Bangalore District Court
Sadanandaswamy G N vs Jayamma on 18 April, 2024
1
Spl.C.C. No.190/2013
KABC010078922013
IN THE COURT OF LXXVII ADDITIONAL CITY
CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE AND THE SPECIAL
JUDGE FOR TRYING OFFENCES UNDER THE
PREVENTION OF CORRUPTION ACT, AT
BENGALURU CITY (CCH-78)
DATED THIS THE 18 th DAY OF APRIL 2024
PRESENT:
SRI. S.V.SRIKANTH, B.A., LL.B.,
LXXVII ADDL. CITY CIVIL & SESSIONS
JUDGE & SPECIAL JUDGE,
BENGALURU CITY.
SPL. C.C.No. 190/2013
COMPLAINANT: State by DY.S.P,
Karnataka Lokayukta,
Bangalore City Division.
(Rep. Smt.Suneetha,
Public Prosecutor)
/VS/
ACCUSED: 1. Smt. Jayamma,
W/o Bhyrappa, Major,
R/o Machoohally village,
Dasanapura Post,
2
Spl.C.C. No.190/2013
Dasanapura Hobli,
Bengaluru Uttara Taluk.
2. Panchalingaiah,
Son of Venkatappa, Major,
Hemmigepura village,
Vidyapeeta Post, Kengeri
Hobli, Bengaluru South
Taluk.
3.Kempashivanaiah,
S/o Late Kempashivane
gowda,aged 62 years,
Retired Revenue
Inspector, R/a No.2,
Shivananda Nagara,
Jaraganahalli,
J.P.Nagara, 6th Phase,
Kanakapura Main Road,
Bengaluru -78.
4. K. Sadanandappa,
Son of Kempaiah,
aged 62 years,
Retired Special Tahasildar,
Bengaluru South Taluk,
Bengaluru,
R/a No.519, 2nd main
road, Shastri Nagara,
Bengaluru-28.
5.B.R. Krishnan,
Son of Late Ramaiah,
3
Spl.C.C. No.190/2013
Aged 59 years,
Retired Special L.A.O.
BDA, Bengaluru,
R/a No.494/B, 17th
Cross,24th Main road,
2nd Sector, H.S.R.
Extension,
Bengaluru-102.
6. Ramegowda,
Son of Late Boraiah,
53 years, Revenue
Inspector, O/o Special
L.A.O. BDA, Bengaluru.
R/o No.53/7, 2nd Cross,
15th Main road, BDA plot,
Nandini Layout,
Bengaluru-96.
7. H.T. Ramegowda,
Son of Late Thimmegowda, 61
years, Retired Surveyor, O/o
Special L.A.O. BDA,
Bengaluru.Deceased.
(Proceedings against
this accused abated)
R/o No.60, 11th Cross, 2nd
Main Road,
K.R.Extension,
J.P.Nagara, 6th stage,
Bengaluru-78.
4
Spl.C.C. No.190/2013
8. B.G.Nagaraju,
Son of Late G.Rudrappa,
58 years, Election
Shirestedar, Anekal
Taluk Tahasildar Office,
Anekal Taluk, Bengaluru
Rural District
9. C. Veerabhadraiah,
Son of Late Channappa,
59 years, Ex-Record room
Keeper, Office of
Tahasildar, Bengaluru
South Taluk, Bengaluru.
Present: Hebbala Nada
kacheri, Retired as Deputy
Tahasildar,
R/o No.870, 9th main
road, 4th stage, BEML
Layout, Rajarejeswari
Nagara, Bengaluru-98.
(Rep by Sri.PNH, Adv.for A1,
Sri.SHM, Adv.for A2,
Sri.KVV, Adv.for A3,4,6,
Sri.CMG, Adv.for A5,
Sri.DRS, Adv. for A8,
Sri.RBD, Adv.for A9 &
A7 abated)
*****
5 Spl.C.C. No.190/2013 TABULATION OF EVENTS
01. Date of commission of offence: 07-02-2012
02. Date of report of offences to the Police Station (FIR date): 13-03-2013
03. Date of arrest of accused : A4, A5, A6, A8 & A9 on 11-07-2012, A1 & A3 not arrested, A2 on 29-05-2012.
04. Date of release of accused : A4, A5, A6, A8 & from JC A9 on 16-07-2012, A2 on 29-05-2012.
05. Name of the complainant :Lokayuktha Police.
06. Nature of offence complained: U/Ss.13(1)(c) r/w 3(2) of P.C.Act, 1988 with Ss.167,177,420, 465, 466,468,471,472, 473, 474 with, 120B, of the IPC & Secs.192A of Karnataka Land Revenue Act.
07. Date of submission of charge sheet : 27-07-2013 6 Spl.C.C. No.190/2013
08. Date of commencement of recording of evidence : 06-03-2018
09. Date of closing of evidence : 23-09--2023
10. Date of judgment : 18-04-2024
11. Opinion of the Judge in : Accused are respect of the offences. acquitted.
***** J U D GM EN T
1. The Dy.S.P., Karnataka Lokayuktha, Bengaluru City Division, has filed the charge sheet against the accused Nos.1 to 9 for the alleged offences punishable under Sec. 13(1)
(c) r/w Sec.13(2) of P.C.Act, 1988 together with Secs.167, 177, 420, 465, 466, 468, 471, 472, 473, 474 with, 120B of the IPC & Sec.192A of The Karnataka Land Revenue Act.
2. The brief facts of the prosecution case is ; that 7 Spl.C.C. No.190/2013 the accused Nos.1 to 9 are, in particular, accused Nos.1 and 2 are private persons, accused Nos.3, 4, 8 and 9 are the officials and the employees of the Revenue Department, accused Nos.5, 6 and 7 are the officers and staff of the BDA have involved in commission of the said offences. On the basis of the complaint given by CW.1 in the year 2012 by way of a private complaint that, when accused Nos.3, 4, 8 and 9 were in Revenue Department, accused Nos.5, 6 and 7 with accused Nos.3, 4 and 8 who constituted officials of BDA and Revenue Depatment in order to help the 1st accused by name Jayamma and her brother 2nd accused Panchalingaiah in claiming compensation in respect of 5 acres of land in Sy.No. 6 of 8 Spl.C.C. No.190/2013 Lingadheeranahalli even though this piece ofland was not part of the final and preliminary notifications of BDA, created, concocted, forged signatures of the concerned and helped the 1st accused to claim compensation illegally in a sum of Rs. 41,90,567/- and 5 compensatory sites, thereby have caused huge loss to the State exchequer.
3. In respect of specific role played by the 1st accused by name Jayamma is that in respect of Sy.No. 6 of Lingadheeranahalli, which had totally 37 acres and 21 guntas of land which was branded as a Gomala land and in all the earlier RTCs, it was referred to as the Government Mufath Kaval land, she with the able assistance of her brother 2nd accused by 9 Spl.C.C. No.190/2013 name Panchalingaiah hatched a criminal conspiracy and got entered her name in the computer generated RTC measuring 5 acres of land in the above said Sy.No.6 and in that regard she in hand-in-glove with accused Nos.3 to 9 who were the revenue and BDA officials created false documents. According to the IO, this lady was successful in getting compensation of Rs. 41,90,567/- and 5 sites measuring 12 x 18 mts. as compensation and sites in lieu of her ceding her land to the BDA.
4. In respect of the 2nd accused by name Panchalingaiah, who was the brother of the 1st accused took active part in getting her the above said compensation, in that regard 4 th accused being the Special Tahsildar, 3rd 10 Spl.C.C. No.190/2013 accused being the Revenue Inspector and other BDA officials involved in hatching criminal conspiracy, created and concocted the documents for the above said purpose. In respect of accused No.3 by name Kempashivanaiah, who was the Revenue Inspector attached to the office of the Bengaluru South Tahsildar, who was instrumental in inserting the name of the 1st accused in the Revenue Records in respect of 5 acres of land in Sy.No. 6 knowing fully well that the 1st accused cannot be a beneficiary.
Likewise, 4th accused by name Sri.Sadanandappa, who was the Revenue Officer, who got inserted the name of the 1 st accused in the computer generated RTC in respect of 5 acres of land in Sy.No. 6 of 11 Spl.C.C. No.190/2013 Lingadheeranahalli knowing fully well that, that extent of 1st accused land is not acquired by the BDA for formation of lay out. Coming to accused No.5 by name B.R.Krishnan, who was the Special Land Acquisition Officer, BDA was also instrumental in receiving the claim application of the 1st accused knowing fully well that the said extent of land was not acquired by the BDA as it was not included in the preliminary and final notifications saw to it that revenue records submitted by the 1st accused along with her application claiming her compensation, approved and granted compensation and compensatory sites in favor of the 1st accused.
5. So far as the 6th accused by name Ramegowda is concerned, who was the Revenue Inspector 12 Spl.C.C. No.190/2013 in BDA also instrumental in creating mahazar and revenue sketch in respect of 5 acres of land in Sy.No. 6 of Lingadheeranahalli in the name of the 1st accused only to help her in claiming compensation unlawfully including 5 compensatory sites. So far as 7th accused by name H.T.Ramegowda who was also surveyor in BDA helped in preparing the mahazar and sketch projecting as though same was drawn in the presence of mahazar witnesses that 1st accused was the owner of 5 acres of land in Sy.No. 6 of Lingadheeranahalli helped her to claim the compensation illegally. In respect of accused No.8 by name B.G.Nagaraju, who was also instrumental in inserting the name of the 1st accused in Revenue Records in respect of the said Sy.No. knowing fully well 13 Spl.C.C. No.190/2013 that she was not the original beneficiary and she was nothing to do with 5 acres of land in Lingadheeranahalli and has acted upon the documents, which were not genuine and got up documents. Finally, the accused No.9 by name C.Veerabhadraiah who was the Record Keeper attached to the Bengaluru South Taluk was instrumental in sending the relevant file out of the record room and has shirked his responsibility as the custodian of the said record helped in creating the documents in the nature of RTC, Saguvali Chit and Mutation entries in the name of the 1st accused only to help claim the compensation wrongfully, thereby according to the IO all the 9 accused have committed the above stated offences.
14
Spl.C.C. No.190/2013
6. After securing the presence of all the 9 accused persons before the Court, they were enlarged on regular bail. As per the mandatory compliance, all the prosecution papers were supplied to them. When this matter was posted for hearing arguments before charge, all the 9 accused moved an application seeking for their discharge. This Court heard their arguments and rejected that application on merits of the case by holding that there are abundant prima-facie materials to frame charges against all the 9 accused persons. In pursuance of the same, this Court duly framed charges against all the accused and read over to them in their known language, to which all the accused persons pleaded not guilty and claimed to be 15 Spl.C.C. No.190/2013 tried. When the matter was pending adjudication, the 7 th accused by name H.T. Ramegowda died, hence, this proceedings against that accused stands abated.
7. In order to bring home the guilt of the accused, the prosecution in all has examined PWs.1 to 20 and exhibits at Ex.P.1 to P.95 came to be marked. No material object/s came to be identified. On the other hand, as there were incriminating evidence found against the accused, statements as contemplated under Sec.313 of the Cr.P.C. came to be recorded and the concerned accused persons denied the same and when the matter stood posted for defence evidence, they have not lead any oral evidence, but 16 Spl.C.C. No.190/2013 Ex.D. 1 to D.5 came to be marked by way of confrontation.
8. Heard the arguments. During the course of arguments, the learned counsel for the accused Nos.1 to 4, 6 and 8 submitted the written arguments, supplied list with citations. I have gone through them carefully in detail.
9. The fresh points that crop up for my consideration are as follows:
1) Whether the prosecution proves beyond all reasonable doubt that the accused Nos.1 to6, 8 and 9 having common intention entered into an agreement of criminal conspiracy with an intention to cause loss to the exchequer of the Government in a sum of Rs.
41,90,567/- and also helped the 1 st 17 Spl.C.C. No.190/2013 accused to claim 5 compensatory sites by creating revenue records pertaining to 5 acres of land in Sy.No. 6 of Lingadheeranahalli projecting that the 1 st accused was the absolute owner in possession of the said extent of land, thereby have committed the offence punishable under Sec.120B of IPC?
2) Whether the prosecution further proves beyond all reasonable doubt that accused Nos.1 and 2 knowing fully well that the 1 st accused was not the owner of Sy.No. 6 of 5 acres of Lingadheeranahalli colluding with revenue and BDA officials forged revenue documents, concocted them and produced them before the BDA for claiming compensation knowing fully that they are not genuine documents, hence, have committed offences 18 Spl.C.C. No.190/2013 under Sec.177 of IPC?
3) Whether the prosecution further proves beyond all reasonable doubt that accused Nos.3, 4 and 8 who were the public servants attached to Bengaluru South Taluk, Revenue Office and when on 14-03-2006 1 st accused submitted her application before the 3 rd accused praying to enter her name in the computer generated RTC in respect of Sy.No. 6, 5 acres of land of Lingadheeranahalli, accused Nos.4 and 8 colluded with 3 rd accused accepted her application without verifying the documents and entered the name of the 1 st accused in computer generated RTC with a sole intention to help the 1 st accused, whereby have committed offence punishable under Sec.167 of IPC?
19
Spl.C.C. No.190/2013
4) Whether the prosecution further proves beyond all reasonable doubt that accused Nos.3 to 9 in furtherance of their common intention have forged the revenue records pertaining to Sy.No. 6 of 5 acres of Lingadheeranahalli, Bengaluru South Taluk with a malafide intention to get the 1 st accused compensation anount and compensatory sites committed alleged offence punishable under Sec.465 of IPC?
5) Whether the prosecution further proves beyond all reasonable doubt that accused Nos.3 to 9 in furtherance of their common intention have forged valuable revenue documents pertaining to Sy.No. 6 of 5 acres of Lingadheeranahalli, Bengaluru South Taluk with a malafide 20 Spl.C.C. No.190/2013 intention to get the 1 st accused compensation amount and compensatory sites committed alleged offence punishable under Sec.467 of IPC?
6) Whether the prosecution further proves beyond all reasonable doubt that accused Nos.3 to 9 in furtherance of their common intention have forged the revenue documents pertaining to Sy.No. 6 of 5 acres of Lingadheeranahalli, Bengaluru South Taluk with dishonest intention of cheating the Government to get the 1 st accused compensation amount and compensatory sites committed offence punishable under Sec.468 of IPC?
7) Whether the prosecution further proves beyond all reasonable doubt that when the 5 th accused was the 21 Spl.C.C. No.190/2013 Special LAO, the 6 th accused was the Revenue Inspector and the 7 th accused was the Surveyor in BDA have acted upon the forged revenue documents in respect of Sy.No. 6, 5 acres of land in Lingadheeranhalli with a sole intention to award compensation wrongfully in favour of the 1 st accused knowing fully well that she has submitted forged and concocted documents, thereby all have committed offence punishable under Sec.471 of IPC?
