Bangalore District Court
State By Cottonpet Ps vs No.1 Was Showing To The Public 11 Gold ... on 31 December, 2015
IN THE COURT OF THE IV ADDL. CMM, BANGALORE
Dated this the 31st day of December 2015
Present : Sri. Venkataraman Bhat,
B.Sc., LL.B. (Spl)
IV Addl. CMM, Bangalore.
JUDGMENT U/S. 355 CR.PC.,
1. Sl. No. of the case : CC No. 27078/2010
2. The date of commission
of the offence : 11.11.2009
3. Name of the complainant : State by Cottonpet PS
4. Name of the accused : A1: Mani, 30 Yrs.,
S/o Late Narayanappa,
A2: B.Ravi, 45 Yrs.,
S/o Late Byrappa,
Both are R/o Nayanapalli village,
Kuppam Taluk, Chittur Dist.
Andhra Pradesh.
5. The offences complained : U/s.406, 420, 511 IPC
or proved
6. Plea of the accused
and his examination : Pleaded not guilty
7. Final order : Acquitted
8. Date of order : 31.12.2015
Sub Inspector of Police (Crime), Cottonpet police station
placed charge sheet against accused No.1 & 2 for the offences
punishable u/s.406, 420, 511 of IPC.
2 CC.NO.27078/2010
2. According to the prosecution, accused No.1 and 2 were
standing in front of Krishna Lunch home near Shantala circle,
Cottonpete at about 11.30 a.m. on 11.11.2009. It is alleged that
accused No.1 was showing to the public 11 gold pieces weighing
7.100 grams. Whereas accused No.2 was showing gold coated
copper coin weighing 1740 grams resembling as gold pieces. It is
further alleged that, accused No.1 and 2 were making attempt to
induce public and to sell these furious gold pieces. At that time
CW1 being Head Constable of Cottonpet police station along with
other police arrested accused No.1 and 2 and produced in the
police station.
3. On the basis of report filed by CW1, FIR has been registered
at Crime No.443/2009 of Cottonpet police station.
4. Accused No.1 and 2 were arrested and produced before this
court and later they were enlarged on bail.
5. After submission of the charge sheet, cognizance of the
offences have been taken. Copy of charge sheet was furnished as
required u/s.207 of Cr.P.C. Charge was framed for the offences
punishable u/s.406, 420, 511 of IPC. Accused No.1 & 2 pleaded
not guilty and claimed to be tried.
6. CW1 to CW10 witnesses have been cited in the charge sheet.
During the course of trial, PW1 to PW4 were examined and Ex.P.1
to Ex.P.5 got marked.
3 CC.NO.27078/2010
7. After closure of the prosecution side evidence, statement of
accused No.1 and 2 was recorded u/s.313 of Cr.P.C. Accused No.1
& 2 did not adduce any defence evidence.
8. Heard arguments of Senior APP and advocate for the accused
No.1 and 2.
9. CW4 was examined as PW1. According to the prosecution
PW1 is one of the seizure mahazar witness to Ex.P.1. As per the
version of prosecution gold pieces resembling as gold and gold
coated copper coins in the possession of accused No.1 and 2 came
to be seized in the Cottonpet police station as per Ex.P.1. But PW1
did not support the prosecution. He was treated as hostile witness
and cross-examined by Sr.APP. PW1 has denied to the effect that
he gave statement as per Ex.P.2.
10. CW5 was examined as PW2. According to the prosecution
PW2 tested the quality of seized resembling gold pieces and gold
coated copper coins. Ex.P.3 and Ex.P.4 are the certificates issued
by PW2. However, PW2 did not support the prosecution. He was
treated as hostile witness and cross-examined by Sr.APP. PW2 has
denied to the effect that he gave statement as per Ex.P.5.
11. CW9 was examined as PW3. PW3 was working as PSI of
Cottonpete police station at the relevant point of time. PW3 has
deposed regarding receipt of report from CW1 and registration of
FIR and drawing seizure mahazar as per Ex.P.1.
4 CC.NO.27078/2010
12. CW10 was examined as PW4. PW4 was working as PSI of
Cottonpet police station at the relevant point of time. PW4 has only
submitted charge sheet.
13. CW1 is reported to be dead. In other words, evidence of CW1
is not available to the prosecution. Inspite of sufficient opportunity
prosecution could not able to secure the presence of other charge
sheeted witnesses.
14. Now the question for consideration is whether on the basis of
evidence of PW1 to PW4, prosecution is able to prove the guilt of
the accused beyond reasonable doubt. It can be noticed that,
charge was also framed for the offence punishable u/s.406, 511 of
IPC. There is no evidence as to attempt to entrustment as well as
attempt of dishonest misappropriation of property by the accused.
Under these circumstances there is no question of attraction of
Sec.406 r/w 511 of IPC. No public complaint against the accused
for attempting to cheat them. There is no evidence to show that
accused No.1 and 2 attempted to induce any person at that time.
Moreover, the seizure of resembling gold pieces as well as gold
coated copper coins are not proved in accordance with law. Two
seizure mahazar witnesses did not support the prosecution.
Moreover, the evidence of CW1 who arrested accused No.1 and 2
and lodged report is not available for evidence. CW1 is reported to
be dead. There is no convincing and acceptable evidence to prove
that accused No.1 and 2 attempted to cheat any person as alleged.
Unless there is legal and acceptable evidence, it cannot be held that
prosecution is able to prove the guilt of the accused beyond
5 CC.NO.27078/2010
reasonable doubt. Under these circumstances, there is alternative
except to acquit the accused for want of evidence. In the result, I
proceed to pass the following :
ORDER
Accused No.1 & 2 are not found guilty for the offences punishable u/s.406, 420, 511 IPC.
Accused No.1 & 2 are acquitted u/s.248(1) of Cr.P.C. for the offences punishable u/s.406, 420, 511 IPC.
Bail bond of accused No.1 & 2 stands cancelled.
(Dictated to the Stenographer, transcribed by her, corrected by me and then pronounced in the open court on this the 31st Day of December 2015) (Venkataraman Bhat) IV Addl. Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bangalore.
ANNEXURE List of witnesses examined for prosecution:-
PW.1 : Mujeeb PW.2 : Shantaram PW.3 : Shamanna PW.4 : Nagaraju
List of exhibits marked for prosecution:-
Ex.P.1 : Seizure mahazar Ex.P.2 : Statement of PW1 Ex.P.3 & 4 : Certificates 6 CC.NO.27078/2010 Ex.P.5 : Statement of PW2 Ex.P.6 : Report of CW1 (complaint) Ex.P.7 : FIR List of M.O.s marked for prosecution:- Nil List of witnesses and exhibits marked on behalf of the accused:- Nil.
(Venkataraman Bhat) IV Addl. Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bangalore.7 CC.NO.27078/2010
31.12.2015 State by Sr. APP Accused Judgment ORDER (Pronounced in open court vide separate order) Accused No.1 & 2 are not found guilty for the offences punishable u/s.406, 420, 511 IPC.
Accused No.1 & 2 are acquitted u/s.248(1) of Cr.P.C. for the offences punishable u/s.406, 420, 511 IPC.
Bail bond of accused No.1 & 2 stands cancelled.
(Dictated to the Stenographer, transcribed by her, corrected by me and then pronounced in the open court on this the 31st Day of December 2015) (Venkataraman Bhat) IV Addl. Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bangalore.
8 CC.NO.27078/2010