Bangalore District Court
State By S. J. Park Police Station vs Dr. B. Varun S/O Dr. B. Nagabhushanam on 17 October, 2016
IN THE COURT OF THE I ADDL.C.M.M, Bengaluru
Present: Smt. Hema Pastapur
B.A.,LL.B.,
I Addl C. M. M, Bengaluru
C.C.No.25869/2012
Dated this the 17th day of October 2016
Judgment under section 355 of the Code of Criminal Procedure
Complainant:- State by S. J. Park Police Station, Bengaluru.
(By Learned Senior Assistant Public Prosecutor)
VS
Accused:- 1. Dr. B. Varun s/o Dr. B. Nagabhushanam, age:24
years, r/o No.4/12-235, Bhagyalatha Colony,
Vanasthalipuram, Opp: Deer Park, Hyderabad.
Bengaluru address:-No.220, KIMS Men's Hostel,
Banashankari II Stage, near BDA Complex, Bengaluru
2. Raghuveer Vanka s/o Ravindranath Vanka, age:24
years, r/o Sajjapuram Thanuku, West Godhavari
District, Andhra Pradesh.
Permanent address:- No.1895, 2nd floor, 31st
2 C.C.No.25869/2012
cross, Banashankari II stage, Bengaluru.
(By Shri M. Muniraju, Advocate)
Offences complained : U/secs 420 and 120(B) r/w sec 511 of the
Indian Penal Code and u/sec 117 of the
Karnataka Education Act and under sec
66(D) of the Information Technology Act.
Opinion of the Court : Accused are not found guilty.
Date of Judgment : 17-10-2016.
JUDGMENT
That, the Police Inspector of S. J. Park Police Station, Bengaluru City, has filed the Final report against the accused for the offence punishable under sections 420 and 120(B) r/w section 511 of the Indian Penal Code and under section 117 of the Karnataka Education Act and under section 66(D) of the Information Technology Act.
1. That, the gist of the prosecution case is that on 29-01-2012 at about 10-00 a.m., the Rajeev Gandhi University of Health Science, Bengaluru, had conducted the PGET-2012 (Medical) examination in Sri Bhagavan Mahaveer Jain College and accused no.1 was appearing for the said examination. That, prior to the said examination, both 3 C.C.No.25869/2012 the accused conspiring with each other have got scanned the materials pertaining to said entrance examination from Roams and Sure Success Karnataka books and have got stored the said materials in one hard disc. That, both the accused have planned that accused no.1 has to send the photos of questions of said examination to the E-mail ID of accused no.2 and accused no.2 after searching the answers from said scanned materials has to send the answers to the E-mail ID of accused no.1. That, accused no.1 had attended the said examination and at that time it was found that he was carrying with him a blue tooth, earphone and mobile phone and was trying to send the photos of questions of said paper from his mobile phone to the E- mail ID of accused no.2.
2. That, on complaint being lodged the S. J. Park Police, Bengaluru, have registered the case against the accused. That, the Investigating Officer after completion of investigation filed the Final report against the accused for aforesaid offences.
3. That, this court after taking the cognizance of the aforesaid offences issued the summons to the accused and in consonance with the said summons the accused have appeared before this court 4 C.C.No.25869/2012 through their Learned counsel and they were enlarged on bail. That, the provisions of section 207 of Code of Criminal Procedure, have complied here with. That, the charge of the accused has framed and read over to them in language known to them and they have not pleaded guilty and claimed to be tried. That, after completion of prosecution side evidence the statement of accused as contemplated under section 313 of Code of Criminal Procedure, has recorded and read over to them and they have denied all incriminating evidence appearing against them and have not chosen to lead either oral or documentary evidence on their behalf.
4. That, I have heard the arguments and perused the materials placed on record. That, the following points arise for My consideration and determination:
1. Whether the prosecution has proved beyond all reasonable doubt that, on 29-01-2012 the accused no.1 by violating the Rules of PGET-2012 (Medical) examination had carried with him in said examination hall a mobile phone, blue tooth and tried to commit the malpractice and thereby has committed the offence punishable under section 117 of Karnataka Education Act ?5 C.C.No.25869/2012
2. Whether the prosecution has proved beyond all reasonable doubt that, accused no.1 and 2 with an intention to cheat the said college have conspired together and have collected all the materials in one hard disc and have planned that accused no.1 has to send the photos of questions to the E-mail of accused no.2 and accused no.2 has to send answers to the E-mail ID of accused no.1 and thereby have committed the offence punishable under sections 420 and 120(B) r/w section 511 of the Indian Penal Code and under section 66(D) of the Information Technology Act ?
3. What order?
5. That, the prosecution to prove its above case has got examined PWs1 to 8 and got marked the documents at EXsP1 to P17(a) and also got marked the MOs1 to 9 and closed its side.