8) Whether the prosecution further proves beyond all reasonable doubt that accused Nos. 3, 4 and 8 who were the public servants discharging their duties in Bengaluru South Taluk Office used the official seals and documents for forging them in respect of the above said survey number, thereb y 22 Spl.C.C. No.190/2013 have committed the offence punishable under Sec.472 of IPC?
9) Whether the prosecution further proves beyond all reasonable doubt that accused Nos.3, 4 and 8 who being the public servants attached to Bengaluru South Taluk, Revenue Office used the official seals and documents for forging the revenue documents in respect of 5 acres of land in Sy.No. 6 of Lingadheeranahalli, have acted upon them, thereby have committed offence punishable under Sec.473 of IPC?
10) Whether the prosecution further proves beyond all reasonable doubt that accused No.9 who being the record keeper attached to Bengaluru South Taluk, Revenue Office has sent out some revenue 23 Spl.C.C. No.190/2013 records for forging the revenue documents with a malafide intention to get 1 st accused to compensation and compensatory sites have committed the offence punishable under Sec.475 of IPC?
11) Whether the prosecution further proves beyond all reasonable doubt that accused Nos. 1 to 9 in furtherance of their common intention of commission of a criminal conspiracy have dishonestly cheated the Government by acting upon the forged documents and thereby they have committed an offence punishable under Sec.420 of IPC?
12) Whether the prosecution further proves beyond all reasonable doubt that accused Nos.3 to 9 being the public servants have committed an act of criminal conspiracy 24 Spl.C.C. No.190/2013 dishonestly and fraudulently created the revenue records in respect of Sy.No. 6 of Lingadheeranahalli in the name of the 1 st accused have cheated the Government and caused loss to the exchequer by misusing respective official positions and have accepted the pecuniary advantages from accused Nos.1 and 2 for getting them compensation and further also have committed offences of criminal misconduct thereby have committed offences punishable under Sec.13(1)
(c) and 13 (2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988?
13) Whether the prosecution further proves beyond all reasonable doubt that accused Nos.3, 4, 8 and 9 who were the public servants in the Bengaluru Suth Taluk Office, who were the custodian of Revenue 25 Spl.C.C. No.190/2013 documents have forged and concocted the said documents in the name of the 1 st accused in respect of the land in Sy.No. 6 of Lingadheeranahalli with a sole intention of awarding compensation in favour of the 1 st accused and have committed offence punishable under Sec.192A of The Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1966?
14). What order?
10. After carefully going through the materials available on record and also considering the facts and circumstances of the case, my findings to the above points are as under:
POINT NO.1 : In the negative.
POINT NO.2 to 11 : In the negative. POINT NO.12 & 13: In the negative. 26
Spl.C.C. No.190/2013 POINT NO.14 : As per my final order for the following:
REASONS
11. In this case, the claim of the complaint by name Sri.Sadanand Swamy G.N., who was examined as PW. 3 looks slightly different. In his examination-in-chief who has been examined comes out with an evidence that about a week before his PCR presentation before the 23rd Addl.City Civil & Sessions Judge, Bengaluru, he reads a newspaper report about land grabbing of Sy.No. 6 of Lingadheeranahalli, Kengeri Hobli, BSK 6th Phase, Bengaluru. Then immediately according to him, he visited different revenue offices, collected revenue documents i.e. record of rights, mutation register, index of land, voter ID and other relevant documents 27 Spl.C.C. No.190/2013 and he came to know that the 1 st accused Jayamma is the land grabber, the 2nd accused Panchalingaiah is her younger brother then accused Nos.3 to 9 who were the public officials in different capacities both in the office of Bengaluru South Taluk and BDA have helped the 1st accused to claim compensation wrongfully.
12. According to this PW. 3, this entire Sy.No.6 was a gomala land according to revenue documents and according to him, the name of the 1st accused was not found both in preliminary as well as final notifications of the BDA for acquiring those lands for formation of lay out by it. Hence, according to this PW. 3, name of the 1st accused Jayamma was inserted first in the revenue records, then it 28 Spl.C.C. No.190/2013 was inserted in preliminary and final notifications, whereby the 5th accused in particular, knowing fully well that, the documents enclosed by the 1st accused along with her application claiming compensation were forged and concocted, acted upon them and got her compensation of Rs. 41,90,567/- released including allotting of 5 compensatory sites.
13. And the evidence given by the PW. 3 does not only stop at this juncture, according to him, from the records produced by the 1 st accused herself in the voter ID and list, her age is shown as 60 years, whereas in her indemnity bond and affidavit, which were given to BDA marked at Ex.P. 6 and 7 her age is shown as 55 years and if this discrepancy 29 Spl.C.C. No.190/2013 is considered then calculation is undertaken when the land of 5 acres was granted, this Jayamma was hardly 2 years old. So, according to PW. 3, at no stretch of imagination, there can be a grant of gomala land in favour of a minor girl of 2 or 3 years. This PW. 3 has set criminal law in motion by filing a private complaint under Sec.200 of Cr.P.C. Then, this Court having considered the materials produced by this PW. 3, referred the matter to the Dy.S.P., Karnataka Lokayukta under Sec.156(3) of Cr.P.C. for further investigation and to come out with its report. So, the prosecution has built up its case on the basis of a private complaint given by PW. 3.
14. Now, the Investigating Officers who have 30 Spl.C.C. No.190/2013 undertaken different stages of investigations have concentrated mainly on the genuineness of the revenue documents. PW.3 repeatedly makes it very clear that there cannot be a grant in favour of a minor girl, gomala land wherein it vests exclusively with the Government so it cannot be a subject matter of grant and no saguvali chit can be issued. Thirdly, when this 1st accused is not a owner nor in physical possession of 5 acres of land in Sy.No. 6, there is no question of issuing any preliminary notification for acquiring that piece of land for formation of layout by the BDA. So, PW. 3 starts knitting a case that, first to begin with the 1st accused was ably assisted by her younger brother 2 nd accused in giving an application claiming 31 Spl.C.C. No.190/2013 compensation with 11 sets of documents to the office of the Bengaluru South Tahsildar, then on accused Nos.3, 4 and 8 who were the officials working in that office have helped to create false revenue documents in favour of the 1st accused.
15. Here, very important aspect that has to be highlighted and proved by the prosecution is that meeting of mind for Section 120B of IPC allegations. If an allegation is thrown against any person or accused that he has committed an offence of criminal conspiracy, there must be an intention and more than one person must meet and chalk out their strategy for commission of such an offence. In the instant case, the prefix for filing a private complaint at Ex.P. 3 should also demonstrate 32 Spl.C.C. No.190/2013 before the Court that, when, where and who all met together to conspire that in the name of the 1st accused all the revenue documents first will have to be created, concocted and by forging for the purpose of claiming compensation wrongfully.
16. In the instant case, when the evidence of PW. 3 and his different sets of documents are looked into, this witness starts with a bang that, it is not only the accused but the office of the Bengaluru South Taluk and BDA all are corrupt and no proper official work were discharged while inserting the name of the 1 st accused in computer RTC and awarding compensation. According to me, this general allegation made against both the office will have to be substantiated by tendering legal 33 Spl.C.C. No.190/2013 evidence.
17. The greater risk and burden which the prosecution has taken on its shoulder are that it has to prove from which year the name of the 1st accused was inserted in the RTC? Can any person may be straight away insert in any RTC his/her name without following proper procedure? then such procedure adopted whether it was brought to the notice of the higher authorities or not and finally if any revenue order which is purported to be illegal can it go unchallenged. So, these aspects will have to be answered by the prosecution. The prosecution will also have to show before the Court that why for many decades many alleged illegal revenue entries according to it have not been challenged. 34
Spl.C.C. No.190/2013
18. According to me, firstly procedure as enshrined in the Karnataka Land Revenue Act if not followed till then coming to conclusion that any revenue entry is legal or illegal, right or wrong cannot be looked into. So, when the evidence of PW. 3 is looked into, he gives a private complaint at Ex.P. 3 on a premise that first and 2nd accused are land grabbers. He brands them straight away that they belonged to land grabbing mafia, these high sounded jargons can become catchy when they are proved in accordance with law. So far as gomala land getting granted to the 1 st accused who was a minor according to it also calls for a substantiation.
19. The peculiarity of this case is that even though the Investigating Officer has acted 35 Spl.C.C. No.190/2013 upon the private complaint at Ex.P. 3, but most of the documents relied upon by him are purely revenue in nature. In this case, the Investigating Officer is trying to prove its case without challenging any of the disputed revenue documents according to them. In this regard, out of the 20 charge sheet witnesses examined, most of them are revenue officials. Their entire evidence are to explain before this court as to what was the procedure adopted either for entering the name of the 1 st accused in the RTC, how did mutation register entry got created and what was the procedure that was adopted by the Land Acquisition Officer of BDA to acquire 5 acres of land in Sy.No. 6 of Lingadheeranahalli.
20. The PW.4 is also a Tahsildar at a relevant 36 Spl.C.C. No.190/2013 point of time by name Shivappa H.Lamani is examination-in-chief is that on 6-02-2013, he receives a letter from CW.33 who is also the Investigating Officer and she requested this official to furnish details of 5 acres of land in Sy.No. 6 belonging to Smt.Jayamma. According to this witness, he is instrumental in supplying ILR Register, RTCs for the years1969-70 to 2001-02 including grant certificate.
21. Likewise, one more witness at PW. 5 has been examined by name Sri.K.T.Shashidhar who was the Revenue Inspector of Hemmegepura Revenue Circle at the relevant point of time. According to this witness, accused No.9 was the Record Keeper in their 37 Spl.C.C. No.190/2013 office, accused No.8 was the Sheristedar, accused No.4 was the Special Tahasildar and accused No.3 was the Revenue Inspector. This examination-in-chief of PW. 5 was to impress upon this Court that since Jayamma, the 1st accused gave an application claiming compensation in respect of the above ceded land with 11 documents which were in the nature of RTC and Mutation Register that was received by his predecessor, then those documents were scrutinized by them and a specific order came to be passed by the 3rd accused. According to this witness, the said checklist was placed before him by the case worker by name Dhakshayani and in turn, he gave that file to Village Accountant by name one Mr.Suresh.
38
Spl.C.C. No.190/2013
22. This PW. 5 also further clarifies in respect of the procedures adopted by them that Village Accountant Suresh endorsed on that file by putting a note that by virtue of the specific order passed by the Spl.Tahasildar, he accepted that mutation and by virtue of the said note and the order passed by the 3 rd accused, that mutation order having been passed, that process got completed. According to this witness, the file came back in reverse order and this was stated by CW.33. Again he was summoned by the Dy.S.P. CW.33 to the Lokayukta office and she asked about the regular procedure adopted by them in their office in the event of insertion of cultivator's name in the revenue documents pertaining to, particularly Sy.No. 6 and its extent. Through 39 Spl.C.C. No.190/2013 this witness, Mutation Register No.5 came to be marked at Ex.P. 16 including the check list at Ex.P. 17.
23. This prosecution has taken pains to examine PW. 6 by name A.M.Suresh who was the Village Accountant at Hemmigepura Revenue Circle. He also spoke about the designation of the 3rd accused at that time, 4th accused was the Spl.Tahasildar and the 8 th accused was the RRT Sheristedar. This witness failed to identify the 9th accused in the open Court, but gave evidence that he was the record keeper at the relevant point of time. According to this witness, he received the file of Sy.No. 6 of Lingadheeranahalli by Revenue Inspector and that was sent to hi in respect of change of name in mutation register 40 Spl.C.C. No.190/2013 pertaining to Smt.Jayamma the 1st accused. This witness gave evidence that he went through the entire file and also looked into the contents of the mahazar and statements recorded. According to this witness, when that file came to him, the 4 th accused the then Spl.Tahasildar has already passed the specific order accepting the name of the 1st accused in the mutation register in respect of the above said survey number. According to him, when he was convinced that as already mutation register was accepted, he has endorsed to that effect and sent the said file to the Revenue Inspector. According to this witness, he went through the Ex.P. 16 which is the relevant mutation register order and also the statement of Jayamma recorded by the 3rd 41 Spl.C.C. No.190/2013 accused by name Kempashivanaiah. This 3rd accused has also drawn the mahazar which came to be accepted by PW. 5 in pursuance of Ex.P. 16. Lastly according to this witness, in the year 2012, the KLA had caused him a notice directing him to appear before them in respect of the allegation of concoction and creation of Ex.P. 16 file. So, according to this witness, on the given date he appeared before them and gave his statement by explaining the modality adopted by them in issuing Ex.P. 16.
24. Coming to the evidence of PW. 7, who was the Accountant with the Janatha Seva Co- operative Bank Ltd., Vijayanagar, Bengaluru. She received a requisition from CW.33 asking her to furnish accounts statement of the 1 st 42 Spl.C.C. No.190/2013 accused in respect of her SB account No.22409 and also requesting them to furnish account opening form and its relevant records. So, this lady gave evidence that they forwarded required documents which were in the nature of copies containing required information.
25. Coming to the evidence of PW. 8 by name Smt.Vijaya B.Kolhapur, she was the Manager at the Canara Bank, Bidadi Branch, Bengaluru, she receives requisition from CW.33 on 19-10-2012 requesting them to furnish the information and documents in respect of 1st accused bank account, she complied the request by submitting the required documents vide Ex.P. 29. 43
Spl.C.C. No.190/2013
26. Coming to the crucial evidence of PW. 9 by name C.Gangadharaiah who was the Tahasildar at Bengaluru South Taluk, Taluk Office from January 2006 to October 2006. When he was the Tahasildar, he had a manager by name Mr.Nagaraj and a case worker by name Mrs.Bhagya. He received a notice from CW.33 asking both him and his DC to appear before the Lokayukta office in their office Cr.No.16/2012. When they appeared on a particular day, the said Dy.S.P. showed them a letter dtd.14-06-2006 and asked them as to whether that letter had been issued from their office or not and that letter came to be marked through this witness at Ex.P. 30. According to this witness, neither Ex.P. 30 nor the purported his signatures 44 Spl.C.C. No.190/2013 found on that documents does not belonged to him. In this regard, according to this person, he has given a separate statement before the KLA police on the very day. After one month of his visit to the said office, again he was re-summoned to that office to verify as to the alleged signature of the Tahasildar found at Ex.P. 30, according to this witness his reply was it was not his signature. In that regard, the Lokayukta police have collected his six full standard signatures and six small signatures on a blank paper on the presence of two punch witnesses for sending them to FSL for scientific examination.
