S. Bangarappa vs State By Central Bureau Of ... on 4 October, 1999

[Cites 21, Cited by 0]

Karnataka High Court

S. Bangarappa vs State By Central Bureau Of ... on 4 October, 1999

Equivalent citations: ILR2000KAR637, 2000(3)KARLJ432

Bench: B.K. Sangalad

ORDER

1. Being aggrieved by the order dated 9-8-1999 ordering for framing of the charge for the offence under Section 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(e) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and to proceed with the trial, the petitioner has filed this petition challenging the correctness and legality of the same with a prayer to quash the further proceedings.

2. The allegation as disclosed in the charge-sheet filed against the petitioner is that between 9-8-1988 and 31-10-1997, the petitioner, in his capacity as Legislator, Minister, Chief Minister and as the Member of the Parliament acquired the assets disproportionate to the known source of his income. The whole basis for framing of the charge depends upon the number of items enumerated in Schedule B-II.

3. Mr. B.R. Patil, learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the allegation is baseless as the investigating agency has taken into account the assets and liabilities of the wife and two sons of the petitioner and of their business establishments to which they are attached to in different capacities. It is also further submitted that the investigation is made by the persons who were not designated as Investigating Officers and the Joint family properties ought not to have been taken to show that his assets are disproportionate to the known source of income. Lastly the contention of the petitioner is that the prosecution has omitted to notice the Partition Deed dated 25-5-1986. On the other hand, Mr. Taranath Shetty, learned Counsel for CBI has vehemently opposed these submissions stating that the Court which has been appointed as Special Court to try such nature of cases, has got the jurisdiction to try the cases investigated by the C.B.I. He also contended that the Education Society running in Shimoga by name Sharavathi Education Trust and the finance company by name Varalakshmi Finance Company and the assets standing in the name of their sons were the assets of the petitioner. It is only a make believe affair to show that they are the assets of his sons and wife. In all the transactions it is only the petitioner who is brain behind all these assets.

4. In view of these rival contentions, now it is to be seen whether there is any material to frame the charge.

5. It is pertinent to note that Section 17 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as 'Act') empowers the persons to authorise to investigate. For quick reference, the section itself is reproduced.

"17. Persons authorised to investigate.--Notwithstanding anything contained in the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), no police officer below the rank.-

(a) in the case of the Delhi Special Police Establishment, of an Inspector of Police;

(b) in the metropolitan areas of Bombay, Calcutta, Madras and Ahmedabad and in any other metropolitan area notified as such under sub-section (1) of Section 8 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974) of an Assistant Commissioner of Police;

(c) elsewhere of a Deputy Superintendent of Police or a police officer of equivalent rank;

shall investigate any offence punishable under this Act without the order of a Metropolitan Magistrate or a Magistrate of the First Class, as the case may be, or make any arrest therefor without a warrant:

Provided that if a police officer not below the rank of an Inspector of Police is authorised by the State Government in this behalf by general or special order; he may also investigate any such offence without the order of a Metropolitan Magistrate or a Magistrate of the First Class, as the case may be, or make arrest therefor without a warrant:

Provided further that an offence referred to in clause (e) of sub-section (1) of Section 13 shall not be investigated without the order of a police officer not below the rank of a Superintendent of Police".

6. According to this section, as the charge will be within ambit of Section 13 of the Act, the offence shall not be investigated without the order of the police officer not below the rank of the Superintendent of Police. The first authorisation has seen the light of the day on 21-10-1997. One Mr. Parameshwarappa was authorised to investigate the case. The second authorisation has seen the light of the day on 3-2-1998. It was given to Mr. Chopra. But the contention of the learned Counsel for the petitioner is that unfortunately it was not Mr. Chopra who investigated the case but the other police officers namely Mr. Ramakrishna, Mr. Chaka, and Mr. Ramachandran have investigated the case. According to him, their investigation is without any authorisation. Mr. Taranath opposed this submission stating that since there is already authorisation to investigate the case, it is only deemed that they have assisted the further investigation. Although his submission may appear to have some force, there is no compliance of the mandate of law by the prosecution authority. One can understand, if there is no mandatory provision, it is left to the discretion of the Superintendent of Police to assign his work provided the statute permits. But to investigate, Section 17 of the Act is mandatory in nature. No officer below the rank of Deputy Superintendent of Police shall investigate the case. In casa if he has not carried on the investigation, there must be some order authorising the other person to go on with the investigation in the case on hand. This is the patent lacuna.

