No. III and issued process.
4. The case was spit up against the accused No.1, 4, 6 & 7 with direction to IO to file separate charge sheet against them in register No. III. This case is pending against the accused No. 1, 4, 6 & 7. Accused No.2, 3 & 5 appeared through counsel. They were enlarged on bail. Copy of prosecution papers were 4 C.C. No. 1770/2013 furnished to accused as contemplated under Section 207 of Cr.P.C.
5. After hearing the prosecution and accused counsel, it is noticed that there are no grounds to discharge the accused No.2, 3 & 5. On the other hand, there are prima facie materials available against accused No. 2, 3 & 5. Hence, the charge was framed. Read over and explained to accused in the language best known to them. They understood the charge. They pleaded not guilty. Hence, the case was posted for prosecution evidence. In the charge sheet, the prosecution has cited as may as 13 witnesses. However, despite granting sufficient opportunities, prosecution has not able to secure all the witnesses. Prosecution examined PW.1 to 5 and closed prosecution evidence.
6. The statement of accused No.2, 3 & 5 as required under 313 Cr.P.C is recorded, read over and explained to accused in the language best known to them. Accused persons denied all incriminating circumstances appeared in prosecution evidence. However, not chosen to lead defense evidence. Hence, the case was posted for prosecution evidence.
7. Heard learned APP and learned counsel for accused No. 2, 3 & 5. Meticulously perused documents placed on record.
8. The following points arise for my consideration;
Point No.1: Whether prosecution proves beyond all reasonable doubt that on 04.08.2013, at about night 5 C.C. No. 1770/2013 11:00 pm CW.1 received credible information that in an internet locanto.dom website, some people were involved in prostitution through mobile number asking the customers for prostitution at Indiranagar, 13 th Cross, Cloud-9 residency which was used as brothel and was aiding for prostitution activities and accused persons were indulged in running brothel house by bringing customers for prostitution activities and thereby, committed the offences punishable under sec.3 of ITP Act ?
Point No.2: Whether prosecution proves beyond all reasonable doubt that on aforementioned date, time and place accused persons was involved in prostitution and living on the earnings of prostitution, thereby, committed the offences punishable under sec.4 of ITP Act ?
Point No.3: Whether prosecution proves beyond all reasonable doubt that whether accused persons procured induced or took any person for the sake of prostitution and thereby, committed the offences punishable under sec.5 of ITP Act ?
Point No.4: Whether prosecution proves beyond all reasonable doubt that whether accused persons were carrying prostitution in or in the vicinity of public place and thereby, committed the offences punishable under section 7 of ITP Act ?
Point No.5: What order?
6C.C. No. 1770/2013
9. 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 Negative
Point No.4 : In the Negative
Point No.5 : As per the final order
for the following reasons
REASONS
10. Point No.1 to 4 : As these points are interconnected with each other, they are taken up together for common discussion, in order to avoid repetition of facts and for brevity.
11. In offence U/s.3, 4, 5 & 7 of ITP Act, the burden to prove the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt lies on the prosecution. The prosecution shall establish that accused were running prostitution of brothel in a public place and they were living on earnings of the prostitution. Further, they were conducting the prostitution illegally and earning the money and seducing the customers, general pubic to involve in prostitution.
12. In order to bring home the guilt of the accused, beyond reasonable doubt out of 13 witnesses, prosecution has examined 5 witnesses as PW.1 to 5 and got marked 5 documents as Ex.P.1 to 5 and 5 material objects were marked as MO. 1 to 5.
13. CW.1 Sri. D. Kumar was examined as PW.1. In his chief evidence, he reiterated contents of his report. In his chief 7 C.C. No. 1770/2013 evidence, mahazar was marked as Ex.P.1 along with it the record of reason and complaint along with FIR was also marked. Learned counsel for accused fully cross examined him wherein, PW.1 deposed that he did not remember when he got the information, where he was. Further, he deposed that his staff were with him. He deposed that he did not remember, when he got the information, where were CW.4 & 5 and he did not know where his staff were. It is pertinent to note that the information received by CW.1 as per prosecution case is that the accused were bringing the customer through Locanto.doc website. However, the PW.1 admits that he has not verified the locanto website. He categorically admits the same. His admission is that "ಆರೋಪಿಗಳು ಲೊಕಾಂಟೋ ವೆಬ್ಸೈಟ್ ಅನ್ನು ಪರಿಶೀಲಿಸಿರುವುದಿಲ್ಲ. ನನ್ನ ಬಾತ್ಮೀದಾರ ಲೊಕಾಂಟೋ ವೆಬ್ಸೈಟ್ ಪರಿಶೀಲನೆ ಮಾಡಿದ ಬಗ್ಗೆ ಹೇಳಿರುವುದಿಲ್ಲ."