27. Coming to the evidence of PW. 10 by name R.Bhagya who had served as a First Division Assistant in the Bengaluru South 45 Spl.C.C. No.190/2013 Tahasildar Office from 2000 to 2008 and in the year 2012, she received a notice from CW.33 and she was asked to visit that office in the month of May 2012. When she appeared before the said CW.33 she was asked to go through Ex.P. 30 and identify the signatures and she having gone through that document, denied that purported signatures as does not belonged to her. According to this witness, she claims to have told that, Dy.S.P. even though the so called signatures of the Manager and Tahasildar found at Ex.P. 30 does not belonged to them. In this regard, said Dy.S.P. collected this lady's 6 signatures for sending them for scientific examination with FSL.
28. Coming to the evidence of PW. 11 by 46 Spl.C.C. No.190/2013 name H.Mohan who was one of the agriculturists and a plumber who gave evidence that his mother Smt.Kalamma who was cultivating 2 acres of land in Sy.No. 6 of Lingadheeranahalli, which was a gomala land. According to him, for the past 60 years from the date of this witness giving evidence, they were in continuous cultivation of said piece of land. This Sy.No. 6 of said village totally had 37 acres 21 guntas of land, all were gomala in nature. Their land neighbourers were one Hanumanthappa, Sampangappa, Muniswamaiah, Eeraiah, Venkataramanappa and Ramaiah who were also granted different extent of land in the same survey number. Coming to the case on hand, according to this witness, the 1st accused Jayamma w/o 47 Spl.C.C. No.190/2013 Byrappa was not cultivating any extent of land in Sy.No. 6. In fact, according to the prosecution he becomes the star witness in view of the fact that it is not only in Ex.P. 16, but wrongly accused Nos.3, 4 and 8 who were the Revenue Officers were instrumental in forging and concocting revenue document in the name of 1st accused to place them before BDA for getting her compensation illegally.
29. According to this witness, in the year 2012, he was summoned by KLA and asked him as to who were the agriculturists who were cultivating Sy.No. 6 and showed the photograph of the 1st accused and asked as to whether the 1st accused Jayamma was also cultivating any piece of land in Sy.No. 6 of Lingadheeranahalli. This witness identifies 48 Spl.C.C. No.190/2013 the photograph of the 1st accused.
30. Coming to the evidence of PW. 12 by name T.T.Dakshayani who was the SDA in the Bengaluru South Taluk Tahasildar office, this witness identifies the 8th accused in the Court and gave evidence that when she was served as SDA in that office, 8th accused was her manager, 4th accused was the Special Tahasildar, 3rd accused was the Revenue Inspector and 9th accused by name Mr.C.Veerabhadraiah was the record keeper. In the year 2006, when she was serving as SDA in the said office, she was exclusively entrusted with the responsibility of looking after land grant section files, wherein that section has the collection of records pertaining to grant of PTCL lands. On 14-03- 49 Spl.C.C. No.190/2013 2006, the 1st accused had given an application seeking to enter her name in the relevant RTC and then jto issue that document to her. On 17-03-2006, she received the application of the 1st accused from the Tapal Section and she verified the contents, after verifying the entire records, she assigned a separate register number and spoke about the entering those register number in the relevant registers. She receives a report from Revenue Inspector, that was also given report number as 653/05-06, that report had enclosures in the nature of statement of villagers and mahazar drawn. According to this lady, she has put her note and that file was submitted to Manager who in turn transmitted that file to the 50 Spl.C.C. No.190/2013 Spl.Tahasildar. Lastly, Spl.Tahasildar entered the name of the 1st accused Jayamma in respect of 5 acres of land in Sy.No. 6 in Lingadheeranahalli.
31. Coming to the evidence of PW. 13 by name U.Dasappa, who was the First Division Assistant in SLAO Section of BDA and the 5 th accused was his LAO, 6th accused was the Revenue Inspector in BDA. In respect of Banashankari 6th Stage, Bengaluru, a preliminary notification was issued for the purpose of acquiring the lands for formation of BDA layout. Likewise in the year 2001, final notification was issued in that effect and were marked at Ex.P. 31 and 32. His evidence was also in respect of receiving sketch and mahazar drawn in respect of acquiring the 51 Spl.C.C. No.190/2013 intended revenue land from the Revenue Inspector, which are marked at Ex.P. 33 and
34. On 17-10-2006, the 1st accused Jayamma had given an application seeking for disbursement of compensation in respect of her land. That application also had enclosures in the nature of xerox copies of grant certificate, RTC extract, Mutation register, Indemnity bond, affidavit and self declaration attested copy of the 1st accused. Then he prepares the note sheets and also places them before the LAO for his necessary action. Then, the land proposed for acquisition was found to be Government Mufath Kaval land as per Ex.P. 31 and 32. He also put a separate note vide Ex.P. 36 calling for clarification and explanation from 52 Spl.C.C. No.190/2013 the concerned Tahasildar and addressed a letter to that official. According to this witness, the Spl.Land Acquisition Officer approved his draft letter, which was sent to the Spl.Tahasildar, which got marked at Ex.P. 37, then he prepared engrossment of Ex.P. 37 and it was sent and duly signed by the SLAO. According to this witness, he receives Ex.P. 39 by way of reply on 14-06-2006 furnishing clarification in respect of queries raised along with the documents such as copies of RTC, Mutation Register No.5/2005- 06, Saguvali chit, which came to be marked at Ex.P. 41 and 42. So, this witness explains the procedure adopted by him. Finally he put a note seeking suitable orders in disbursement of compensation and the said file was placed 53 Spl.C.C. No.190/2013 before the DC, BDA. One more note was prepared by him to release Rs. 41,90,567/- as a compensation amount in favour of the 1st accused, totally permission was sought to release a sum of Rs. 75,43,020/- which being the compensation amount in favour of beneficiaries who lost land in the said acquisition process.
32. This witness here presses the fact that on 19-10-2006 Finance Member had approved the note put up by his Section and he received the entire file with two cheques, one in favour of the 1st accused for an amount of Rs. 41,90,567/- and another cheque in favour of one Hombanna for a sum of Rs.
33,52,453/- and subsequently, came to be verified by them, then lastly it was issued by 54 Spl.C.C. No.190/2013 the Spl.LAO through DC in favour of the said beneficiaries.
33. Coming to the evidence of PW. 14 by name R.Venkatachalapathy, who was the Spl.Land Acquisition Officer, BDA at the relevant point of time. On 4-07-2012, he was summoned by the KLA in connection with their Cr.No.16/2012, he handed over the entire file pertaining to LAC No.74/2001-02. He went through the entire file that was in respect of Sy.No. 6 of Lingadheeranahalli. In that file, he found that SLAO had sought separate report from Revenue Inspector in respect of 5 acres of land claimed by the 1 st accused. In Ex.P. 36, according to this wt, he found discrepancy in mentioning the dates and also the endorsements written on them. 55
Spl.C.C. No.190/2013 According to this witness, the revenue endorsement which has a discrepancy which raises doubt as to its genuineness and Ex.P. 44 report is issued by him.
34. Coming to the evidence of PW. 15, by name Sri.H.L.Shivaramu who was the Sheristedar, Land Acquisition Section, BDA gave evidence that on 2-06-2006, 1st accused had given her application claiming compensation in Tapal Section, she had also requested to pass suitable award and disburse compensation in respect of 5 acres of land in Sy.No. 6 of Lingadheeranahalli. One Mr.Dasappa, case worker, PW. 13 collected the said letter, prepared office note and that file was placed before him for making necessary entries. When the said file 56 Spl.C.C. No.190/2013 came to him, he having found the office note put up as correct and the draft of the intended letter to be communicated to the Tahasildar, he forwarded the said file and draft letter to the SLAO for action. This witness spoke about the procedure adopted by him in sending the letter seeking for clarification from the SLAO in respect of 5 acres of land in Sy.No. 6 of Lingadheeranahalli being a Government Mufath Kaval land.
35. Coming to the evidence of PW. 16 by name Santhosh Kumar N. who was the Revenue Assistant, Revenue Department, Land Reforms, M.S.Building, Bengaluru at the relevant point of time. On 17-05-2013, he was called by the Co-Ordination Under 57 Spl.C.C. No.190/2013 Secretary Mr.Lakshminarayana and another Jr.Assistant by name Janashekar to his chambers and he was directed to draw mahazar and to assist them. So, they went to the office of KLA and met CW.33 and she explained about the background of this case. He was introduced to accused No.9, who was the Deputy Tahasildar and through this witness Ex.P. 45 came to be marked. According to this witness KLA police present and took the signatures of Veerabhadraiah on 6 pages, then he was told that in that regard, a separate mahazar is drawn wherein they admitted and disputed the signatures of Veerabhadraiah will be sent to scientific examination to FSL, Madiwala, Bengaluru.
36. Coming to the evidence of PW. 17 by 58 Spl.C.C. No.190/2013 name Mr.Abdul Ahad, who was the Dy.SP, KLA, City Division, Bengaluru at the relevant point of time. He also becomes one of the important witness on behalf of the prosecution, because the moment PW. 3 gave Ex.P. 3, wherein this Court issued direction to the Dy.S.P., KLA to undertake investigation of the matter under Sec.156(3) of Cr.P.C. So, quite naturally his examination-in-chief is that on 29-02-2012, he received a memo from his S.P. by name Mr.Shivashankar which had an enclosures in the nature of a copy of Ex.P.
3. So, according to this witness in view of the direction of this Court, he registered the FIR in his office Cr.No.16/2012 vide Ex.P. 47 and undertook further investigation of this case. According to this witness, he collected 59 Spl.C.C. No.190/2013 material documents from the office of the Sub-Registrar, JP Nagar, Bengaluru. Likewise, on 13-06-2012, he also collects certified copies of the title deeds, revenue documents from the office of the Sub-Registrar, Kengeri. There is a reference given in the examination- in-chief of this witness that he is responsible for collecting major documents in respect of different site numbers carved out of 5 acres of land in Sy.No. 6 of Lingadheeranahalli. When examination-in-chief of this witness is carefully analyzed, according to me, the catch is this; the land ceded by the 1st accused in favour of the BDA in lieu of receiving compensation amount and also 5 compensatory sites, that has been now formed into lay out which is now known as 60 Spl.C.C. No.190/2013 Banashankari 6th Stage. So, the prosecution is here to canvass before the Court that the 1st accused with the able assistance of her younger brother was successful in hoodwinking the exchequer of the Government not only in wrongly pocketing the compensation amount, but also 5 compensatory sites which are today worth many crores. So, the prosecution through the Investigating Officer are justifying their stand in respect of Ex.P. 3 for having register FIR under Ex.P. 47.
37. The examination-in-chief of this witness does not stop itself here. In this regard, when Ex.P. 51 to 57 which were different types of revenue documents in the nature of RTC, mutation register and Saguvali chit are gone 61 Spl.C.C. No.190/2013 through, ultimately in the further examination-in-chief of this witness which the prosecution led on 20-1-2023, he summarizes the entire case that these documents have helped them to form an opinion that both accused Nos.1 and 2 have played fraud on the government only for the purpose of cheating the exchequer of the Government.
38. On 04-02-2023, surprisingly this witness was subjected to re-examination by his own Public Prosecutor and that the Learned Public Prosecutor tried to unearth new facets of his investigation. According to this witness, during his course of further investigation, he came to know that 5 th accused while discharging his official duties should have verified the documents submitted 62 Spl.C.C. No.190/2013 by the 1st accused in respect of 5 acres of land in Sy.No. 6 of Lingadheeranahalli. Again this witness attacks Ex.P. 5 to 7 which are in the nature of indemnity bond, declaration and affidavit, where the 1st accused in these testimonies declares that as on the date of sending those papers, she was 55 years of age. According to this witness, if that age factor of the 1st accused is kept in mind, so when she was hardly 2 or 3 years of age, the Government must have granted 5 acres of land in Sy.No. 6 of Lingadheeranahalli, which is highly impossible. According to this witness, there cannot be any grant or no any Saguvali Chit can be issued to the gomala land vesting with the Government, which is also branded as Sarkari Mufath Kaval land. 63
Spl.C.C. No.190/2013 So, this Learned Public Prosecutor in the re- examination of this witness got it reiterated through PW. 17 that in the present case, the dubious claim of the 1st accused that her name is intentionally not included in the RTC and revenue documents in respect of Sy.No. 6 of Lingadheeranahalli cannot be accepted. Of course, this PW. 17 through his examination- in-chief tried to lay a foundation to build a structure that accused Nos.1 to 9 hand-in- glove were instrumental in cheating the Government and also causing huge loss to the exchequer.
39. Coming to the very very important evidence of one of the Investigating Officers, PW. 18 by name Dr.M.Ashwini, who seems to have taken lot of pains and has put extra 64 Spl.C.C. No.190/2013 efforts to show before the Court that both the 1st and 2nd accused are those persons/elements, they cannot be trusted any more. This police officer being the Additional Inspector General of Police, Head Quarters, DG & IGP, Bengaluru gave evidence that at the relevant point of time i.e. between 13-09- 2012 to 30-05-2013, she was the Dy.S.P. of Lokayukta, City Division, Bengaluru. This police officer took further investigation of this case from PW. 17 Mr.Abdul Ahad. According to this lady, on 6-02-2013, she wrote a letter to the Tahsildar, Bengaluru South Taluk asking him to submit his report in respect of the genuineness of the documents submitted by him in the earlier in respect of Sy.No. 6 of Lingadheeranahalli. On 17-05-2013, she 65 Spl.C.C. No.190/2013 claims to have conducted Ex.P. 46, mahazar and she also identified her signature on that document. For completing the process of Ex.P. 46, she took the help of panchas by name Santhosh Kumar and A.Gnanashekar. When Ex.P. 46 was done, accused No.9 was present, she secured original Saguvali Register which was with other Dy.SP in connection with Cr.No.14/2012 and this document was shown to the panchas, then she took six signatures of accused No.9 on 6 sheets for sending the same to the scientific examination FSL, Madivala, Bengaluru. She gave evidence that, what was the admitted and disputed signatures of the 9th accused sent to the said FSL, Bengaluru.
40. According to this witness, when she 66 Spl.C.C. No.190/2013 undertook further investigation of the matter, she also verified all the documents and investigation done by her predecessor PW. 17. Having gone through Ex.P. 31 and 32, she found that name of the 1st accused Smt.Jayamma was not found in the two notifications, whereas, Sl.No.127 in preliminary notification at Ex.P. 31 refers to Sy.No. 6 of Lingadheeranahalli lands as Sarkari Mufath Kaval. According to this lady, then she went through Ex.P. 39 and 40 and there again she came to the age of the accused, which is referred to as 55 years. So, this Police Officer being one of the Investigating Officer came to her own opinion that when the 1st accused gave application seeking for compensation, documents 67 Spl.C.C. No.190/2013 produced by her were concocted and created. So, it was a pre-plan on the part of the 1st accused with the able assistance of accused Nos.2 to 9 to hoodwink the Government in falsely claiming compensation and also 5 compensatory sites.