7. It is also pertinent to note that in all 298 witnesses are cited and there are in all 2,048 documents. If the investigation has proceeded in piece meal, it is difficult to draw any kind of inference in favour of the prosecution because such of the material which has been investigated by the authorised officer may not advance the case of the prosecution and if such matter by the unauthorised officer assumes importance, then naturally it becomes difficult to make it as basis for framing the charge as there is lacuna in the investigation. In my opinion when there is mandatory provision, the prosecution cannot say that the investigation could be ratified subsequently at any stage. If such things are allowed to take place, practically the defence would be in a precarious condition.

8. Mr. Taranath, learned Counsel for the respondent tried to make distinction with regard to the principles enumerated in State of Haryana and Others V Ch. Bhajan Lal and Others. His submission for the reasons stated therein cannot be accepted. The learned Counsel for the petitioner heavily relied upon this decision. It stated in paras 134 and 135 as follows:--

"134. The conspectus of the above decisions shows clearly that the granting of permission under Section 5-A authorising an officer of lower rank to conduct the investigation is not to be treated by a Magistrate as mere matter of routine, but it is an exercise of his judicial discretion having regard to the policy underlying and the order giving the permission should, on the face of it, disclose the reasons for granting such permission. It is therefore, clear in the light of the above principle of law that the Superintendent of Police or any police officer of above rank while granting permission to a non-designated police officer in exercise of his power under the second proviso to Section 5-A(1), should satisfy himself that there are good and sufficient reasons to entrust the investigation with such police officer of a lower rank and record his reasons for doing so; because the very object of the legislature in enacting Section 5-A is to see that the investigation of offences punishable under Section 161, 165 or 165-A of Indian Penal Code, as well as those under Section 5 of the Act should be done ordinarily by the officers designated in clauses (a) to (d) of Section 5-A(1). The exception should be for adequate reasons which should be disclosed on the face of the order. In this connection, it is worthy to note that the strict compliance with Section 5-A(1) becomes absolutely necessary, because Section 5-A(1) expressly prohibits police officers, below certain ranks, from investigating into offences under Sections 161, 165 and 165-A, IPC and under Section 5 of the Act without orders of the Magistrates specified therein or without authorisation of the State Government in this behalf and from effecting arrests for those offences without a warrant. See also A.C. Sharma v Delhi Administration .

135. In the present case, there is absolutely no reason, given by the SP in directing the SHO to investigate and as such the order of the SP is directly in violation of the dictum laid down by the Court in several decisions which we have referred to above. Resultantly, we hold that the third appellant, SHO is not clothed with the requisite legal authority within the meaning of the second proviso of Section 5-A(1) of the Act to investigate the offence under clause (e) of Section 5(1) of the Act".

The case on hand cannot be treated lightly and the lacuna of the prosecution cannot be filled in by the whims and fancies of the prosecution.

9. The another contention of the learned Counsel for the petitioner is that there is no notification to try the cases in compliance of Section 4 of the Act which reads as follows:

"4. Cases triable by Special Judges.--(1) Notwithstanding anything contained in the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), or in any other law for the time being in force, the offences specified in sub-section (1) of Section 3 shall be tried by Special Judges only.

(2) Every offence specified in sub-section (1) of Section 3 shall be tried by the Special Judge for the area within which it was committed, or, as the case may be, by the Special Judge appointed for the case, or where there are more Special Judges than one for such area, by such one of them as may be specified in this behalf by the Central Government.

(3) When trying any case, a Special Judge may also try any offence, other than an offence specified in Section 3, with which the accused may, under the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), be charged at the same trial.

(4) Notwithstanding anything contained in the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), a Special Judge shall, as far as practicable, hold the trial of an offence on day-to-day basis".

10. Sub-section (2) clearly enumerates that every offences specified in sub-section (1) of Section 3 shall be tried by the Special Judge for the area within which it was committed, or, as the case may be, by the Special Judge appointed for the case, or where there are more Special Judges than one for such area, by such one of them as may be specified in this behalf by the Central Government.

11. There is no notification in this case that the XXI Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge was empowered to try this case. Mr. Taranath, learned Counsel for respondent relied upon the decision popularly known as Jayalalitha's case (J. Jayalalitha v Union of India and Another). The points involved in that case are entirely different from the facts of this case. The very question of appointing the Special Judge was challenged to try all cases against her. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that there is nothing wrong for the appointment of Special Judge to try all the cases as the speedy disposal is one of the criteria. Hence in my opinion, by close scrutiny of the judgment cited by Taranath, learned Counsel for respondent, is not applicable unless there is notification if any, to try such case, otherwise it will be a trial without jurisdiction. In view of these facts and circumstances, I feel that there is some force in the submission of the learned Counsel for the petitioner.