14. It is pertinent to note that the very case arising from the information that the accused were involved in a prostitution through the website itself. There would not be any hurdle for the PW.1 to verify whether any such website existed or not. The CW.1 himself received information, himself took staff with him and himself had been to the spot as per prosecution report. However, during cross examination, he stated that he did not remember anything as to who has appointed the staff, where his staff were and who had been to the spot. It means that he has not tried to secure the mahazar witnesses from the spot itself. The PW.1 who conducted raid has stated that he did not remember whether the cloud-9 is having 5 floors building and he has also not verified the ledger book and who was present in the reception at that time. He also deposed that he did not verify as to how much workers were in the hotel. He did not remember 8 C.C. No. 1770/2013 whether he signed the decoy amount and not submitted any application to recover the amount of Rs. 4,000/- which he has given for decoy. It is pertinent to note that he admits that he has not inquired about the accused or the prostitution about the near by people. He also admits that there was no hurdle for him to inquire about the same. He admits that when he sent his staff as decoy there were no other customers except the decoy amount of Rs. 4,000/- he has not recovered any other amount.
15. The PW.1 in his cross examination categorically admits that though he has recovered the mobile, he has not verified as to in whose name the mobile was standing in. He has also not verified the call details and there was no hurdle for him to seize the mobile and seal the same. He admits that on material objects, the signature of mahazar witnesses was not obtained. Also admits that he has not recorded any statement of that building owner. He categorically admits that he has not received any documents to show that accused were working in that hotel. It was suggested that he has never conducted any raid or conduced any mahazar. He denied the same.
16. On careful perusal of the entire evidence of PW.1, it could be seen that he is the person who has registered suo motto case against the accused herein. He should be able to depose each particular of the case in hand. It is not out of place to mention that the CW.1 who was also investigated the case has failed to depose the material objects. More importantly, he has not investigated the case in a proper perspective. The main lacuna of the case is that when the CW.1 received information that through locanto.com itself, the accused were bringing the 9 C.C. No. 1770/2013 customers, the investigation begin from the case itself to verify the website, whether it was existed, whether it was indeed used for the prostitution or not. Second important aspect is that in whose name the building was standing and whether that person is aware about any prostitution in being carried out in that place or not. Third aspect is about the accused. The PW.1 ought to have examined whether the accused were workers of the place and all the necessary details about the accused and where the victims were brought etc., main thing about the mahazar failure is that though PW.1 has stated that he recovered Rs. 4,000/-, it is pertinent to note that he admitted that except this Rs. 4,000/- he has not recovered any other amount and there were no other customers. These admissions and suggestions by the defense side itself reflects that there is a thick cloud of doubt about the case put forth by the prosecution against the accused persons.
17. The prosecution has examined CW.7 Sri. Sabanna as PW.2. In his chief evidence he deposed that on 04.08.2013, at about night 11:00 pm when he was at work CW.1 called him and asked him to come near Indiranagar, 13 th cross, cloud-9 residency. Along with him CW.4 to 6, 8 & 11 accompanied to the spot. He did not remember along with them who others were present.
18. The CW.1 appointed 2 staff as decoy and they proceeded at 1st floor and 4th floor. In those 1st and 4th floor along with decoy there were girls. The CW.1 has appointed CW.9 & 10 as decoy and given Rs.2,000/- each. From the spot i.e, Room No. 206, they seized 4 condoms and one mobile. From room No. 403, they seized 4 condoms and one mobile phone.