41. This PW. 18 seems to have meticulously looked into documents in respect of finding fault as to whether the revenue entries found in them were in the usual course of business or not. Because according to her, when they had written letter to the Tahasildar, Bengaluru South Taluk on 14-06-2006 asking for clarification in respect of grant of 5 acres of land in Sy.No. 6 of Lingadheeranahalli to the 1st accused. According to this witness, she found discrepancy in the two registers in 68 Spl.C.C. No.190/2013 respect of receiving covering letter from the office of Tahsildar and also in respect of enclosing true copies of revenue documents. According to this witness, she noticed that in between Sl.Nos.453 and 457 of dispatch register of Bengaluru South Taluk Office, she is of the opinion that some insertions have taken place which is only to facilitate the 1 st accused and her brother 2nd accused to claim compensation and nothing else. Again this witness spoke much about Ex.P. 42, which is also a dispatch Register highlighting in respect of reference number of a particular letter. In a nutshell, according to this PW. 18, all these letter correspondences between the office of the BDA and Bengaluru South Taluk Office looks fishy and has not taken place in a 69 Spl.C.C. No.190/2013 usual course of business. Likewise, she has given weightage much to the age factor of Smt.Jayamma, because there cannot any grant in favour of minor that too of a gomala land which should vest with the Government.
42. Most of her ocular evidence was to touch in respect of the genuineness of revenue entries. Further, according to this lady, even the FSL report received has helped them to assess that no grant was taken place in favour of the 1st accused in respect of Sarkari Mufath Kaval land. So, according to this lady, her observation is that, when the preliminary notification of the BDA took place on 15-01-2000, final notification on 21-08- 2001 in both the notifications, name of the 1 st accused and alleged Jayamma of land in 70 Spl.C.C. No.190/2013 Sy.No. 6 of Lingadheeranahalli was not included. So, on 14-03-2006, as a pre-plan move, the 1st accused gave an application to enter her name in the computer pahani, so she created revenue documents and on the basis of Xerox copies, which was enclosed to her application, her name was inserted in the computer RTC. It is also the evidence of this lady that she came to know that the 2 nd accused, 1st accused and one Mr.Hombanna were allotted different extent of agricultural land both at Lingadheeranahalli and Hemmigepura. From the records, it was confirmed to her that at no point of time, the 1st accused has cultivated any piece of land in Sy.No. 6 of Lingadheeranahalli. The revenue staff by name Smt.Bhagya, 71 Spl.C.C. No.190/2013 Sri.Gangadharaiah and Sri.Nagaraju also helped accused Nos.1 and 2 to collect compensation amount illegally. Finally, according to this lady, she completes the further investigation and comes to the conclusion that accused Nos.1 to 9 have committed the offence, which is imminent from the records. By the time she submitted her charge sheet before the Court, already accused Nos.3 to 5 and 7 who were public servants had retired from services, hence, she did not seek any sanction order against them. Accused Nos.1 and 2 were private individuals. So, in the nutshell, the examination-in-chief of PW. 8 is cent percent relying upon the revenue documents more so revenue entries and also Ex.P. 5 to 7 which are in the nature 72 Spl.C.C. No.190/2013 of indemnity bond, declaration and affidavit, wherein 1st accused herself declares her age as 55 years as on the date of swearing to those testimonies. Hence, according to this IO, when the grant took place, this lady Smt.Jayamma was hardly 2 or 3 years old, wherein law prohibits for making any grant in favour of this lady and in the instant case as to entire Sy.No. 6, according to the prosecution was a gomala land, there was no question of special grant to anybody muchless to the 1st accused Smt.Jayamma.
43. Coming to the evidence of PW. 19 by name V.P.M.Swamy who was the Dy.S.P. attached to the KLA, City Division from 2012 to 2015. According to this person, in respect of the present case, he also collected some 73 Spl.C.C. No.190/2013 revenue documents and has sent those documents for scientific examination FSL, Bengaluru. It is the say of this witness that on 7-01-2013, he received a letter from FSL and he handed over the revenue documents to PW. 18 for investigation in the present case. Through this witness, documents which he handed over to PW. 18 have been elicited in his examination-in-chief.
44. Lastly, coming to the evidence of PW. 20 by name Narayana M, who was the Dy.S.P. of KLA who undertook further investigation and he receives a direction from the SP to complete the further investigation and to submit the charge sheet, so he receives FSL report dtd.29-06-2013 and the said report is at Ex.P. 95 and he identified his signature on 74 Spl.C.C. No.190/2013 that document at Ex.P. 95(a) and files the charge sheet against all the 9 accused persons.
45. When the ocular evidence of PWs.1 to 20 are gone through, undoubtedly and unhesitatingly it can be summed up that the root cause for the present litigation is not only Ex.P. 3, but also the revenue documents which of late stood in the name of the 1 st accused Smt.Jayamma. I am very much highlighting these aspects often and often only to for better understanding and nothing else. On a glance through of Ex.P. 3, which is the PCR No.7/2012, there are some contents which are not only influencing all Investigating Officers, but here the 75 Spl.C.C. No.190/2013 complainant by name G.N.Sadanandaswamy, who was examined as PW. 3 has jumped to some conclusion which the law does not accepts. This PW. 3 goes to the extent of branding 1st and 2nd accused as land grabbers. His only trump card is, as Ex.P. 31 and 32 which are preliminary and final notifications does not contain the name of the 1st accused in respect of 5 acres of land in Sy.No. 6 of Lingadheeranahalli, so lately her name was inserted for this purpose, so she becomes a land grabber. Another interesting aspect is that this Ex.P. 3 was drafted, presented by the Learned Advocate along with the complainant. Most of the contents of Ex.P. 3 are work of a skilled draftsman/seasonal advocate and nothing 76 Spl.C.C. No.190/2013 else. Before branding any person as a land grabber, there must be such materials.
46. Now, the question is if inadvertently any farmers' names are left out in the revenue records in respect of any particular survey number of a village, one should know whether there is a provision to get it rectified or not. It is the evidence of Revenue Officers attached to Bengaluru South Taluk Office including the Tahasildar of that office that, when computerization of revenue records took place, wherein the entire revenue administration work was directed by the Government to switch over to computers by entering the revenue entries in a computer system, there was also a leverage that if in any case, any revenue entry is left out, 77 Spl.C.C. No.190/2013 subsequently, same should be brought into the notice of the concerned Taluk Office, that has to be rectified by way of insertion. So, the revenue law also provided and permitted such rectification of revenue records as permissible.
47. The next question is the entire allegation is centric around the 1st accused. It is the countless allegations of the Investigating Officers that the 1st accused has caused huge loss to the exchequer and also the 5 compensatory sites to the BDA. The prosecution has taken one more extra burden i.e. and should prove aspect that why only the 1st accused. So, according to the prosecution if the 1st accused can dupe the Government, why not any other persons. First of all 78 Spl.C.C. No.190/2013 prosecution shall have to establish either the enmity or that unique quality which the 1 st accused had to woo accused Nos.3 to 9.
48. Documents at Ex.P. 6 to P.8 are in the nature of indemnity bond, affidavit and Saguvali Chit and the prosecution has made a moul out of the mountain by repeatedly highlighting the fact that when the 1st accused was 2 or 3 years old, an illegal grant was taken place in this infant, that too of a gomala land and the same is void in the eye of law. Now to prove the documents which are Ex.P. 6 and 7, the prosecution also should make an attempt. Now, the admission found at Ex.P. 6 and 7 can it be branded as a conclusive proof when it is the admitted case of the prosecution that the 1st accused was an 79 Spl.C.C. No.190/2013 illiterate. Likewise, admittedly, Ex.P. 6 and 7 are not public documents. So, the presumption which can be attached to public documents are not available to Ex.P. 6 and 7. Lastly, when, the moment four Investigating Officers who are associated with this case were able to detect the same, what lawful actions they have initiated in respect of correction or forging of revenue entries is the relevant question. In this regard, as a prelude chapter 11 of the Karnataka Land revenue Act, 1964 and Rules 1966 Sec.127 to 136 will come into play. So, this Court will have to look into these anomalies which are found in the investigation and its documents, undertaken by the IOs as to whether these subsisting Land Revenue Act and Rules have 80 Spl.C.C. No.190/2013 been touched or not. Another aspect is, when the scientific officer's report is received by the Lokayukta police, whether a copy of that was given to the concerned accused or not, whether, was there any time given for filing objection and under what power or authority Lokayukta police officer accepted the said report which can become tenable in the eye of law again becomes a material. Because it has to be repeatedly kept in mind that it is not only the investigation as contemplated under the law, but it must be a fair investigation. So long as these accepted norms and procedures are not meticulously followed, there is no question of bypassing any of them only to say that all the accused have committed wrong.
81
Spl.C.C. No.190/2013
49. It is a well settled principle of law that while conducting any investigation in a criminal case, if an Investigating Officer comes across any deed/act wherein any public servant or where a particular officer is continuously erring in discharge of his public duties, it is the duty of such Investigating Officer not only to bring to the notice of the concerned higher authorities, but also should act as a complainant by initiating separate proceedings in that regard. In the instant case, from the perusal of investigating papers, this Court has come across many such incidents where a record keeper of Bengaluru South Taluk has not discharged his/her duties properly, so also some of the case workers of BDA have also not followed proper 82 Spl.C.C. No.190/2013 procedure. When such is the case, why Investigating Officers have not initiated any action against them even though they are not straight away connected with the case on hand. So, these are all the inputs available from the material and with this oral and documentary evidence, we will have to analyze and come to a fair conclusion that whether the prosecution has proved each of the allegations made against accused No.1 to 9. POINT NO.1:-
50. This aspect is in respect of considering whether accused Nos.1 to 9 have committed an offence of criminal conspiracy under Sec.120B of the IPC. As I have discussed briefly in my preceding paras Sec.120B of the IPC contemplates that in order to constitute 83 Spl.C.C. No.190/2013 the said offence, there must be minimum two or more of such of the persons. So in this regard, the definition reads as under " when two or more persons agreed to do, or, caused to be done, ; (1) a legal act or (2) an act which is not legal by illegal means, such an agreement is designated as a criminal conspiracy." So, in the instant case, the bald allegation of the IO is that all the nine accused persons have involved in a unholy oral agreement to commit an offence which constitutes a criminal conspiracy.
51. In this regard, when I went through Ex.P.3, which is a private complaint given by PW. 3 Sadananda Swamy G.N., it is nothing but a pre-planned/calculated move on that 84 Spl.C.C. No.190/2013 person to set a criminal law in motion by blaming accused Nos.1 and 2 only. In fact, in the cross-examination of PW. 3, he makes it very clear that but for accused No.1 Smt.Jayamma, he had not given complaint against accused No.2 to 9. So, the question now arises is when it is not the case of PW.3/complainant that except accused No.1, accused No.2 to 9 have not committed any alleged offence how it was visualized by PW. 17 to 20 who are the Investigating Officers that along with 1st accused, accused Nos.2 to 9 have also involved in commission of an offence to begin with offence under Sec.120B of the IPC.
52. When we undertake chromatography of the prosecution allegations, it looks that as 85 Spl.C.C. No.190/2013 the 1st and 2nd accused have designed for themselves that they must not only claim compensation in respect of 5 acres of land in Sy.No. 6 of Lingadheeranahalli, but also making an attempt to claim 5 compensatory sites. It is also the say of PW. 3 that this 1 st accused having taken the role of a land grabber approaches the Bengaluru South Taluk Office first with her application that her name has to be entered in RTC in respect of above extent and Sy.No. of that village, then she must also to be issued with certified copy of the same. Secondly, according to the prosecution, once the 1st accused is comfortable with entering her name in computerized RTC, then she focused her attention of getting those computer 86 Spl.C.C. No.190/2013 documents. So that, she can claim the computer generated copies from the said office in turn same can be presented to Land Acquisition Section of BDA, Bengaluru. So far as Bengaluru South Taluk Office is concerned, it is two purported legal acts of Jayamma, then venue has been shifted from Bengaluru South Taluk Office to BDA, Madhavanagar, Bengaluru.
53. The latter half of the allegation of PW. 3 found in Ex.P. 3 is that one more application with concocted and created documents were enclosed to Ex.P. 3, it was presented in the Tapal Section of BDA, then with her application with documents has traveled different tables and different hierarchy of officials at BDA and finally she was successful 87 Spl.C.C. No.190/2013 in not only in getting the said compensation amount, but also 5 compensatory sites. The PW.3 in a hurry to give a complaint against the 1st accused and 2nd accused seems to have made a mistake in admitting the fact that the moment 1st accused gave her application with documents to the BDA, the 5th accused who was the Spl.LAO also called for additional report in respect of genuineness of the revenue documents submitted by the 1st accused from the Spl.Tahasildar, Bengaluru South Taluk, so, this PW. 3 himself admits that the application along with the documents submitted by the 1st accused claiming compensation was not blindly acted or accepted by the land acquisition section of BDA.
88
Spl.C.C. No.190/2013
54. This Court is also called upon to give its finding as to present set of circumstances, where PW.3 and 17 to 20 are questioning the sanctity of Ex.P. 31 and 32 which are the preliminary and final notification, whether this Court has got that authority and power to look it into the same. According to me, in respect of ascertaining as to whether proper or correct procedures have been followed prior to issuance of Ex.P. 31 and 32 are concerned, as a Special Criminal Court, this Court has no jurisdiction at all. It is a complete domain of the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka and Hon'ble Apex Court and nothing else. It is the admission of PW. 3, and 17 to 20 that as on the date of Ex.P. 3 or as on the date of submitting the charge sheet, either the 89 Spl.C.C. No.190/2013 preliminary notification or the final notification were challenged. So, the entire exercise undertaken by the prosecution that the 1st accused with the able assistance of accused Nos.2 to 9 have forged, concocted and created the revenue documents in her name only to engulf the compensation and compensatory sites falls to the ground.
55. Now the allegation made by the prosecution that the 1st accused has hatched a criminal conspiracy with other co-accused shall have to be explained by them. When we go through the complete evidence of PW. 3, this aspect is silent. In fact from the contents of Ex.P. 3 and ocular evidence of PW. 3, what can be deciphered is the sole fact that this PW. 3 is only a name lender. In fact even in 90 Spl.C.C. No.190/2013 the cross-examination, he admits that he has no documents to show that he was a chief editor and a reporter of Bharath Sarathi news paper and also office bearers of a Motor vehicle association and a trade union leader. Except Ex.P. 3, no documents have been filed from PW. 3 side. But, a suggestion was made in the cross-examination of this PW. 3 that he is associated with one Mr.Ashok Kheni, Contractor to which there is an evasive reply from this person. It was also suggested that this PW. 3 has already filed 20 criminal cases against 2nd accused Panchalingaiah and in all 20 cases, the 2nd accused has been enlarged on regular bail. So, these aspects considered along with the allegations exclusively made against accused No.1 and 2 that they were 91 Spl.C.C. No.190/2013 instrumental in grabbing not only the money, but also the money of the Government has to be looked into with great care and caution.