12. The learned Counsel for the petitioner further submitted that no opportunity was given to the petitioner to explain satisfactorily and relied upon the decision in the case of State of Maharashtra v Ramkrishna Dorkar. As against this, Mr. Taranath relied upon the decision in the case of Superintendent and Remembrancer of Legal Affairs, West Bengal v Anil Kumar Bhunja and Others. Their Lordships are of the opinion that Section 13(1)(e) is not mandatory. In view of this finding, I am constrained to reject the submission made by the learned Counsel for the petitioner.

13. What remains in this case is that whether the registered partition dated 25-5-1986 has to be taken into consideration so as to assess the assets of the petitioner.

13-A. No doubt the petitioner has been in politics as MLA, MP, Minister, Chief Minister since long. But now the prosecution has fixed the period between 9-9-1988 and 31-10-1997. The burden is heavily on the prosecution machinery to show that the petitioner is the brain behind Varalakshmi Finance and Sharavathi Education Trust.

14. At this juncture only it has to be mentioned that the petitioner has got two sons. Of the two, one is a film actor and another one is running the business in the name of Akash Audio. Out of 79 items according to the petitioner, he is concerned with only Items 14 to 18 and 77. Assuming for the moment that it is true, what would be the assets standing in the name of this petitioner? The valuation is as follows as shown in Statement 'B':

Item No. 14

1,30,740-00 Item No. 16 8,91,250-00 Item No. 16 13,840-00 Item No. 17 1,44,700-00 Item No. 18 1,21,600-00 Item No. 77 4,50,000-00 For quick reference, Statement 'B' is annexed to this order.

15. The rest of the items either belongs to the sons or to the wife. This is the material collected by the Investigating Agency. There is already partition deed. At this stage, there is no material to rebut the presumption of the partition. One can understand if it is an oral partition or unregistered partition. So partition deed assumes lot of importance. For a moment, if other items are taken into consideration whether there is any material to show that it is benami transaction or it is only the petitioner who has amassed the wealth in the guise of his sons and wife. The investigating authority itself collected even income-tax returns for the said period. All the members of the family are parties to the partition and have paid the income-tax. It is the Investigating Agency which has produced all these materials. When such is the case, it is difficult to assume that it is only the petitioner who has amassed this wealth using his brain. No doubt when all these items namely 1 to 19 are checked out, they appear to be more lucrative. But this is not sufficient. There must be some material on record to show that it is only the petitioner and none else acquired these properties in the name of the members of his family. He has got adult sons who are capable of, themselves, earning. This inference is drawn because they are income-tax assessees. The petitioner has nothing to do either with Sharavathi Education Trust or with Varatakshmi Finance Company. Merely his sons have borrowed the money for the purpose of their business, there cannot be any imputation against this petitioner.

16. The next question is whether the properties belonging to his sons and wife can be part and parcel of the petitioner as they are living jointly. As far as presumption of joint family property and the nucleus of the joint family property are concerned, the learned Counsel for the petitioner relied upon the various decisions viz., in the case of Ramappa Basappa Palled alias Budannavar (deceased) by L.Rs v Basavva and Others, in the case of M.N. Aryamurthi and Another v M.L. Subbaraya Setty (dead) by L.Rs Head Note B, para 17, in the case of S.A. Quddus v S. Veerappa and Others. In fitness of things, it is better to deal in detail regarding the factum of partition.

17. In view of the statements of Annappa and Puttappa, CW 36 and CW 37, the properties relating to the agricultural lands purchased by Puttappa and Annappa and thereafter it was transferred in favour of Sridhar B. Naik, Premachandsagar and Ningappa, which has been discussed at length from paragraphs 53 to 58 is a benami transaction. Therefore, relying on the statements of CW 36 and CW 37, the Court has formed an opinion to frame a charge against the petitioner/accused. Since there are two partition deeds which are registered and dated 26-7-1974 and dated 25-5-1986 these two documents have been acted upon by the parties by mutating entries in the revenue records of the allotted properties and there is also no dispute about these partition deeds and the Counsel appearing for the respondent also conceded that the prosecution has not disputed the said partition deeds. In view of these circumstances, the properties which have been covered under these deeds do not include in the check period. It is, therefore, the properties covered under the partition deeds since it is not covered under the check period, the question of looking into these properties does not arise at all.