6. That, My answer to the aforesaid points are as under:-
Point No.1:- In the NEGATIVE Point No.2: In the NEGATIVE Point No.3:-As per the final order for the following:- 6 C.C.No.25869/2012
REASONS
7. Points No.1 and 2:- That, as these points are inter-linked, I have taken them for joint discussion to avoid repetition of facts. It is specific allegation of the prosecution that on 29-01-2012 at about 10-40 a.m., the Rajeev Gandhi University of Health Science, Bengaluru, had conducted the PGET-2012 (Medical) examination in Shri Bhagavan Mahaveer Jain College and accused no.1 was appearing for the said examination and prior to the said examination, both the accused conspiring with each other have got scanned the materials pertaining to said entrance examination from Roams and Sure Success Karnataka books and have got stored the said materials in one hard disc. It is further allegation of the prosecution that, both the accused have planned that accused no.1 has to send the photos of questions of said examination to the E-mail ID of accused no.2 and accused no.2 after searching the answers from said scanned materials in turn has to send the answers to the E-mail ID of accused no.1. It is further allegation of the prosecution that, on 29-01-2012 accused no.1 had attended the said examination and at that time it 7 C.C.No.25869/2012 was found that he was carrying with him a blue tooth, earphone and mobile and also tried to commit the malpractice. It is pertinent to note here that, the prosecution to prove its above case has got examined CW2- Smt. Nandini w/o Mahadevaiah-the then Invigilator in Sri Bhagavan Mahaveer Jain College as PW1. It is pertinent to note here that, PW1 in her examination-in-chief has deposed that on 29-01-2012 she had been appointed as an Invigilator in Sri Bhagavan Mahaveer Jain College and in examination hall accused no.1 was carrying with him a cell phone, mobile phone, ear piece and blue tooth pen and she immediately informed the same to the Chief Superintendent-Dr. Shanthi Iyer-CW4 and Deputy Superintendent-Shri Naveen-CW3 and she handed over to them the OMR sheet and answer paper of accused no.1 and also handed over to them the said electronic devices. It is to be noted here that, PW1 in her examination-in-chief has further deposed that the police have conducted the Spot mahazar as per EXP1. It is to be noted here that, the prosecution in evidence of PW1 has got marked the Hall ticket of accused no.1 at EXP2, his OMR sheet at EXP3, HTC mobile phone as MO1, Blue tooth as MO2 and Hearing device as MO3.
8 C.C.No.25869/2012It is to be noted here that, in the instant case the allegation of the prosecution is that on alleged date accused no.1 was carrying with him MOs1 to 3. It is to be noted here that, PW1 in her cross- examination at page no.4 at 12th line has deposed that: DgÉÆæ-1 CªÀgÀÄ ªÀÄÄ.ªÀiÁ-2 C£ÀÄß §¼À¹ ªÀiÁvÀ£ÁqÀÄvÁÛ ¸ÁÌå£ï ªÀiÁqÀÄwÛzÀÝgÀÄ. It is further pertinent to note here that, PW1 in her cross- examination at page no.5 at para no.2 at 2nd line has specifically deposed that: ZÁ¸Á-3 ªÀÄvÀÄÛ 4 CªÀjUÉ ¤¦-3, 4 ªÀÄvÀÄÛ ªÀÄÄ.ªÀiÁ-2 C£ÀÄß PÉÆmÉÖ. £ÀAvÀgÀ ZÁ¸Á-3 ªÀÄvÀÄÛ 4 DgÉÆæAiÀÄ£ÀÄß PÀgÉzÀÄPÉÆAqÀÄ ºÉÆÃzÀgÀÄ. £Á£ÀÄ «f¯É£ïì ªÀÄÄAzÀĪÀgɹzÉ£ÀÄ. ªÀÄÄ.ªÀiÁ-1 ªÀÄvÀÄÛ 3 C£ÀÄß £Á£ÀÄ E£ï«f¯É£ïì gÀÆA£À°è DgÉÆæ-1 gÀ §½ £ÉÆÃrgÀĪÀÅ¢®è. ªÀÄÄ.ªÀiÁ-1 ªÀÄvÀÄÛ 3 DgÉÆæ-1 gÀ §½ EvÀÄÛ JAzÀÄ PÉý w½zÀÄPÉÆArgÀÄvÉÛãÉ.
It is to be noted here that, PW1 on one hand deposes that she handed over MOs 1 to 3 to CWs4 and 3 and on the other hand deposes that she handed over MO2 to CWs3 and 4 and very interestingly on the other hand deposes that on alleged date of incident she has not seen MOs1 and 3 with accused no.1. It is pertinent to note here that, from perusal of entire evidence of PW1 it 9 C.C.No.25869/2012 clearly appears that there are inconsistencies and discrepancies in her evidence. It is to be noted here that, from entire evidence of PW1 it also clearly appears that only with an intention to harass accused no.1 he has been falsely implicated in present case.