56. In Ex.P.3, when we look into paragraphs- 11, 13,16 and 19, the contents therein only attacks the role of the 1st accused and nothing else. Lastly, in paragraphs 23 to 25 and the prayer column, the complainant comes out with an allegation under Sec.120B of IPC made against the accused Nos.1 to 5. Now, the question is whether PW. 17 Mr.Abdul Ahad, who in view of the direction of his superior automatically registered the case in their office crime number or they had time to look into the contents of the complaint. No doubt, when the complaint is given by a complainant either directly or through the 92 Spl.C.C. No.190/2013 Court, there cannot be a greater discretion available to the SHO of the Police Station or a separate investigating agency like Lokayukta. But, there is that much of discretion to make discrete enquiry as to the allegation made against the accused constitute a cognizance offence or not. In the instant case, when the Ex.P. 3 and the evidence of PW. 3 are gone through, it raises doubt in respect of the manner in which the case has been registered against the accused Nos.1 to 9.
57. In this regard, when we look into the oral testimony of PW. 3, again same is slightly disappointing, because the way in which this witness has given evidence is rather shocking. In the cross-examination, there are some admissions which is extracted below can only 93 Spl.C.C. No.190/2013 show before the Court that he is only a name lender and nothing else. Some of the admissions are :
"At the time of filing this complaint, I did not ascertained about the procedures followed by the land grant committee with respect to the land of Jayamma. ... It is true that from 1954 till the filing of this complaint said 5 acres of land in Sy.No. 6 of Lingadheeranahalli Village was standing in the name of A1 Jayamma. ... I don't know the fact that Siddalingaprabhu was murdered by Ashok Kheni. I do not know the fact that I colluding with Ashok Kheni I have filed 20 cases against A2 panchalingaiah. ... I can read English but I cannot understand some words. It is true that I have not produced any documents before the Court to show that I am an editor of Bharatha Sarathi. ... I do not know as to who has awarded compensation to this land. ... It is true that any order passed by the Subordinate revenue officer should be challenged before the higher authority. ... It is true that about 30 years earlier to 2012, name of the accused No.1 is appearing in RTC pertaining to Sy.No. 6 of Lingadheeranahalli."
58. These are all some of the admissions given by this witness generally touching the contents of Ex.P. 3. But the root of the matter 94 Spl.C.C. No.190/2013 is, this person who has set the criminal law in motion even does not have slightest of common sense as to how procedures are followed and adopted in either acquiring the farmers agricultural lands for public purpose either by the BDA or any other autonomous body. Following are some of the admissions which that Ex.P. 3 is not targeted against all the accused, which is extracted as below:
"It is true that I have not filed my complaint against A6 Ramegowda and A7 H.T.Ramegowda. ... It is true that I have not filed my complaint against A9 C.Veerabadraiah."
59. Above admissions of this PW. 3 cannot show as to what was the criminal conspiracy of the accused for hatching in commission of the alleged offence as found in the charge sheet.
95
Spl.C.C. No.190/2013
60. Coming to the evidence of PW. 17, this Police Officer has also given evidence and comes to the conclusion that having registered the case in their office Cr.No.16/2012 has registered the FIR vide Ex.P. 47 and his examination-in-chief spoke about the nature of the documents collected by him. But, he sums up the entire charge sheet or his investigation by giving evidence that 5th accused has not followed certain rules while disbursing compensation to the 1st accused. According to him, he should have verified the documents in respect of Sy.No. 6/PA 5 acres of land in Lingadheeranahalli. Again this witness touches Ex.P. 6 and 7 Indemnity bond and affidavit in respect of the age factor of the 1st accused.
96
Spl.C.C. No.190/2013
61. Lastly, according to this witness, he attacks the letter written by the BDA to the Tahasildar, South Taluk dtd.08-06-2006 calling upon information and documents in respect of the land of the 1st accused. According to this person, he notices insertions in the Tapal book of BDA in between 14th and 16th dates which according to him smacks doubt. Likewise, when he went through the order sheet found in File No.2, pages 142 to 148, some proceedings and orders have been inserted in the middle, so according to him, all the accused have hatched a criminal conspiracy only to help the accused No.1 and nothing else. But, in the cross-examination, this portion of examination-in-chief extracted above has been very badly jolted. Because, he 97 Spl.C.C. No.190/2013 gives admission which uproots the entire examination-in-chief. Some of which are extracted as below:
"I do not know as per the Land Grant Rules whether any Government property can be granted in favour of minor or not. ... I cannot say by going through the indemnity bond document as to which particular clerk of that BDA section first received that document. ... I did not sent the Tapal register found in the BDA office which I felt that it could have been tampered for scientific examination and expert opinion to the FSL, Madiwala, Bengaluru. ... During my investigation, I did not ascertained that who was the Tapal assistant/concerned staff of the BDA as on 14-06-2006. ... It is true to suggest that during my investigation I have not subjected either the first accused or her family member to collect information in respect of date of birth of the first accused. I have not confronted documents such as bank document, indemnity bond and voters ID to the first accused in the direction of ascertaining her correct date of birth."
62. So, the question would be what amount of value or weightage has to be attached to the evidence of PW. 17. It is not only this person even PW. 18, her focus was to find out 98 Spl.C.C. No.190/2013 the discrepancy in the revenue records which are in the nature of RTC, Mutation Register, Indemnity bond and affidavit of the 1st accused. Even admitting for the sake of arguments that they are created and concocted for achieving illegal design, but the way which was available for all the Investigating Officers were not to straight away book the criminal case against them. In a hurry to hold investigation on the basis of Ex.P. 3, all the Investigating Officers have lost sight of limitation aspect. Now, it is the admission of both PWs.17 and 18 that from the year 1954 onwards name of the 1 st accused is found in the RTC pertaining to Sy.No. 6 of Lingadheeranahalli. If according to them, this entry is inserted in the said 99 Spl.C.C. No.190/2013 revenue records, then when that insertion took place, which year and when was this came to the knowledge of the Lokayukta police. In that regard, no investigation seems to have been made. Likewise, when according to them, Sy.No. 6 of Lingadheeranahalli was a Sarkari Mufath Kaval or a gomala land, it could not have been granted to any body muchless the 1st accused when minor, why family members of the 1st accused were not subjected to thorough investigation, why their statements have not been recorded. Still these aspects eludes this Court. According to me, when the investigating officer undertakes investigation on the basis of a complaint/report or a private complaint, first bonafides of the complaint shall has to be 100 Spl.C.C. No.190/2013 cross-checked. In the instant case, PW. 3 is none other than a name lender is very much associated with a person who is politically and otherwise influential, why this minimum enquiry has not been done on their behalf is still a million dollar question.
63. Coming to this aspect, if Sec.120B of the IPC has to be attracted along with accused No.1, there must be at least one or two persons, even if this Court were to consider two accused as one of the abater of the offences along with the 1st accused, but as admitted by PW.3, he has no grievance against the 2nd accused and his intention was not to give a police complaint against Panchalingaiah accused No.2. Then who are the other co-accused persons who are directly 101 Spl.C.C. No.190/2013 involved.
64. Lastly, if a Police Officer detects there is an illegal act committed by a public servant, any lapses, shirking of responsibility while these Investigating Officers are undertaking investigation, the first requirement of law is immediately they have to give a written complaint to the superiors. Admittedly, all documents which are scrutinized by the IOs are public documents kept and maintained in the respective offices either with the Tahsildar or BDA offices. All the documents their validity can be questioned by anybody. Why these disputed documents according to the prosecution are not challenged.
65. Finally when specimen signatures are 102 Spl.C.C. No.190/2013 taken and they were sent to FSL along with some documents, why a fair opportunity was not given to the 9th accused to at least to answer the FSL report which has gone against them. Another important aspect is that FSL report according to PW. 18 only says that signature found on Ex.P. 30 does not belonged to accused No.9 or Spl.Tahsildar and other two clerks of Bengaluru South Taluk Office, but it does not say that it belonged to some Tom, Dick and Harry. So, here without calling for objections on the scientific report, Investigating Officers have no power to accept it or cast aspersions on any persons saying that they have committed wrong. This entire procedure adopted by the PWs.17 to 19 are not only against acceptable 103 Spl.C.C. No.190/2013 procedures, but I should say it is against a rudimentary principles of criminal jurisprudence itself. Hence, according to me, in respect of Sec.120B of IPC, prosecution has utterly failed make out any case against accused Nos.1 to 9. Accordingly, I answer this point No.1 in the negative. POINT NOs. 2 to 11:
66. I have taken up joint discussion on these points for consideration for the sole reason that the evidence led by the prosecution both oral and documentary are comprehensive in nature and none of the prosecution witnesses have given clear cut evidence touching each of the accused for the alleged each offences.
67. Now, the alleged offences highlighted by 104 Spl.C.C. No.190/2013 the prosecution is that all the accused Nos.1 to 9 have also committed offences punishable under Secs.177, 167, 465, 467, 471 to 473 and 475 of the Indian Penal Code with Sec.420 of the IPC. All these allegations made against all the accused persons alleging that they have given forged documents and made public servants to act upon them knowing fully well that they are not genuine, created and concocted documents, they are forged with a sole purpose of cheating the exchequer of the Government, etc. So, the main target is, it is not even the 2nd accused but, his sister the 1st accused. So, the prosecution is here to make a ground that the very first act of the 1 st accused in giving her application to insert her name in the Ex.P. 31 and 32 and also to 105 Spl.C.C. No.190/2013 insert her name in the computerized RTCs are a preplanned act. In order to make it very strong, even the Investigating Officer of this case have left no stone unturned, because they have also invoked Sec,192A of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, whereby it is a penal clause makes it very clear that any person creates or forges any revenue documents, thereby making the public servant to act upon the same is punishable with a simple imprisonment for a term not exceeding 3 years and also liable to pay the fine amount. So, according to me, the entire thrust that was supplied by the prosecution by way of its oral and documentary evidence is to first find fault with the 1 st accused, then the public servants who were the revenue as 106 Spl.C.C. No.190/2013 well as officers attached to BDA.
68. In the instant case, having gone through the oral testimonies of 20 witnesses, I should say when we examine the evidence of PW. 18, Dr.Ashwini who was the high ranking Police Officer who was the Dy.S.P. who has undertaken further investigation of this case tried to focus her attention in respect of how the revenue documents which were forged by the 1st accused with the help of some public servants was successful in manoevuring the same only for the purpose of enriching herself with the compensation amount and also was successful in claiming 5 compensatory sites. As a prelude to holding my further discussion, I would like to pick one or two instances in the examination of PW. 18 to 107 Spl.C.C. No.190/2013 streamline the efforts on the part of the prosecution to prove its case. In paragraph- 18 of her examination-in-chief, she noticed both preliminary and final notifications at Ex.P. 31 and 32 and reference to the revenue endorsements in respect of Sy.No.; 6 totally measuring 27 acres 21 guntas of Lingadheeranahalli as Sarkari Mufath Kaval. Likewise, she also touches Ex.P. 6 and P.7 which refers to the age of the 1st accused as 55 years. Coming to paragraph-13 of her examination-in-chief she touches letter dtd.07-05-2012 received from Spl.LAO and also Inward Register extract and refers to Sl.No.453 and it is her evidence, which is extracted as below:
" But, what I have noticed in the said document is that all the entries above this Sl.No.453 entry relates back to 14-06- 108 Spl.C.C. No.190/2013 2006. Below Sl.No.453 date relates back to 15-06-2006 where 4 entries are made (Sl.No.454 to 457). Subsequently, entries of the date 16-06-2006 stars. This could be found in Ex.P. 74."
69. So, this evidence was let in by PW. 18 to show that even the letter correspondence that has taken place between the office of South Taluk and that of the BDA Land Acquisition Sections are staged managed by the 1 st and 2nd accused and this witness speaks about Ex.P. 42, which is also in respect of exchange of correspondences finds fault with reference number and its letter and dates. This investigation takes on further to the another aspect which is extracted below:
"I noticed from the note sheet which is at Ex.P. 36 that accused No.5 passes an order on 20-07-2006 to prepare sketch and mahazar of the acquired land. But, this mahazar was done on 12-06-2006 which is almost one month prior to the note sheet of the 5 th accused referred to supra. True 109 Spl.C.C. No.190/2013 copy of the mahazar dtd.12-06-2006 is marked at Ex.P. 77."
70. Further according to this witness, the mahazar and sketch are forged and created documents and it is in continuation to the pre-plan and before passing the order by the 5th accused in the note sheet, mahazar was prepared. So, some of the influencing factors which really calls for the attention and examination has been raised by this IO.
71. These forging of documents are all connected to above referred offences. Now, we have to examine what is the course left for the Police Officer or PW. 18 who have taken her investigation further. Here, may be on account of misconception or under a wrong motion all the Investigating Officers who laid 110 Spl.C.C. No.190/2013 their hands in this case have completely taken the responsibility of proving the public servants have gone wrong. Now, in order to know that what is the specific role of each of the accused more so public servants, in this direction none of the Police Officers/Investigating Officers have undertaken proper investigation. The very first requirement is that they must check the office order pertaining to each of the official as to what is the nature of work and the work entrusted to them with what type of official responsibility. In the instant case, PWs.17 to 20 are not even aware of the fact that whether accused Nos.3, 7 and 9 were entrusted with which of the public duty, because no office order is available before the Court in this 111 Spl.C.C. No.190/2013 case. It is the prerequisite and basic document that in order to find fault with a public servant, there must be an office order which should have to be maintained by the higher official of each office who is bestowed with administration work. In the instant case, but for the claim of some of the charge sheet witnesses, some of the public servants who are managing the duties were entrusted with that work has no documentary evidence or basis at all.