18. It is also submitted by the petitioner-accused, that once there is a registered partition deed by metes and bounds, there is a presumption that there is a severance of status of the joint family is supported by the recital in the registered partition deed which is a conclusive proof to show that there is severance of status. It is, therefore, the finding recorded by the Trial Court that there is no partition at all is contrary to the records.

19. Insofar as the benami transaction is concerned, the Trial Court concentrated only on agricultural properties acquired by the petitioner-accused, based on the statement of CW 36 and CW 37. The statement of these two witnesses have been recorded by one Inspector, Ramakrishnaiah on 16-1-1998 and 13-3-1998. There is no authorisation by the Superintendent of Police as provided under Section 17 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, so far as this Inspector is concerned as such it cannot be looked into.

20. Further the so-called agricultural lands said to have been acquired by the petitioner/accused, based on the statement of CW 36 and CW 37 cannot be looked into because these are not the properties included in the disproportionate assests under Schedule B. There is no charge-sheet against these items. Therefore, the Court cannot go into these items.

21. The petitioner-accused submits that CW 36 has clearly stated that the purchase sale consideration has been paid by him only. Further, if the statement of CW 37 is contrary to the recital in the sale deed, in view of the decision in the case of Krishnanand Agnihotri v State of Madhya Pradesh, the case has to be seen on suspicion and surmises. The relevant portion of the order of the Hon'ble Supreme Court cited supra reads as follows:

"It is well settled that the burden of showing that a particular transaction is benami and the owner is not the real owner always rests on the person asserting it to be so and this burden has to be strictly discharged by adducing legal evidence of a definite character which would either directly prove the fact of benami or establish circumstances unerringly and reasonably raising an interference of that fact. The essence of benami is the intention of the parties and not unoften, such intention is shrouded in a thick veil which cannot be easily pierced through. But such difficulties do not relieve the person asserting the transaction to be benami of the serious onus that rests on his nor justify the acceptance of mere conjectures or surmises as a substitute for proof.

22. And it is not safe to rely on the statement of the CW 37 as these properties are not included in the Schedule B stated to have been acquired disproportionately.

23. The Lokayuktha in its report dated 21-11-1989 which has been communicated to the petitioner/accused, by an office endorsement on 25-11-1989, took decision that the allegation that the accused holding properties as benami transaction was rejected by the Lokayuktha. Further the properties which have been subsequently purchased by the petitioner-accused have been disclosed in the income-tax returns, which have been collected by the Investigating Agency and produced before the Court. For ready reference, the Counsel for the petitioner-accused, also produced before the Court to show that the agricultural land which has been purchased during the check period has been properly accounted and disclosed. Therefore, so far as the Items 14 to 18 are concerned, the same have been explained satisfactorily and there is no basis to proceed against the petitioner-accused. Therefore, the findings of the Trial Court in paragraphs 53 to 58 against the petitioner accused cannot be sustainable in view of the above circumstances.

24. It is clearly admitted by the petitioner that they are living under the one roof. In spite of this state of affairs and in view of these decisions, it cannot be stated that it is the petitioner who formed the nucleus of the joint family property alone and it is only due to this nucleus, he amassed the wealth. This presumption is not at all available for the simple reason that the adult sons are on their own. They either sink or sail along with their assets and liabilities. At one stage, the arguments by Mr. Taranath went to the extent of stating that the first son of the petitioner is a film actor who took acting for the sake of unearthing the hidden money. The Counsel for the petitioner vehemently opposed this submission stating that if the film flops, it is the misfortune of the producer and if the film hits the box office, it is Midas touch for the producer. Art is long but life is short. No artist can venture to dig his own grave instead of exhibiting his talents. Every artist will have an ardent desire to make his name immortal.

25. The prosecution cannot be swayed away by the personalities involved in the case. It has to be very cautious about the floating rumours. Rumours always murmer. It is human tendency to lend ears for rumours. But it is the duty of the prosecution to collect such material as to ward off all conjectures and surmises. It should be the real fact and not a make believe affair.

26. Mr. Taranath, vehemently contended that even a strong suspicion is sufficient to frame the charge. No doubt it may be the position of law. Nevertheless in the case of Pepsi Foods Limited and Another v Special Judicial Magistrate and Others , it is held that it is futile exercise to go with such material which warrants same results at this stage itself which would be after the trial. In view of this, there is nothing wrong in invoking Section 482 of Criminal Procedure Code.