10C.C. No. 1770/2013 The cloud-9 residency owner accused No.2, 3 & 5 were involved in the prosecution. Accused No. 1 to 3 were detained and mahazar was conduced and amount was seized. The name of lady who was present in room No. 206 was CW.13 Firoza yokoobova and CW.12 Shafiya Shek.
19. During cross examination, he deposed that the CW.1 has informed him through wireless, at that time it was 11:00 pm., when he reached the station it was 11:10 pm., The CW.1 has not shown an locanto.com to the raiding party. He did not remember who was SHO on that day and who brought mahazar witnesses. Though he stated that one of the mahazar witness name is Irfan, he did not remember others name. He categorically deposed that CW.1 has not tried to summon neighbours as mahazar witnesses. He did not know how many floors, the cloud-9 residency has. He did not know how many people were working there and the raiding party has not conducted in person search before conducting raid. The persons who had been as a decoy were in mafti and other are in uniform. He did not know in whose name room no. 206 & 403 were booked. He did not know that from whose possession mobiles were seized. He did not know whether CW.1 has verified the CC TV camera. He did not know whether any documents were seized. He is unable to depose the name of the accused who were present before the court.
20. On over all perusal of evidence of PW.2, it could be seen that he failed to deposed material aspects such as about locanto.com from where CW.1 received information. If at all, PW.2 would accompanied raiding party, he would be in a position 11 C.C. No. 1770/2013 to tell about the spot. He is unable to depose particulars of the raiding spot and about the persons present there and other details. He has made a contrary statements.
21. The prosecution has examined CW.11 Smt. Rekha as PW.3. In her chief evidence, she also deposed that CW.1 received information that in a locanto.com website some people were calling customers for prostitution purpose and she accompanied the CW.1 along with other staff to the spot i.e., Indiranagar, 13th cross, 2nd main, Building No. 1328. CW.1 has called CW.4 & 5 and mahazar witnesses and sent CW. 9 & 10 as decoy by giving Rs. 2,000/- each. In room No. 403. along with Cw.10 and Firoza was there. The raiding party have seized condoms and mobile phones.
22. In cross examination, she deposed that when CW.1 called her at 10:30 pm at that time, she was in her house. When she reached the station it was 11:00 pm., When she reached the spot CW.1, 4 & 5 were in station. She also deposed that CW.1 has not shown the locanto.com website to her and her staff. She also deposed that she did not know how many floor building is, the cloud-9 residency. He did not know who was the receptionist and whether CW.1 has verified the ledger. She admits that as per room No. 206 & 403, they have not prepared different mahazars. She did not remember from whom, which mobile was seized.
23. On over all perusal of this witness, it is forthcoming that though raiding party has taken woman police with them, however, she is unable to depose relevant aspects. The 12 C.C. No. 1770/2013 identification of the accused remained unestablished. Another point for consideration is that as per Ex.P.3, the CW.1 received information at 11:00 pm., However, as per evidence of this witness, the CW.1 informed him about the incident at 10:30 pm only. These are the contradictions in the evidence of PW.3, on which the prosecution cannot rely to prove its case.
24. Later prosecution has examined CW.9 Sri. Srishail Avchi as PW.4. In his chief evidence, he deposed that at 11:00 pm CW.1 was in patrolling duty at that time, he received information. However, as per CW.1, Ex.P.4 complaint, he received complaint, when he was at police station. The CW.1 informed him that the accused were calling customers for prostitution through locanto.website. He deposed that the CW.1 has sent himself and CW.10 as decoy and has given Rs. 2,000/- each to them. He had been to room No. 206, where CW.12 Shafia Shek was there. CW.1 came to the room at 11:25 pm. On questioning CW.12 deposed that accused No. 1, 3 & 7 brought her to cloud-9 hotel and carrying prostitution. Accused No. 5 to 3 are the incharge of the hotel. In room no. 403, CW.10 was decoy. After conducting mahazar, they detained accused no. 1 to 3 and they took the victim ladies to the station. He did not remember the names of other accused. He identified the accused no. 2 present before the court. Treating this witnesses as partly hostile, learned APP partly cross examined wherein, it was suggested that accused No. 7 also brought her to the prostitution along with other witnesses. He denied the same. Similarly, the woman present in room No. 403, told them that accused No. 1, 6 & 7 brought her for prostitution. He admits the suggestion.