72. According to PW. 18, the act of 1st and 2nd accused in enriching themselves wrongfully by claiming compensation supported by wrongly entering the name of the 1 st accused to land bearing Sy.No. 6 measuring 5 acres of 112 Spl.C.C. No.190/2013 land in Lingadheeranahalli. But, in the cross- examination, this Police Officer does not know who was that RTC clerk, who inserted her name in the manuscript RTC in the year 1954 itself. It is not the case of PW.18 that either the name of the 1st accused was entered in the manual RTC subsequent to 1954, because it is the admitted case of the prosecution that from the year 1954-55 onwards, the name of Smt.Jayamma, the 1 st accused is being continuously referred in the RTC in respect of the above said Survey number. Likewise, when the name of the 1 st accused was entered in the computer what was the mistake done by the concerned computer operator, because it is admitted by the prosecution itself that on the basis of the 113 Spl.C.C. No.190/2013 order passed by the 4th accused who was the Spl.Tahsildar, name of the 1st accused was entered in the computer RTC, so some where in the line, there seems to be either a wrong notion or some aspects are unknown to these Police Officers. In this regard, when the examination of PW. 18 is looked into, it does not support the stand of the prosecution as she herself has ventilated in her examination- in-chief. Some of the aspects deposed in her examination-in-chief are culled out as below:
" I have looked into the Saguvali Chit which stood in the name of 1 st accused. I have not conducted any investigation as to who were the committee members in the grants committee when the saguvali chit was issued in favor of the 1 st accused.
73. I have extracted this admission because the 5th accused in his cross-examination of PW. 17 and 18 got confronted Ex.D. 5 which 114 Spl.C.C. No.190/2013 is the proceedings of the BDA. Likewise, this 4th accused also placed Ex.D. 4, which is the gazette notification in respect of acquisition of land belonging to Smt.Jayamma. So long as Ex.P. 31, P.32, D.4 and D.5 are not set aside in accordance with law, any investigation undertaken by PW. 18 in this direction may not convey any fruitful meaning.
74. The Investigating Officers of this case shall have to prove that public servant framing an incorrect document with intent to cause injury, furnishing false information, forgery, forging of records of Court or public registers, forgery of valuable security, Will, etc. forgery for the purpose of cheating using as genuine as forged documents, making or possessing counterfeit seal, etc. with intent to 115 Spl.C.C. No.190/2013 commit forgery. In the present case, firstly, the prosecution will have to bifurcate each of the allegations in respect of each of the count of offences.
75. In the instant case, even if assuming for the sake of arguments, to begin with, RTC was forged, same was tendered before the BDA, Land Acquisition Section for the purpose of committing an offence of cheating, then this alleged offence shall have to be elaborate and in that regard, prosecution will have to prove the same. Same yardsticks shall have to be applied to each of the offences while undertaking the investigation and proving these allegations. If this process is taken into consideration, the Investigating Officers themselves does not know as to 116 Spl.C.C. No.190/2013 which is the first point of time or on which particular date, the name of the 1st accused was inserted in RTC or her name was entered in respect of Sy.No. 6, 5 acres of land in Lingadheeranahalli, then comes the mutation register order that shall have to be followed by a separate revenue proceedings to be initiated by the Village Accountant, then the role of RTT Sheristedar, then the Manager of particular Nadakacheri, then the concerned Tahsildar, etc. Here each hierarchy of officials will have to be named first by taking into consideration the office order in this regard. The Learned Police Officer PW. 18, she gave evidence by highlighting the aspect that it is a glaring example where before the concerned officer seeks for a mahazar one 117 Spl.C.C. No.190/2013 month prior to his requisition, mahazar is kept ready, likewise when document is sought in respect of Sy.No. 6 of Lingadheeranahalli, they were provided by those officers, by then all those documents are stood in the name of 1st accused Smt.Jayamma, which was forged. If this contention is taken into consideration, question now comes is how can the LAO especially accused No.5 can foresee that one fine day in advance the 1st accused will file an application to seek for compensation. Likewise, accused No.3, 4 and 7 to 9 cannot predict that how the natural course of event will take place in respect of claim application of the accused.
76. Another aspect which according to me PW. 18 failed to convince this Court is, if 118 Spl.C.C. No.190/2013 wrongly her name is entered in respect of Sy.No. 6, 5 acres of land in Lingadheeranahalli, quite naturally other farmers with some extent of land in that survey number will have to fall short of measurements. If Sy.No. 6 of Lingadheerana- halli has totally 27 acres 21 guntas of land, if 5 acres of land in that total extent is assumed to be engulfed to Smt.Jayamma, definitely it will make the neighbouring farmers' extent of land fall short in measurement. Even in that scenario, definitely other farmers who are the beneficiaries of that saguvali chit in that survey number by now would have agitated wrongly or that there will be a boundary dispute. Surprisingly, not even a single person or a farmer is aggrieved so under such 119 Spl.C.C. No.190/2013 circumstance, the allegations registered by PW. 17 on the basis of cumulative evidence of PW. 3 and Ex.P. 3 seems to be ill-motivated. It may not be wrong if I say that there may be taint of political colour also. It is a simple arithmetic also that if any extent of land in any particular survey number wrongly claimed by any person that it may belongs to him, quite naturally, the neighbouring farmers may short in extent of their lands. So, this aspect has not been answered by PWs.17 to 20.
77. Coming to the admission of the 1st accused found in her indemnity bond and self declaration affidavit that she was 55 years when she executed those documents and on that basis the IOs. have come to a conclusion 120 Spl.C.C. No.190/2013 that the Saguvali chit which was granted in favour of the 1st accused when took place, this lady was hardly 2 years minor baby. So, the entire saguvali chit is a forged document. But, all the Investigating Officers from the time of registering Ex.P. 47, FIR, they had ample opportunity to question the said saguvali chit. But, nobody has taken this risk or dare enough to question the sanctity of that document. Again, it may be at the cost of repetition, I will clear that merely because IO is a high ranking Police Officer or a Police Officer entrusted and empowered with this type of investigation will not absolve them of taking a right course, questioning the sanctity and validity of the document. The right course would have been either to challenge 121 Spl.C.C. No.190/2013 the saguvali chit or the relevant RTC including mutation register which stand in the name of the 1st accused. But, in this regard, the proper procedure as contemplated under Secs.132 to 136 of Karnataka Land Revenue Act or as required under Sec.34 of the Specific Relief Act (unamended) has not been followed. Because, so long as there is no proper declaration and so long as relevant revenue entries are not set aside, the question of blaming anybody that they have committed either civil or criminal offence does not arise. In this regard, PW. 18 was exhaustively cross- examined by the counsel for the 1st accused. According to him, this Investigating Officer who is pinning hopes on the age factor of the 122 Spl.C.C. No.190/2013 accused should have taken the lead in examining the family members of the 1 st accused, but she has not done. The relevant admissions given by this witness is extracted as under:
" I did not verify as to whether the date of birth of the 1 st accused is registered with Registrar of Birth and Deaths. I came to know and reliability learnt that 1 st accused is an illiterate. ... It is true to suggest that I did not made any enquiry in respect of the age of the 1 st accused with her family members. ... It is true to suggest that by the time 1 st accused gave her public documents for KYC process to the bank by then the entire process of land acquisition i.e., passing of both preliminary and final notifications had taken place. ... I do not know Sy.No.6 of Lingadheeranahally whether has undergone any Phodi proceedings or not. I have not verified Mysuru Manual Registers or to the fact that after grant of land the said file will be transmitted to survey department for further Phodi proceedings.
78. So under this circumstances, entire allegations made in respect of the 1 st accused submitting forged documents with BDA and prior to it filing an application before the 123 Spl.C.C. No.190/2013 Tahsildar, Bengaluru South Taluk Office seeking for insertion of her name and her lands in the computer will not sustain for consideration at all. In fact, I should say in the entire cross-examination of PW. 18 what is imminent is the fact that hurriedly these PWs.19 and 20 have jumped to wrong conclusion on the basis of those documents which don't carry the evidentiary weightage (conclusive proof). At the costs of repetition, I say that merely on the basis of Commissioner's report, merely on the basis of discrepancy found in the letter correspondences, which took place between office of Bengaluru South Taluk office and Land Acquisition section of BDA, it cannot be concluded that everything was not right in the 124 Spl.C.C. No.190/2013 State of Rome.
79. Like wise, during the course of arguments the learned counsel for the 1st accused and 5th accused submitted that none of the original documents seized by a Police Officer in another Crime Number of their Lokayukta Office has not been received in this case. They went on to submit that even now, there are no original documents in respect of seized documents from the office of Tahsildar, Bengaluru South Taluk, but only on the basis of true copies and some certified copies, an effort is made to show that the accused have committed wrong. According to me, it can only on the basis of original documents, a fair investigation can be undertaken. However, secondary evidence can be led but the 125 Spl.C.C. No.190/2013 prosecution has set up a case and then seek permission to lead secondary evidence to show before the Court that they were unable to lead primary evidence on account of compulsions which can Court take notice of. In the instant case, such circumstance has not arisen and the prosecution has not made any such attempts in this direction.
80. Then, coming to the evidence of PW. 19 by name V.P.M.Swamy who spoke to the fact that he was appointed as the IO in Cr.No.14/2012 and he spoke about seizing documents in connection with that case. According to him, he received the FSL report and on 29-1-2013 some documents seized by them were directly handed over to PW. 18 in this Cr.No.16/12. He gives the details of the 126 Spl.C.C. No.190/2013 documents handed over to PW. 18. But, in the cross-examination, he admits that so far as this case is concerned, no separate mahazar was drawn and process of transferring the seized documents in another case, but only on the request of PW. 18. Some of the admissions given by this witness in the cross- examination becomes relevant is extracted below:
" ನನ ಅಪರಧ ಸಖಖ ಖ 16/2012 ರಲಲ
ಜಪಪ ಪಡಸಕಕಡತಹ ದಖಲಯನನ ಈ ಪಪ ಕರಣಕಕ
ಸಬಧಸದತ ಪಪ ಸ -18 ರವರ ಪಡದಕಕಡರತಪ ರ .
ಅಪರಧ ಸಖಖ ಖ 14/2012 ರಲಲ ವಶಪಡಸಕಕಡತಹ
ದಖಲಗಳನನ ನನ ಈ ಪಪ ಕರಣದ ಪಪ ಸ -18 ರವರಗ ಅಪರಧ ಸಖಖ ಖ 16/2012 ರಲಲ ಕಟಟ ರತಪ ತನ . ಈ ದಖಲಗಳನನ ನನ ಅವರಗ ದಖ 17.05.2013 ರದ ಕಟಟ . ಅಪರದ ಸಖಖ ಖ 16/2012 ರಲಲ ವಶಪಡಸ - ಕಕಡತಹ ದಖಲಗಳಗ ಆಗಲ ನಖ ಯಲಯಕಕ ಮಲ ಪಟಟ ಸಲಲ ಸಲಗತಪ . ಅಪರಧ ಸಖಖ ಖ 14/2012 ರಲಲ ನನ ಈ ಪಪ ಕರಣದ ಪಪ ಸ 18 ರವರಗ ಕಟಟ ಕತಹ ದಖಲಗಳನನ ಜಪಪ ಪಡಸಕಕಡರವದಲಲ " .
81. So, none of the documents received from this witness by PW. 18 have not been seized 127 Spl.C.C. No.190/2013 under law. So, these aspects have only helped the accused to claim that for the past more than a decade or so, they are facing these criminal litigations for no fault on them and even now after long efflux of time the prosecution is even now unable to establish its case beyond all shadow of doubt.
82. In this regard, learned counsel for accused No.1 relying upon a decision reported in 2011(10) SCC 786 in the case of Sherimon Vs. State of Kerala, wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held as under:
"Penal Code, 1860 -S.120B r/w S.324
-Conspiracy- Meeting of minds, not proved- Conviction reversed-Trial Court convicted appellant, A4, A2 and A3 under S.324 r/w S.120-B and A1 under S.302-Appeal dismissed by High Court-Appellant, a financier allegedly hatched a criminal conspiracy with A1, A2 and A3 to seize auto-rickshaw for which PW. 4 was defaulter- On 31-3-1999 while deceased was driving said auto-rickshaw, A1, A2 and A3 caused injuries to deceased and took away auto- rickshaw -Admittedly appellant was not present 128 Spl.C.C. No.190/2013 when offence was committed- No overt act attributed to him- to prove charge of conspiracy, prosecution has to establish that there was an agreement between accused to do, or cause to be done an illegal act, or an act which is not illegal by illegal means-There must be a meeting of minds-No direct or indirect evidence on the basis of which conspiracy could be inferred- PW.5, only witness to prove alleged meeting between appellant and other accused, turned hostile -Held, it cannot be concluded on basis of certain documents pertaining to said auto rickshaw, that appellant entered into a conspiracy with A1 to A3 to repossess said auto rickshaw because loan amount was not repaid- Evidence on record is totally inadequate to come to such a conclusion.
83. And this was hard pressed by the 1st accused counsel to submit before the Court in order to attract Sec.120B, the prosecution has failed to prove that there is meeting of minds. In the instant case, according to him, the 1st and 2nd accused should have held a meeting or there must be with con-senses to come together with other accused to commit an illegal act. Likewise, in respect of the present criminal trial has been set in motion 129 Spl.C.C. No.190/2013 or started merely on suspicion or doubt which Mr.Sadananda Swamy G.N. PW.3 has entertained vide Ex.P. 3 without any basis. He relied upon another decision reported in 2013(12) SCC 406 Sujit Biswas Vs. State of Assam, wherein the Hon'ble Apex Court held as under:
A. Criminal Trial -Proof -Suspicion- Distinction between proof beyond reasonable doubt and suspicion, examined
-need for proof beyond reasonable doubt- Principles reiterated- Duty of court to ensure that mere conjectures or suspicion do not take place of legal proof -clear, cogent and unimpeachable evidence produced by prosecution, reiterated, is a must, before accused is condemned as convict - In present case of circumstantial evidence , guilt of appellant not proved beyond reasonable doubt -hence, conviction reversed.
84. Likewise, accused No.2 also relied upon the following decision to show that all the allegations made in respect of furnishing false information, inducing the public servants to 130 Spl.C.C. No.190/2013 act upon forged documents knowing not genuine and also cheating the State exchequer by enriching by taking compensation amount with 5 compensatory sites have relied upon the decision reported in 2009(8) SCC 751 in the case of Mohammed Ibrahim & others Vs. State of Bihar & another, wherein the Hon'ble Apex Court has held as under:
A. Criminal procedure Code, 1973 -S.482
-Disputes which essentially are civil in nature, filed as criminal complaints- criminal court's duty to check abuse of process -Held, criminal courts should ensure that criminal proceedings are not misused for settling scores or pressurizing parties to settle civil disputes-However, civil disputes in some cases may also contain ingredients of criminal offences- such disputes have to be entertained notwithstanding they are also civil disputes. B. Penal Code, 1860- Ss.464, 24, 25, 29 and 29A - False document- what constitutes
- Held, a person is said to have made a false document, if (I) he made or executed a document claiming to be someone else or authorized by someone else; or (ii) he altered or tampered with a document; or (iii) he obtained a document by practicing deception, or from a person not in control of 131 Spl.C.C. No.190/2013 his senses- further held, in the first category of false documents, it is not sufficient that the document has been made/executed dishonestly or fraudulently- there is the further requirement that the document should have been made with the intention of causing it to be believed that such document was made/executed by, or by the authority of a person, by whom or by whose authority he knows that it was not made or executed-Fraud/malafides - False document.