27. Although it may not be relevant, before parting with this case, I am inclined to mention the following few lines.

28. The aim of the prosecution cannot be only to break the bones but punish the guilty to the hilt. The weight of the paper spent in recording the statement is not the criteria. An ounce of evidence is worth more than the ton of allegation. The edifice of allegation should not crumble down by its own weight. A solid foundation is a must to support the edifice. The investigation must ward off all surmises and conjectures. The quality of investigation must not create ripples of suspicion. The accused should feel that he is left with no option otherwise than yielding himself to the tightening noose around the neck. The strength of the defence depends upon the strength of the weakest link of the chain of prosecution.

29. No doubt corruption affects the moral fabric of the society. The citizens lose their faith in the political leaders who shout that they are for the people. No doubt many people go unpunished although corruption causes considerable damage to the economy of the nation. The roots of corruption are so deep that it is an uphill task to eradicate them. It is only possible if and only if each citizen in our country follows the philosophy of contentment. To quench the thirst of greed and lust one must be drenched in shower of honesty and the fountain of sublime love should sprinkle the magical drops on the eyes of everyone who has shut his eyes for the reality of the life. Unless one tries to find a golden key to open the gates of wisdom, the heavenly life remains as a myth and we are all making the futile effort to attain divinity in our life. The public man should have crystal-clear and transparent personality. Ceaser's wife must be above suspicion.

30. At the cost of repetition, after the close scrutiny of the materials, I am left with no option otherwise than quashing the proceedings.

In the result, the petition is allowed. The further proceedings pending on the file of the 21st Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge and Special Judge for CBI cases, Bangalore, stands quashed. Consequently the accused stands discharged.

STATEMENT B Assets acquired during the Check Period from 9-9-1988 to 31-10-1997 (Movable and Immovable) Sl. No. Description of assets Amount

1. Site No. CTS-2922, Ward-I, Koppikar Road, Hubli in the name of M/s. Akash Audio, dated 28-2-1994.

(a)

(a) Cost of Land 1,67,000-00

(b) Stamp fees 20,050-00

(c) Registration fees 3,386-00 1,90,436-00

2. Site No. CTS-2922, Ward-I, Koppikar Road, Hubli in the name of M/s. Akash Audio, dated 28-2- 1994.

(a) Cost of Land 1,60,000-00

(b) Stamp fees 19,200-00

(c) Registration fees 3,246-00 1,82,446-00

3. House No. 59, Malleshwaram, 18th Cross, Bangalore to M/s. Renukamba Combines vide Sale deed registered at No. 284/97. dated 31-3-1997.

(a) Cost of House 31,00,000-00

(b) Stamp duty paid on 24-3-1997 through RBI 3,87,500-00

(c) Registration fees paid on 31-3-1997 to Sub-Registrar, Bangalore vide receipt No. 89050 62,060-00 35,49,560-00

4. H.No. 36, East Park, Bangalore purchased by Sri Kumar Bangarappa during 1997 (Second floor).

(a) Cost of II Floor 17,75,000-00

(b) Stamp duty paid on 15-3-1997 through RBI 1,47,500-00

(c) Registration fees paid on 15-3-1997 to Sub-Registrar, Gandhinagar, Bangalore.

35,540-00 19,58,040-00

5. House No. 36, East Park, Bangalore to M/s. Renukamba Associates.

(a) Cost of Ground Floor 14,51,000-00

(b) Stamp duty paid on 12-2-1997 through RBI challan by M/s. Renukamba Associates.

1,20,450-00

62,060-00

(a) Cost of First Floor 17,75,000-00

(b) Stamp duty paid on 12-3-1997 through RBI challan by M/s. Renukamba Associates.

1,47,500-00

35,560-00

(a) Cost of Third Floor 17,75,000-00

(b) Stamp duty paid on 15-3-1997 through RBI challan by M/s. Renukamba Associates.

1,47,500-00

35,540-00 1[55,16,620-00]

6. Purchase of land at Sy. No. 203/2, Hale Soraba by Sri Kumar Bangarappa in the name of M/s. Renukamba Associates on 7-11-1996.