13C.C. No. 1770/2013
25. During cross examination, he deposed that when CW.1 the received information he was in station. In chief itself he deposed that when he received information, CW.1 was in patrolling. He also deposed that CW.1 has not shown locanto.com to him. He did not know who has brought mahazar witnesses. He was in mufti, CW.4 & 5 were in uniform. The cloud-9 is a 3 floor building and they have not conducted in person search before conducting the raid. Though this witnesses has deposed that apart from Rs.4,000 and mobile, they have not received anything, he is unable depose in whose name the mobile were registered. He did not know who was the owner of that spot.
26. On careful evidence of this witness, it could be seen that he has made a contrary statement and even he did know about the source of information i.e., locanto.com.
27. Lastly, prosecution has examined CW.10 Sri. Srishail Gotyal as PW.5. In his chief evidence, he deposed that CW.1 received information when he was in patrolling duty and he accompanied CW.1 to the spot. CW.1 appointed him as a decoy, he had been to room No. 403, where CW.13 was there. He gave a missed call. Thereafter, in the presence of mahazar witnesses CW.2 & 3, the raiding party conducted raid. CW.4 & 5 have seized Rs. 2,000/-. He identified the accused No. 1, 6 & 7 present before the court.
28. During cross examination, he deposed that when he had been to station, CW.1 was in a station and other staff were not present. He was in mufti and Sub-Inspetor was in uniform.
14C.C. No. 1770/2013 In also admits that they have not conducted in person search before conducing raid. There was no signature of mahazar witnesses and his higher officers on Rs. 2,000/- note. He did not know near cloud-9 hotel who was appointed for beat. CW.1 has not shown him locanto.com. He has not mentioned about giving missed call in his statement. The cloud-9 residency is 5 floor building and he did not know how many floors are there. They have not investigated who is the owner of that hotel. They have not inquired who were working in the hotel.
29. On over all perusal of evidence of PW.1 to 5, it could be seen that, as per prosecution evidence, the CW.1 received information that in a locanto.com website, accused contacting the customer thorough phone and carrying prostitution. On meticulous perusal of prosecution evidences and over all record, it could be seen that there is a no single piece of evidence to show that any such website exited and it was being used by accused for carrying prostitution. What was the hurdle to put forth evidence in this regard before this court is remained unexplained by prosecution. The very source of information is the website. In this regard, there is no evidence. It is interesting to note that apart from CW.1 no other person i.e., raiding part had any knowledge about this website. This is the main lacuna in the prosecution case.
30. Another significant aspect is that including PW.1 to PW.5 all prosecution witnesses made contrary statements. When they conducted the raid, they would be in a position to tell about the place, where they conducted mahazar, if not everything. None of them have deposed as to how many floors 15 C.C. No. 1770/2013 are there in the cloud-9 residency. Whether entire building was the hotel or only part of it is not forthcoming. This PW.1 should be in a position to depose everything about the spot. It is an admitted fact that at the spot there were other houses. Why the evidence of public were obtained and why they were not made as mahazar witnesses is not forthcoming.
31. Before proceeding further, it is pertinent to refer Section 3, 4, 5 & 7 of ITP Act. It reads as follows:
Section 3, 4, 5 and 7 of ITP Act.
3. Punishment for keeping a brothel or allowing premises to be used as a brothel.
(1) Any person who keeps or manages, or acts or assists in the keeping or management of, a brothel shall be punishable on first conviction with rigorous imprisonment for a term of not less than one year and not more than three years and also with fine which may extend to two thousand rupees and in the event of a second or subsequent conviction, with rigorous imprisonment for a term of not less than two years and not more than five years and also with fine which may extend to two thousand rupees. (2) Any person who-
(a) being the tenant, lessee, occupier or person in charge of any premises, uses, or knowingly allows any other person to sue, such premises or any part thereof as a brothel, or
(b) being the owner, lessor or landlord of any premises or the agent of such owner, lessor or landlord, lets the same or any part thereof with the knowledge that the same or any part thereof is intended to be used as a brothel, or is wilfully a party to the use of such premises or any part thereof as a brothel shall be punishable on first conviction with imprisonment for a term which may extend to two years and with fine which 16 C.C. No. 1770/2013 may extend to two thousand rupees and in the event of a second or subsequent conviction, with rigorous imprisonment for a term which may extend to five years and also with fine. (3) Notwithstanding anything contained in any other law for the time being in force, on conviction of any person referred to in clause (a) or clause (b) of sub-section (2) of any offence under that sub-section in respect of any premises or any part thereof, any lease or agreement under which such premises have been leased out or are held or occupied at the time of the commission of the offence, shall become void and inoperative with effect from the date of the said conviction.