C. Penal Code, 1860 - Ss.467,471, 463 and 464 - Forgery of a document purporting to be a valuable security (S.467) - using of forged document as genuine (S.471) -
ingredients of the said offences -Held, basic ingredient of both the offences is that there should be forgery as defined in S.463 and forgery in turn depends upon creation of a "false document" as defined in S.464 -If there is no "false document" as defined in S.464, offences under Ss.467 and 471 are not made out -Further held, mere execution of a sale deed by claiming that property being sold was executant's property, did not amount to commission of offences under Ss.467 and 471 even ff title to property did not vest in the executant -This was for the reason that no 'false document" as defined in S.464, was created.
85. He has also relied on the decision reported in 2011 (4) SCC 240 in the case of H.Siddiqui dead by LRs Vs.A. Ramalingam, wherein the Hon'ble Apex 132 Spl.C.C. No.190/2013 Court has held as under:
A. Evidence Act, 1872 -Ss.65,66,67, 73, 58 & 22 -secondary evidence as to contents of document -Photocopy of document as secondary evidence -when admissible
-admission of document -What amounts to
-admitting signature in photocopy of document, held, does not amount to admitting contents of document -Were original documents are not produced at any time, nor any factual foundation laid for giving secondary evidence , it is impermissible to allow a party to adduce secondary evidence - Secondary evidence must be authenticated by foundational evidence that alleged copy is in fact true copy of the original -Further held, secondary evidence relating to contents of a document is inadmissible, until non-production of original is accounted for - In instant case, trial court inferred that there was a specific admission by respondent that he had executed power of attorney in favour of his brother, since he admitted his signature on photocopy of power of attorney
-sustainability - held, admission of a document or its contents may not necessarily lead to drawing any inference unless contents thereof have some probative value - On facts, respondent had merely admitted his signature on photocopy of power of attorney and did not admit contents thereof-Hence, drawing inference by trial Court without determining probative value of such admission, held unwarranted - practice and procedure -Admission.
86. These decisions were relied on by learned counsel for accused Nos.1 and 5 to 133 Spl.C.C. No.190/2013 highlight before the Court that allegations of fraud, forgery, misrepresentation and coercion shall have to be proved beyond reasonable doubt and cannot be only on the basis of suspicion. Of course, the dictum and ratio laid down in the above said cases by the Hon'ble Apex Court squarely apply to the case on hand.
87. Lastly, when we analyze the evidence of PW. 20 who was the Investigating Officer who submitted the charge sheet also sounds slightly strange. According to him, when he was the Dy.S.P., KLA, City Division, he was directed to undertake further investigation of the case and he was also in charge of Dy.S.P. Circle-4, his superior Officer directed him to prepare charge sheet and submit the same to 134 Spl.C.C. No.190/2013 the jurisdictional Court. But, in the cross- examination, he admits that all the documents which he verified in respect of the 1st accused Sy.No. 6, 5 acres of land in Lingadheeranahalli stood in the name of that lady. It is also his admission that those revenue documents have not been questioned by anybody. Said admission is extracted as below:
"ನ .ಪ . 66 ರ ಪಪ ಕರ ಭ ಸಸ ಧತನದ ಪರಹರದ ಆದಶವನನ ಮಡದದ ಅದಕಕ ಅಕತಮವಗ ಬ .ಡ .ಎ .
ಆಯಕಪ ರ ತಮಮ ಸಹಯನನ ಅನಮತದನಗಗ ಮಡರತಪ ರ ಎಕದರ ಸರ . ಆ ದಖಲಗಳಲಲ 5 ನ ಆರತಪಯ ಸಹ ಮತಪ ಬ .ಡ .ಎ . ಆಯಕಪ ರ ಸಹಗಳ ಸಹ ಕಡಬರತಪ ವ ಎಕದರ ಸರ . ನ .ಪ . 66 ರ ಸಕಧತಸ ವನನ ಈ ಕಣದವರಗ ಯರ ಸಹ ಯವ ಪಪ ಧಕರ , ಯವ ನಖ ಯಲಯದಲಲ ಪಪ ಶನ ಸಲಲ ಎಕದ ಸಚಸದರ ಅದ ಸರ . ... ದತಷರತಪಣ ಪಟಟ ಯ ಸರಕಶ ಅಕದರ ರಜಖ ಸಕರರದ ಬಕಕ ಸಕಕ 9 ಜನ ಆರತಪತರ ಅಪರಧಕ ಒಳಸಚನ ಮಲಕ ನಷಟ ಉಕಟಮಡದದ ರ ಎನನ ವ ಆರತಪವನನ ನನ ನರವಗ ಕನರಟಕ ಸಕರರಕಕ ಗಲತ ಅಥವ ಗರವನಸ ತ ಲತಕಯಕಪ ರ , ಬಕಗಳರ ಇವರ ಗಮನಕಕ ತದಲಲ ."
88. So, this answer on the part of PW. 20 135 Spl.C.C. No.190/2013 only show that they have mechanically and blindly accepted the contents of Ex.P. 3. Moreover, I have discussed earlier, in the cross-examination of PW. 3 Sadananda Swamy G.N. admits that he has already filed 20 criminal cases against 2nd accused, who works for one Mr.Ashok Kheni and that to show that he is the Chief Editor of Bharath Sarathi newspaper he has no documents, can only show that Ex.P. 3 is politically motivated. Even if the prosecution were to contend that there are some documents which are highly suspicious, then before registering Ex.P. 47, first they must get challenged the mutation register directing the revenue authorities to enter the name of the 1st accused in respect of Sy.No.6, 5 acres of land in Lingadheeranahalli 136 Spl.C.C. No.190/2013 in the computerized RTCs, then Saguvali Chit in her name has to be questioned, lastly, the name of the 1st accused in the land acquisition notifications, then the proceedings written in Ex.P. 36 note sheets. All these documents involved the participation and application of mind of several public servants whether they are with revenue department or with BDA Land Acquisition Section. No doubt, in the long run, there may be one or two of such stray incident/s which might be procedurally wrong. If once such lapses are detected, it must be brought to the notice of the higher authorities and suitable action has to be initiated under KCSR (rules). Till these things happen, any Police Officer who undertakes the investigation cannot 137 Spl.C.C. No.190/2013 unilaterally brand or cannot make a public servant an accused in a criminal case. In the instant case, unfortunate aspect is that no notices were caused to the public servants who were later made accused, they were not asked to give reply in writing and in only some cases, their statements have been recorded under Sec.161 of Cr.P.C. Even those Police Officers who have done this have also not properly followed the procedures. Questioning of the public servant must be on a question and answer format and they must be given a fair chance to give the reply. Because, all the Investigating Officers are questioning the discharge of their official duties and not in their individual capacity. Another sorry state of affair is, no permission 138 Spl.C.C. No.190/2013 is sought from the superior or this fact is not brought to the notice of the Head of the Departments. According to me, these types of procedures adopted which has flaws definitely cannot be said to be by following principles of natural justice or due process of law.
89. As I have said earlier, when Investigating Officers have invoked Sec.192A of Karnataka Land Revenue Act, all the disputed revenue documents claimed by the Investigating Officers shall have to be questioned before the proper revenue authority. In the instant case, none of these aspects have been followed. Even in respect of collecting signatures of accused No.9 for sending the same for scientific examination, no proper procedure is followed. The moment the report is received 139 Spl.C.C. No.190/2013 from the said laboratory, Investigating Officers decides for themselves that these public servants has to be made as accused persons in the present case which procedure adopted is highly incorrect. I should say that an unnecessary weightage has been given to the contents of Ex.P. 3. Investigating Officers have not even checked that the BDA Land Acquisition section records and their accounts branch files as to whether the amount disbursed to the 1st accused as a compensation to which proper audit has taken place or not. Auditor's assistance has not taken by the I-O's in this case. So, these aspects clearly ventilate before the Court that these aspects might not have been considered on account of want of knowledge in this 140 Spl.C.C. No.190/2013 revenue law/rules area. So, even at the time of filing the charge sheet and as of now, none of the revenue documents alleged to have been disputed which stand in the name of the 1st accused have been set aside by any forum or Tribunal in accordance with law. Likewise, Ex.D. 5 has also not been questioned. Under such circumstances, the allegations in respect of the above said offences have not at all been proved by the prosecution beyond all reasonable doubt. But, for PW. 17 and 18, the rests of the Investigating Officers PW. 19 and 20 seems to have undertaken some portion of the investigation merely on documentary basis. So the prosecution failed to prove the guilt of these accused persons beyond all reasonable doubt Hence, I have 141 Spl.C.C. No.190/2013 answered these point Nos.2 to 11 in the negative.
POINT NOS.12 & 13
90. I have taken up joint discussion of these two points so as to avoid possible overlapping of my discussion.
91. At the costs of repetition it is stated that even though the accused Nos.1 and 2 are private persons, it is the direct allegation of PWs.17 and 18 that on account of handy work of accused Nos.3 to 9, offences pertaining to commission of some of them under Indian Penal Code and Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 together with Karnataka Land Revenue Act has taken place. Now, 142 Spl.C.C. No.190/2013 coming to the question on hand that accused Nos.3 to 9 in the capacity of public servants have by misusing their official positions accepted the pecuniary advantage from accused Nos.1 and 2, thereby offence of criminal misconduct so they have committed offences punishable under Sec.13(1)(c) and 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 directly the prosecutions' charges against these accused persons that accused Nos.3 to 9 have accepted the bribe. Firstly then, the prosecution shall have to prove that what was the demand from their side. As the prosecution has failed to prove all the accused Nos.3 to 9 have demanded and accepted bribe, so question of alleging that they have also committed criminal misconduct by 143 Spl.C.C. No.190/2013 showing extra favour or misuse of their official positions does not arise. But, in this regard, sorry state of affairs is that all the 20 witnesses excluding PWs.1 and 2 are only interested in speaking about the procedure adopted by the Revenue Department in carrying out any corrections in revenue record and steps to be adopted in land acquisition proceedings till disbursement of compensation cheque in this regard. According to me, PW. 18 being the high ranking Police Officer by name Dr.Ashwini has raised some of the important aspects touching the preset point for consideration.
92. According to PW-18, the revenue documents was so much forged that before an 144 Spl.C.C. No.190/2013 order could be passed for drawing a spot mahazar, that document was kept ready, when Ex.P. 31 and 32 are looked into, name of the 1st accused was not found and lastly that the reference letter number which is supposed to have been exchanged between the office of the Bengaluru South Taluk and BDA refers to Slum Board correspondence and nothing else. According to PW. 18, it was a pre-plan on the part of the 1 st accused not only to forge the revenue documents, but to get the saguvali chit in respect of 5 acres of land in Sy.No. 6 of Lingadheeranahalli on the ground that it was a grant from the Government. According to PW. 18, there can be no grant, because it was a gomala land/Sarkari Mufath kaval and that this lady 145 Spl.C.C. No.190/2013 i.e. accused No.1 hardly was 3 years of age as per Ex.P. 6 and P.7.
93. No doubt, these are the tenable contentions which will be an eye opener if proved by the prosecution in accordance with law. Now the only question is having come to know that such an illegal practice has taken place, the prosecution has failed to tap the proper course holding meticulous investigation. The scratch has to start from the day when this 1st accused made successful attempt to get her name enters in the revenue records in respect of that particular piece of land in Sy.No. 6 of Lingadheeranahalli. But, in this direction, no serious attempt was made, those public servants who are the root cause for this 146 Spl.C.C. No.190/2013 malpractice have not been booked, their involvements have not been established and the very first debacle is that none of the Investigating Officers have thought it fit to collect office orders in respect of the specific duties entrusted to the public servants, without knowing what was the specific work, responsibilities and accountability entrusted to public servants, how to find that he or she has committed wrong in office duties. So, this is the minimum requirement which is lacking in the present investigation.
94. So, I should say, even in respect of the age factor of the 1st accused, either PWs. 17 to 20 or any other competent officers should have moved the right public office to know what is the right age of the accused. Likewise, 147 Spl.C.C. No.190/2013 in this direction they have not even issued a notice either to the Asst. Commissioner, Deputy Commissioner or LAO, BDA to find out the truth as to what was the exact age of the 1st accused. According to me, merely harping upon Ex.P. 6 and P.7 may not serve any great purpose, because, they don't become conclusive proof by themselves. Another important aspect that the entire investigation has taken place on the true copies of the revenue documents. Because entire original documents pertaining to this case was seized in Cr.No.14/2012, so it is very unfortunate that there is no original documents in this case. This is what squarely admitted by PW. 19 in his cross-examination.
95. According to me, which of the public 148 Spl.C.C. No.190/2013 servant out of accused Nos.3 to 7 demanded for a bribe, what was the quantum whether that demand was for hard cash or in kind, to which there is no investigation at all. Likewise, which of the public servant out of accused Nos.3 to 9 accepted the bribe and from whom. During the course of arguments, the Learned Public Prosecutor repeatedly repeated that once the compensation cheque was issued in favour of the 1st accused, within no time that is less than 24 hours major part of the compensation amount was withdrawn from the bank account of the 1st accused. According to me, then what is wrong. There is no law/rule that, except statutory deductions, entire cheque amount cannot be withdrawn from bank account once the 149 Spl.C.C. No.190/2013 cheque is honoured. So, in this case an adverse inference cannot be drawn against the 1st accused contending that she withdrew major part of the compensation cheque amount only to pay bribes to accused Nos.3 to
9. This logic does not go hand in hand. It must be kept in mind that when the matter is rest before the Court, each and every aspect/allegations shall have to be proved by acceptable legal evidence and nothing else. So, under such circumstances, either demand for illegal gratification or accepting the same by accused Nos.3 to 9 has not at all been proved.
96. When PW. 18 gave her evidence, she repeatedly made it clear that it is their hard work which had made them to detect the 150 Spl.C.C. No.190/2013 scam both in revenue office and BDA office, who are bent upon enriching themselves the compensation amount wrongfully. According to me, this bald allegations has no legs to stand, because there are different hierarchy of officials and accepted legal system is such that at every stage, there is one or the other check and balances. In the instant case also, so far as revenue department is concerned, as per the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, each revenue entry can be questioned before the competent revenue forum. Likewise, when it comes to BDA, in fact the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka which has got a direct jurisdiction over any of the land acquisition matter under Article 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India through prerogative 151 Spl.C.C. No.190/2013 writs. In the instant case, this facility provided to any citizen of the Country, is not at all utilized by the Police Officers and the charge sheet allegations have remained only bald.