(a) Cost of Land 5,99,000-00

(b) Stamp fees 77,990-00

7. Purchase of land at Sy. No. 5, Anavatti village, Soraba in the name of M/s. Renukamba Associates on 20-7-1995.

(a) Cost of Land 70,000-00

(b) Stamp fees 9,500-00

8. Purchase of land at Sy. No. 46, Khatha No. 83, Soraba in the name of M/s. Renukamba Associates on 28-7-1995.

(a) Cost of Land 1,43,000-00

(b) Stamp fees 19,300-00

9. Purchase of land at Sy. No. 56, Hireshakuna village, Soraba in the name of M/s. Renukamba Associates on 4-11-1996.

(a) Cost of Land 3,59,000-00

(b) Stamp fees 46,800-00

10. Purchase of land at Sy. No. 203/2, Hale Soraba by Sri Kumar Bangarappa in the name of M/s. Manjunatha Enterprises on 7-11-1996.

(a) Cost of Land 5,99,000-00

(b) Stamp fees 77,990-00

11. Purchase of land at No. CTS 118, Hubli in the name of M/s. M.G. Enterprises.

(a) Cost of Land 1,80,000-00

(b) Stamp fees 40,500-00

12. House at No. 340, IV Main, Sadhashivnagar, Bangalore

(a) Cost of House paid to Canara Bank, ARM, M.G. Road, Bangalore upto 16-10-1997.

1,01,00,000-00

(b) Amount paid to Sri Prakash M. Shinde during 1992-95.

40,00,000-00

(d) Registration fees paid on 26-6-1997 to Sub-Registrar, Gandhinagar, Bangalore.

1,96,050-00

(e) Tax paid to Bangalore City Corporation 24,500-00

(f) Valuation done by CPWD, Bangalore for alteration and addition made after 1992 to 31-10-1997.

44,74,200-00 2,00,19,750-00

13. Purchased land at Sy. No. 12/2, Arjunabettahalli, Nelamangala by Sri S.B. Madhuchandra from Sri Linganna as per deed No. 2664/94-95, dated 8-6-1995 with Sub-Registrar, Nelamangala.

(a) Cost of Land 4,15,000-00

(b) Stamp fees on 9-3-1995 54,000-00

14. BDA Site at HSR Layout, Bangalore purchased by Sri S. Bangarappa allotted by BDA in 1996.

(a) Cost of Site 1,11,900-00

(b) Registration fees 2,260-00

(d) Slum charges 2,500-00

(e) Registration fees 2,000-00 1,30,740-00

15. Land at Sy. Nos. 114, 116, Lakkavally purchased by Sri S. Bangarappa on 9-5-1994.

(a) Cost of site 7,75,000-00

(b) Registration fees 15,500-00

16. Land at Sy. No. 114/P, Lakkavally purchased by Sri S. Bangarappa on 9-5-1994.

(a) Cost of site 12,000-00

(b) Registration Fees 240-00

17. Land at Sy. No. 115, Lakkavally purchased by Sri S. Bangarappa on 28-7-1995.

(a) Cost of site 1,25,000-00

(b) Registration fees 2,500-00

18. Land at Sy. No. 4, Kodikoppa was purchased by Sri S. Bangarappa on 25-4-1997.

(a) Cost of site 1,05,000-00

(b) Registration fees 2,100-00

19. Purchased Land at Sy. No. 115/P, Lakkavally on 8-5-1995 by Sri S.B. Madhuchandra.

(a) Cost of site 1,10,000-00

(b) Registration fees 2,200-00

20. Purchased land at Sy. Nos. 10 and 11 by Sri S.B. Madhuchandra entered at Sr. No. 42/95 on 17-3-1995.

(a) Cost of Land 60,000-00

(b) Stamp fees 7,800-00

21. Movable assets purchased by M/s. Akash Offset Printers out of loan taken from M/s. Prakash Leasing Limited, as per the I.T. Returns of the period ending 31-3-1997.