4. Punishment for living on the earnings of prostitution.
(1) Any person over the age of eighteen years who knowingly lives, wholly or in part, on the earnings of the prostitution of a woman or girl shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which may extend to two years, or with fine which may extend to one thousand rupees, or with both.
(2) Where any person is proved-
(a) to be living with, or to be habitually in the company of, a prostitute; or
(b) to have exercised control, direction or influence over the movements of a prostitute in such a manner as to show that such person is aiding, abetting or compelling her prostitution; or
(c) to be acting as a tout or pimp on behalf of a prostitute, it shall be presumed, until the contrary is proved, that such person is knowingly living on the earnings of prostitution of another person within the meaning of sub-section (1):Provided that no such presumption shall be drawn in the case of a son or daughter of a prostitute, if the son or daughter is below the age of eighteen years.17
C.C. No. 1770/2013
5. Procuring, inducing or taking woman or girl for the sake of prostitution.
(1) Any person who-
(a) procures or attempts to procure a woman or girl, whether with or without her consent, for the purpose of prostitution; or
(b) induces a woman or girl to go from any place, with the intent that she may for the purpose of prostitution become the inmate of, or frequent, a brothel; or
(c) takes or attempts to take a woman or girl, or causes a woman or girl to be taken, from one place to another with a view to her carrying on, or being brought up to carry on prostitution; or
(d) causes or induces a woman or girl to carry on prostitution; shall be punishable on first conviction with rigorous imprisonment for a term of not less than one year and not more than two years and also with fine which may extend to two thousand rupees.
(2) In the event of a second or subsequent conviction of an offence under this section a person shall be punishable with rigorous imprisonment for a term of not less than two years and not more than five years and also with fine which may extend to two thousand rupees. (3) An offence under this section shall be triable-
(a) in the place from which a woman or girl is procured, induced to go, taken or caused to be taken or from which an attempt to procure or take such woman or girl is made; or
(b) in the place to which she may have gone as a result of the inducement or to which she is taken or caused to be taken or an attempt to take her is made.
7. Prostitution in or in the vicinity of public places.
(1) Any woman or girl who carries on prostitution, and the person with whom such prostitution is carried on, in any premises which 18 C.C. No. 1770/2013 are within a distance of two hundred yards of any place of public religious worship, educational institution, hostel, hospital, nursing home or such other public place of any kind as may be notified in this behalf by the Commissioner of Police of District Magistrate in the manner prescribed, shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which may extend to three months.
(2) Any person who-
(a) being the keeper of any public place knowingly permits prostitutes for purposes of their trade to resort to or remain in such place; or
(b) being the tenant, lessee, occupier or person in charge of any premises referred to in sub-
section (1) knowingly permits the same or any part thereof to be used for prostitution; or
(c) being the owner, lessor or landlord of any premises referred to in sub-section (1), or the agent of such owner, lessor or landlord, lets the same or any part thereof with the knowledge that the same or any part thereof may be used for prostitution, or is wilfully a party to such use shall be punishable on first conviction with imprisonment for a term which may extend to three months, or with fine which may extend to two hundred rupees, or with both, and in the event of a second or subsequent conviction with imprisonment for a term which may extend to six months and also with fine which may extend to two hundred rupees.
32. As per these provisions, the person should be living on the prostitution or earning amount through prostitution or should be carrying on brothel in a public place. Nothing is forthcoming from the evidence of prosecution. The ingredients of the alleged offences are remained unestablished. It is pertinent to note that who are all present at the time of raid and who were detained is also not established.