97. The PW.18 in her examination-in-chief focused her evidence mainly in respect of two documents i.e. to say Ex.P. 13 a letter written by her to Tahsildar, Bengaluru south Taluk Office dtd.06-02-2013 asking for a separate report in respect of grant of 5 acres of land in Sy.No. 6 of Lingadheeranahalli. Vide Ex.P. 14 the Tahsildar by name Shivappa H.lamani who also has been examined as PW. 4 gives a report which is baseless. According to him, as per Ex.P. 14, the 1st accused has committed serious wrong by getting her name 152 Spl.C.C. No.190/2013 inserted in the revenue records wrongly and the documents banked upon by her to claim the ownership and compensation over the said extent of land in Lingadheeranahalli is illegal. But the cat has come out of the basket. In the cross-examination of PW. 4, admission by this Shivappa H.Lamani is against the contents of Ex.P. 14. Some of which are extracted as below:
" It is true to suggest that I have not issued Ex.P.20. There is no mention in Ex.P.20 as to Sy.No.6 comes within the revenue circle of which hobli, village and other connected information in that document. ... It is true to suggest that when I issued Ex.P.14, I have not looked into the either revenue entries or endorsements found in RTCs issued for the year 1951-52".
98. So, the person who has given Ex.P. 14 is not even aware of the fact that what are the 153 Spl.C.C. No.190/2013 contents of those revenue documents in respect of which he submitted an affirmative report to PW. 18 in respect of Sy.No. 6 of Lingadheeranahalli. I have referred to the evidence of PW. 4 only for the reference sake that this Tahsildar has acted upon the true copies of the documents even not knowing as to where the originals are found. So, looked from any angle in respect of Sec.13(1)(c) and 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, no materials are forthcoming. Generally, allegations found in the charge sheet as well as evidence of PWs.17 and 18 are not sufficient and falls short of requirement to draw the conviction of accused Nos.1 to 6, 8 and 9.
99. Coming to Sec.192A of the Katakana 154 Spl.C.C. No.190/2013 Land Revenue Act is concerned, it is also in continuation to Secs.464 to 471 of IPC offences and nothing else. Of course Sec.192A of the said Act states that "anybody cheats and thereby dishonestly creates documents for the purpose of selling, mortgaging, transferring any gift or otherwise of any Government land shall be tenable with imprisonment for a period of 3 years and fine of Rs. 10,000/-".
100. But, in the instant case, none of the revenue documents commencing from RTC for the year 1954 onwards which even now stand in the name of the 1st accused and the mutation register No.5/2005-06 even to this day have not been questioned by anybody. 155
Spl.C.C. No.190/2013 Coming to Saguvali Chit, same thing has taken place because their validity has not been questioned by anybody. So, in view of Sec.127 of Karnataka Land Revenue Act is that, the available presumption spilling out from the said revenue documents showing stand good and subsists till the contrary is proved.
101. In the instant case, as these revenue entries have not been questioned, it will not lie in the mouth of the prosecution to say that they cannot be acted upon. Under such circumstances, these revenue documents even now show that the 1st accused was the absolute owner of 5 acres of land in Sy.No. 6 of Lingadheeranahalli, her name was later 156 Spl.C.C. No.190/2013 included in the preliminary as well as final notifications of BDA, which came to be acquired, so the 1st accused was able to receive her compensation in a sum of Rs. 41,90,567/- with 5 compensatory sites. Very interestingly, Ex.D. 4 and D.5 have also not been questioned by anybody including the Police Officers who undertook investigation of these connected matters. So, I am of the considered opinion that the prosecution has miserably failed to prove this aspect also. Accordingly I have answered these two points No.12 and 13 in the negative.
POINT NO.14:-
102. In this case so far as sanction order in respect of accused No.3 to 9 are concerned, in 157 Spl.C.C. No.190/2013 view of the death of the 7th accused that will not arise at all, as per the evidence of PW-18 by the time charge sheet was submitted accused Nos. 3 to 5 and 7 were retired from service no sanction was obtained and in respect of two officials who are accused Nos.6 and 8, already this court has touched this aspect while passing orders on discharge application of those accused persons earlier. Subsequently this aspect was not seriously contested by those accused persons who were public servants at the relevant point of time.
103. Having gone through the materials, it has shown that the present case is that series of criminal cases where the Special Criminal Courts are made as a platform by the Karnataka Lokayukta Police Officers to 158 Spl.C.C. No.190/2013 question the validity of revenue documents, but unfortunately this Court has no power or jurisdiction to hold any revenue document as correct or incorrect, because that revenue jurisdiction exclusively vests with revenue Courts only. So long as revenue documents are not held to be incorrect and illegal till then, looking into each of the allegations made against accused Nos.1 to 9 does not arise at all. Under such circumstances, the prosecution has taken more than a decade only to show before the Court that revenue documents which stand in the name of the 1 st accused are forged documents. Likewise, the Investigating Officers should have bestowed their attention in questioning these revenue documents which they have not done. So this 159 Spl.C.C. No.190/2013 is a befitting case, where benefit of doubt shall have to be extended to accused Nos.1 to 6, 8 and 9. So far as the 7th accused is concerned, on account of his untimely death, this proceedings against him already stands abated. Hence, with these observations, I proceed to pass the following:
O R DE R Acting under Sec.248 (1) of the Cr.P.C., the accused Nos.1 to 6, 8 and 9 are hereby acquitted of the offences punishable under Secs. 167, 177, 420, 465, 466, 468, 471 to 474 r/w Sec. 120B of IPC, Secs.192A of The Karnataka Land Revenue Act with Sec. 13(1)(c) and 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act,1988.
160
Spl.C.C. No.190/2013 The bail and surety bonds of the accused Nos.1 to 6, 8 and 9 and their surety/ies shall stand hereby cancelled.
(Dictated to the Stenographer-I, transcript thereof and then corrected, signed and pronounced by me in the open Court on this the 18 th DAY OF APRIL 2024).
(S.V.SRIKANTH), LXXVII ADDL. CITY CIVIL & SESSIONS JUDGE & SPECIAL JUDGE, BENGALURU CITY.
161 Spl.C.C. No.190/2013 A NN E X U R E LIST OF WITNESSES EXAMINED FOR PROSECUTION: PW.1 K.Shivaram PW.2 Shyam Bhat PW.3 Sadananda Swamy G.N. PW.4 Shivppa H.Lamani PW.5 K.T.Shashidar PW.6 A.M.Suresh PW.7 Smt.Veena PW.8 Smt.Vijaya B.Kolhapur PW.9 C.Gangadharaiah PW.10 R.Bhagya PW.11 H.Mohan PW.12 T.T.Dakshayani PW.13 U.Dasappa PW.14 R.Venkatachalapathy PW.15 H.L.Shivaramu PW.16 Santhosh Kumar .N PW.17 Abdul Ahad PW.18 M.Ashwini PW.19 V.P.M.Swamy PW.20 M.Narayana LIST OF DOCUMENTS MARKED FOR PROSECUTION: Ex.P.1 Sanction order in respect of A8 Ex.P.1(a) Signature of PW. 1 Ex.P.2 Sanction order in respect of A6 Ex.P.2(a) Signature of PW. 2 162 Spl.C.C. No.190/2013 Ex.P.3 Complaint Ex.P.3(a) Signature of PW. 3 Ex.P.4 Copy of Application of A1 to Spl.LAO Ex.P.5 Copy of mutation Ex.P.6 Copy of Indemnity bond Ex.P.7 Copy of Affidavit executed by Jayamma Ex.P.8 Copy of Grant certificate Ex.P.9 Copy of Register of Saguvali chit Ex.P.10 Copy of cheque issued to Jayamma Ex.P.11 Copy of ILRR (4 pages) Ex.P.12 Copy of RTC Ex.P.13 Letter dtd.6-02-2013
Ex.P.13(a & b) Signatures of PW. 4 & 18 Ex.P.14 Report given by PW. 4/CW9 Ex.P.14(a) Signature of PW. 4 Ex.P.15 Bankers Cheques particulars from National Co-operative Bank Ex.P.16 C/c of Mutation Register No.5 Ex.P.17 C/c of Check list of MR.No.5 Ex.P.18 Original acknowledgement book Ex.P.18(a) Signature of Smt.Manjula Ex.P.19 ILRR Register file Ex.P.20 to 26 True copies of RTCs for the year 1969- 70 to 1997-1998 Ex.P.27 True copies of Saguvali Chit from1951- 52 to1956-52 Ex.P.28 Covering letter with enclosures from Janatha Seva Co-op.Bank Ltd.,B'lore. Ex.P.29 Covering letter with enclosures from Canara Bank, B'lore.
Ex.P.30 True copy of letter No.LNDCR211/06-07 Ex.P.31 True copy of preliminary notification Ex.P.32 True copy of final notification Ex.P.33 & 34 True copy of mahazar & sketch 163 Spl.C.C. No.190/2013 Ex.P.35 True copy of application of A1 Ex.P.36 True copy of BDA Notesheet Ex.P.37 True copy of Draft letter Ex.P.38 True copy of letter dtd.8-06-2006 Ex.P.39 True copy of documents pertaining to A1 Ex.P.40 True copy of letter dtd.2-06-2006 Ex.P.41 True copy of document from Tahsildar office to BDA Ex.P.42 True copy of covering letter dtd.4-06- 2006 of Tahsildar Bengaluru South TQ. Ex.P.43 True copy of Award notice Ex.P.44 Report issued by SLAO- PW. 14 Ex.P.44(a & b) Signature of PW. 14 & 17 Ex.P.45 Sample handwritings of A9 Ex.P.45(a to f) Signatures of PW. 6 Ex.P.46 Sample handwritings taken mahazar Ex.P.46(a to d) Signatures of PW.16, A9, CW.30, PW. 18 Ex.P.47 FIR Ex.P.47(a) Signature of PW. 17 Ex.P.48 Letter with documents from Sub-
Registrar, JP Nagar, Bengaluru. Ex.P.49 Covering letter with documents from Sub-Registrar, Kengeri.
Ex.P.49(a) Signature of PW. 17 Ex.P.50 Letter with documents from Sub-
Registrar, Basavanagudi, Bengaluru.
Ex.P.50(a) Signature of PW. 17 Ex.P.51 Letter with documents from Sub-
Registrar, JP Nagar, Bengaluru.
Ex.P.51(a) Signature of PW. 17 Ex.P.52 Report with documents from the
Tahsildar, Bengaluru South Taluk Ex.P.53 Report from the Tahsildar, Bengaluru South Taluk 164 Spl.C.C. No.190/2013 Ex.P.54 Covering letter with documents from the Tahsildar, Bengaluru South Taluk Ex.P.55 Covering letter with documents from the Tahsildar, Bengaluru South Taluk Ex.P.56 Covering letter with documents from the Tahsildar, Bengaluru South Taluk Ex.P.57 Covering letter with documents from the Tahsildar, Bengaluru South Taluk Ex.P.57(a) Signature of PW. 17 Ex.P.58 Reply cum information received from BDA on 20-3-2012 Ex.P.58( & b) Signatures of PW. 17 & 14 Ex.P.59 & 60 Requisition letters to Deputy Tahsildar (LA), BDA, Bengaluru Ex.P.61 Letter dtd.17-03-2012 to Deputy Tahsildar (LA), BDA, Bengaluru Ex.P.62 Letter with information from SLAO Ex.P.62(a) Signature of PW. 17 Ex.P.63 Letter dtd.17-03-2012 to Deputy Development Officer (LA), BDA, Bengaluru.
Ex.P.64 Covering letter from SLAO, BDA,B'lore.
Ex.P.64(a) Signature of PW. 17 Ex.P.65 Requisition of PW. 17 to Deputy
Development Officer, Acquisition, BDA Ex.P.66 Attested copy of award of 6 th Stage, Banashankari, Bengaluru.
Ex.P.67 Details and documents from SLAO, BDA, Bengaluru Ex.P.68 Information in respect of acquisition proceedings Ex.P.68(a & b) Signature of PW. 17 & 14 Ex.P.69 Letter with information from the SLAO, BDA 165 Spl.C.C. No.190/2013 Ex.P.69(a) Signature of PW. 17 Ex.P.70 Letter cum endorsement from the SLAO, BDA, Bengaluru Ex.P.70(a & b) Signatures of PW. 17 & 14 Ex.P.71 SB account details from Balaji Credit Co-op.society Ex.P.72 Requisition to the Manager, Canara Bank, Uttarhalli branch, Bengaluru Ex.P.73 C/c of Issue Register cum Saguvali chit Ex.P.74 Information & documents from SLAO, BDA, Bengaluru Ex.P.74(a & b) Signatures of PW. 17 & 14 Ex.P.75 Covering letter with documents from Deputy Commissioner, BDA, Bengaluru Ex.P.75(a) Signature of PW. 17 Ex.P.76 Blank Mahazar Format true copy Ex.P.77 True copy of mahazar dtd.12-06-2006 Ex.P.78 True copy of sketch dtd.23-7-2006 Ex.P.79 True copy of duly filled voucher & certificate Ex.P.80 True copy of cheque in favour of A1 Ex.P.81 True copy of letter to SLAO, BDA, Bengaluru by the Tahsildar, Bengaluru South Taluk Ex.P.82 True copy of order sheet of LAC proceedings Ex.P.83 True copy of award order Ex.P.84 C/c of Saguvali chit from 1951-52 to 1956-57 Ex.P.85 to 91 C/cs of handwritten pahani book from 1969-70 to 1997-98 Ex.P.92 C/c of ILRR of Lingadheeranahalli Ex.P.93 C/cs. Of Report & documents from FSL Ex.P.94 Letter of ADGP, KLA 166 Spl.C.C. No.190/2013 Ex.P.94(a) Signature of PW. 20 Ex.P.95 FSL Report Ex.P.95(a) Signature of PW. 20 LIST OF MATERIAL OBJECTS MARKED FOR PROSECUTION:
NIL LIST OF WITNESSES EXAMINED FOR ACCUSED:
NIL LIST OF DOCUMENTS MARKED FOR ACCUSED:
Ex.D.1 C/c of deposition of PW. 25 in Spl.CC No.189/13 Ex.D.2 Revenue entry in file 2 page 384 (E.C) Ex.D.3 C/c of Deposition of PW. 27 in Spl.CC No.189/13 Ex.D.4 Copy of the gazette notification Ex.D.4(a) Relevant entry in Gazette notification Ex.D.5 Attested copy of resolution dtd.5-01-2007 of BDA (S.V.SRIKANTH), LXXVII ADDL. CITY CIVIL & SESSIONS JUDGE & SPECIAL JUDGE, BENGALURU CITY.