51,25,859-00

22. Cash in hand with the firm M/s. Akash Audio as per the I.T. Returns for the period ending 31-3-1997.

11,43,454-00

23. Advances and Deposits made by M/s. Akash Audio as per the I.T. Returns for the period ending 31-3-1997.

19,94,299-00

24. Assets of M/s. Akash Audio as per the I.T. Returns for the period ending 31-3-1997 (After depreciation)

(a) Auto 20,000-00

(b) Computer 1,81,400-00

(d) Pager 6,350-00

(e) Voltage Stabilizer 21,83,700-00 23,95,436-00

25. Closing balance in Current A/c No. 1970 in the Vysya Bank, Hubli in the name of M/s. Akash Audio as on 31-10-1997.

88,421-00

26. Closing balance in Current A/c No. 651 in the name of M/s. Akash Audio as on 31-10-1997.

1,313-50

27. Closing balance in Current A/c No. 475 in the name of M/s. Akash Audio as on 28-3-1997.

13,551-52

28. Closing balance in Current A/c No. 11319 in Vysya Bank, Vijayawada in the name of M/s. Akash Audio.

18,435-75

29. Closing balance in Current A/c No. 476 in the name of M/s. Akash Offset Printers as on 31-3-1997.

5,610-84

30. Plant and Machinery and other assets of M/s. Akash Audio Video (P) Limited, as per the I.T. Returns for theperiod ending 31-10-1997.

1,18,44,390-62

31. Closing balance in the A/c No. 5452 in Canara Bank, Madhava Nagar, Bangalore in the name of M/s. Akash Audio Video (P) Ltd., as on 31-10-1997.

30,278-75

1. It should be 1,27,000-00, Ed.

32. Current A/c No. 1923 in Vysya Bank, K.G. Road, Bangalore in the name of M/s. Akash Audio Video (P) Limited (A/c closed on 28-7-1997).

Nil

33. Current A/c No. 2492 in Vysya Bank, K.G. Road, Bangalore in the name of M/s. Akash Audio Video (P) Limited (A/c closed on 28-7-1997).

Nil

34. Assets of M/s. Renukamba Distributors as on 31-3-1993 as per I.T. Returns.

13,64,494-20

35. Camera purchased in 1994 by M/s.

Renukamba Combines.

34,62,701-50

36. Assets of M/s. Renukamba Combines: Plant and Machinery and vehicles.

9,24,621-00

37. Closing balance in A/c No. 546 in the name of M/s. Renukamba Combines (Unit) as on 10-5-1995, 220-90

38. Closing balance in A/c No. 434 in the name of M/s. Renukamba Combines (Edit) as on 12-2-1995, 1,222-99

39. Closing balance in A/c No. 365 in the name of M/s. Renukamba Combines as on 12-3-1995.

4,831-00

40. Closing balance in A/c No. 3817 in the name of M/s. Renukamba Combines in Vysya Bank, Devaraj Urs Road, Mysore as on 31-10-1997.

15,510-49

41. Closing balance in Current A/c No. 789 in the name of M/s. Renukamba Combines on 31-10-1997 in Syndicate Bank.

654-00

42. Vehicle No. KA-04/M.6464 purchased by M/s. Renukamba Combines on 21-4-1993 from M/s. Ragavendra Enterprises.

3,78,658-00

43. FDR No. 49/94 in Vysya Bank, Sadashiv Nagar, Bangalore on 28-3-1994 for sanction of loan of Rs. 26,25,000/- to M/s. Renukamba Combines, 49,119-00

44. Advances given by M/s. Renukamba Associates for purchase of TATA Sumo as per the I.T. Returns for the period ending 31-3-1997.

50,000-00

45. Assets of M/s. Renukamba Associates as per the Income Tax Returns as on 31-3-1997.

(a) Plant and Machinery 7,45,100-00

(b) Hero Puch 33,364-00

46. Cash in hand with M/s. Renukamba Associates as per I.T. Returns as on 31-3-1997.

12,57,534-34

47. Closing balance in Current A/c No. 250 in the name of M/s. Renukamba Associates in Vijaya Bank, Mysore upto 31-10-1997.

6,317-00

48. Closing balance in Current A/c No. 366 in the name of M/s. Renukamba Associates (Closed on 20-5-1994).

Nil

49. Closing balance in Current A/c No. 639 the name of M/s. Renukamba Associates in Vijaya Bank, Bangalore upto 31-10-1997.

25,557-50

50. Closing balance in Current A/c No. 640 in the name of M/s. Renukamba Associates (Edit) in Vijaya Bank, Bangalore upto 31-10-1997.

21,561-00

61. Closing balance in Current A/c No. 641 in the name of M/s. Renukamba Associates (Unit) in Vijaya Bank. Bangalore upto 31-10-1997.