19C.C. No. 1770/2013
33. Learned counsel for accused relied on the decision of Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka in Sri. Gururaj @ Guruprasad Vs. State of Karnataka arising in Crl.P.No. 10277/2021. Wherein, it was observed that as per Section 14 of Immoral Traffic (Prevention) at 1956, the Special Police Officers authorized by the State Government will have the power to conduct the raid and investigate the matter. The police Sub Inspector was not at all authorized to conduct the raid and conduct investigation under the Act for any offences committed under Immoral Traffic Prevention Act 1956.
34. In the instant case also, the CW.1 has lodged suo motto case against the accused and as observed supra, the base for his complaint and raid is a website and in this regard, there was no evidence. Further, any permission from the court or higher authorities to conduct a raid is also not forthcoming. The role of accused in the alleged offences is also not established. It was alleged that the accused brought CW.12 & 13 for prostitution. In this regard also, there was no evidence. It is admitted by prosecution witnesses themselves that apart from the Rs. 2,000/- given to the alleged decoys, no other amount was seized. Further, though the mobile phones were seized what was the hurdle to investigate in whose name the mobile phones were registered and for what purpose they were used was also not inquired. There are so many lacuna in the investigation and no sufficient materials available on record to hold accused guilty of the alleged offences.
35. It is well settled principal of criminal jurisprudence that when two views are possible, one which favours the 20 C.C. No. 1770/2013 accused should be considered. In another words, the benefit of doubt should go in favour of accused. The prosecution has utterly failed to establish ingredients of the alleged offences U/s. 3, 4, 5 & 7 of ITP. The guilt of the accused remained unestablished beyond all reasonable doubt. Due to dearth of evidence and uncorroborated version of prosecution witnesses, I answer points No.1 to 4 in the Negative.
36. Point No.5: For myriad reasons as discussed supra, I proceed to pass the following:
ORDER Accused No. 2, 3 & 5 are not found guilty of the alleged offense p/u/s.3, 4, 5 and 7 of ITP Act.
Acting U/sec 248(1) of Criminal Procedure Code, accused No. 2, 3 & 5 are hereby acquitted of the offences alleged against them p/u/s.3, 4, 5 and 7 of ITP Act.
Bail bond and surety bonds of accused stands canceled after completion of appeal period.
As the case is split up against other accused, the property mentioned in mahazar shall be preserved for further trial against them. Hence, no order as to release of the seized properties.
(Dictated to stenographer directly on the computer, corrected and then pronounced by me in the open court on this the 16th December 2024) Digitally signed by NEELAM NEELAM NITIN RAO NITIN RAO Date: 2025.01.04 (Neelam Nitin Rao) 13:59:43 +0530 JMFC, Traffic Court - 1 Bangalore 21 C.C. No. 1770/2013 ANNEXURE LIST OF WITNESS EXAMINED ON PROSECUSION SIDE:
1. PW.1 : Sri. D. Kumar
2. PW.2 : Sri. Sabanna
3. PW.3 : Smt. Rekha
4. PW.4 : Sri. Srishail Avchi
5. PW.5 : Sri. Srishail Gotyal LIST OF DOCUMENTS MARKED ON PROSECUSION SIDE:
1. Ex.P.1 : Seizure Mahazar
2. Ex.P.1(a) : Signature of PW.1
3. Ex.P.2 : Record of reason
4. Ex.P.2(a) : Signature of PW.1
5. Ex.P.3. : Report
6. Ex.P.3(a) : Signature of PW.1
7. Ex.P.4 : FIR
8. Ex.P.4(a) : Signature of PW.1
9. Ex.P.5 : Management Agreement
10.Ex.P.5(a) : Signature of PW.1 LIST OF MO'S MARKED:
1. MO 1 & 2 : 2 Nokia Mobiles
2. MO 3 : HTC Mobile
3. MO 4 : Kohinoor condoms
4. MO 5 : Durex condoms LIST OF WITNESS EXAMINED AND DOCUMENTS MARKED ON DEFENCE SIDE:
NIL (Dictated to stenographer directly on the computer, corrected and then pronounced by me in the open court on this the 16th December 2024) Digitally signed by NEELAM NEELAM NITIN RAO NITIN RAO Date: 2025.01.04 13:59:50 +0530 (Neelam Nitin Rao) JMFC, Traffic Court - 1 Bangalore