8,482-00

52. Cash in hand with M/s. Akash International as per the I.T. Returns as on 31-3-1997.

6,61,630-87

53. Closing balance in A/c No. 2243, in Vysya Bank, Hubli in the name of M/s. Akash International.

1,43,403-50

54. Closing balance in A/c No. 494, in the name of M/s. Akash Ads as on 31-10-1997.

17,559-80

55. Closing balance in A/c No. 735, in the name of M/s. Akash International as on 31-10-1997.

5,24,803-00

56. Assets of M/s. Akash International as per I.T. Returns as on 31-3-1997.

(a) TATA Mobile 40,960-00

(b) Mini Bus 7,74,393-60

(d) Electric Installation 2,50,000-00

(e) Pager 1,34,986-75

(f) Furniture and Fixtures 3,78,563-76 16,07,404-11

57. Closing balance in A/c No. 762, in the name of M/s. Akash International as on 24-3-1997.

311-00

58. Cash in hand with M/s. Akash Ads as per the I.T. Returns as on 31-3- 1996.

1,57,390-39

59. Assets of M/s. Akash Ads as per I.T. Returns as on 31-3-1996.

(a) Computer 2,67,200-00

(b) Multiplayer Plotter 1,98,133-00

(d) Cycle 5,276-95 4,85,351-95

60. Closing balance in Current A/c No. 935 in the name of M/s. M.G. Enterprises.

810-00

61. Closing balance in A/c No. 150 in Sri Sudha Cooperative Bank, Sheshadripuram, Bangalore in thename of Sri S. Bangarappa.

639-00

62. Closing balance in SB A/c No. 3266 as on 7-3-1997 in the name of Sri S. Bangarappa.

1,681-00

63. Closing Balance in A/c No. 7, in Apex Bank, Vidhana Soudha, Bangalore in the name of Sri S. Bangarappa as on 31-10-1997.

10,669-43

64. Closing balance in A/c No. 4184 in Vijaya Bank, P.O. Branch, Bangalore in the name of Sri S. Bangarappa ason 31-10-1997.

3,228-00

65. Closing balance in Jt. A/c No. 9750, in Apex Bank, Vidhana Soudha. Bangalore in the name of Sri S. Bangarappa and Smt. Shakunthalamma as on 31-10-1997.

11,107-77

66. Closing balance in A/c No. 10782 as on 31-10-1997 in Apex Bank, Vidhana Soudha, Bangalore.

14,561-00

67. Closing balance in SB A/c No. 3267 into October 1997 in the name of Smt. Shakunthalamma.

1,206-19

68. Closing balance in PPF A/c No. 776 in State Bank of India, K.P. West as on 31-10-1997 in the name of Sri S.B. Vasanth Kumar.

98,688-00

69. Closing balance in A/c No. 15101 in Canara Bank, Bangalore as on 31-10-1997.

12,805-70

70. Closing balance in A/c No. 2190 in the name of Sri S.B. Vasanth Kumar as on 31-10-1997.

6,972-90

71. Closing balance in A/c No. 11371 in the name of Sri S.B. Vasanth Kumar in Canara Bank, Madhavanagar, Bangalore as on 27-6-1995.

12,040-00

72. Closing balance in A/c No. 4927 the name of Sri S.B. Vasanth Kumar in State Bank of Mysore, S.C. Road, Bangalore as on 26-5-1990.

98,896-30

73. Closing balance in A/c No. 4385 in the name of Sri S.B. Kumar Bangarappa in Vijaya Bank, P.O. Branch, Bangalore as on 31-10-1997.

4,10,790-00

74. Closing balance in A/c No. 2189 in the name of Sri S.B. Madhuchandra as on 8-11-1993.

2,395-27

75. Closing balance in A/c No. 2085 in the name of Sri S.B. Madhuchandra in Vysya Bank, Frazer Town, Bangalore as on 31-10-1997.

157-50

76. Closing balance in A/c No. 3929 in the name of Kum. Tej Kumar Bangarappa S/o S. Kumar Bangarappa in Vijaya Bank, P.O. Branch, Bangalore as on 31-10-1997.

5,710-00

77. Sri S. Bangarappa, HUF Assets as on 31-3-1997.

4,50,000-00

78. Gold Jewellary, Diamond, Stones and Silver declared by S/Sri S.B. Vasanth Kumar, S.B. Madhuchandra and Smt. Shakunthalamma as per Income-tax Returns as on 31-3-1997. Rs. 28,49,409-00 was assessed but margin is given to the extent of Rs. 16,94,892-00 since the same has been declared in the I.T. Returns.

11,54,517-00

79. Amount received by S/Sri S.B. Vasanth Kumar and S.B. Madhuchandra as outgoing partner of M/s. SLN Builders.

53,05,708-00 Total 7,78,92,187-48

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Karnataka High Court