8. It is pertinent to note here that, the prosecution to prove its above case has further got examined CW1-Dr. D. Premkumar s/o Late K. N. Doddalingappa - the then Evaluator in Rajeev Gandhi University of Health Science- the Complainant as PW2. It is pertinent to note here that, PW2 in his examination-in-chief has deposed that on 29-01- 2012 at about 10-40 a.m. he came to know that in examination hall accused no.1 was committing the malpractice by using the MOs1 to 3 and he asked another Evaluator by name Shri Ashok Kumar for visiting Sri Bhagavan Mahaveer Jain College and he had also visited the said college personally on that day at about 12.00 p.m. It is pertinent to note here that, PW2 has further deposed that on alleged date accused no.1 gave his apology letter as per EXP8 and lateron, he lodged the complaint against the accused as per EXP5. 10 C.C.No.25869/2012
It is to be noted here that, PW2 in his cross-examination at page no.4 at 1st line has deposed that on alleged date of incident CW4 has handed over to him MOs1 to 3.
9. It is pertinent to note here that, the prosecution to prove its above case has further got examined CW3-Shri Naveen Kumar s/o Muniraju-Lecturer of Sri Bhagavan Mahaveer Jain College as PW3. It is pertinent to note here that, PW3 in his examination-in- chief has deposed that on 29-01-2012 he had been appointed as Deputy Superintendent at Rajeev Gandhi University of Health Science and on that PW1 had produced before him accused no.1 and she handed over the OMR sheet, hall ticket and book let of accused no.1 and a mobile phone, pen and ear piece to PW3.
10. It is pertinent to note here that, the prosecution to prove its case has got examined CW4-Dr.Shanthi Iyer w/o V. S. Mangalesh- Principal of Sri Bhagavan Mahaveer Jain College as PW4. It is pertinent to note here that, PW4 in her examination-in-chief has deposed that on 29-01-2012 at about 10-30 a.m., the Deputy Superintendent by name Shri Naveen brought to her a candidate by name Varun i.e., accused no.1 and brought her notice that accused 11 C.C.No.25869/2012 no.1 was found in possession of a cell phone, pen with blue tooth and the said articles were prohibited inside the examination hall.
It is pertinent to note here that, PW4 in her cross-examination at page no.3 at para no. 1 at 3rd line has deposed that on alleged date said Shri Naveen had handed over to her MOs1 to 3.
It is pertinent to note that, as stated above PW1 on one hand has deposed that she handed over MOs 1 to 3 to CWs3/PW3 and 4/PW4 and on the other hand has deposed that she handed over MO2 to CWsPW3 and 4/PW4 and very interestingly on the other hand has deposed that on alleged date of incident she has not seen MOs1 and 3 with accused no.1 and whereas, PW2 has deposed that, CW4/PW4 has handed over to him MOs1 to 3 and PW3 has deposed that, he handed over MOs1 to 3 to PW4 and PW4 has deposed that PW3 had handed over to her MOs1 to 3.
It is pertinent to note here that, in the instant case there are discrepancies and inconsistencies in evidence of PW1 and there is no corroboration in evidence of PWs1 to 4. It is pertinent to note here that, the evidence of PWs1 to 4 is not trustworthy and in view of the same, their evidence cannot be accepted. It is pertinent to note here 12 C.C.No.25869/2012 that, from entire evidence of PWs1 to 4 it clearly appears that they have falsely implicated the accused no.1 in present case.
11. It is pertinent to note here that, the prosecution to prove its case has got examined CW5-Shri Swami D. K s/o Dasappa-the Manager of Sri Bhagavan Mahaveer Jain College as PW5. It is to be noted here that, PW5 in his examination-in-chief has deposed that on 29-01-2012 at about 10-30 a. m, he was working in control room and at that time CW3/PW3 had produced accused no.1 before CW4/PW4 and on that day the police have conducted the mahazar as per EXP1 and he signed on it. It is to be noted here that, PW5 in his examination-in-chief has further deposed that on alleged date CW3/PW3 had handed over to her hall ticket, OMR sheet and question paper of accused no.1 and mobile, one pen and ear phone.
It is to be noted here that, PW5 though, in his examination-in- chief has deposed that on alleged date the police in his presence have conducted the said mahazar, but, in his cross-examination at page no.3 has specifically deposed that he do not know where the police have conducted the said mahazar. It is to be noted here that, in view of the same, the evidence of PW5 is not acceptable one. 13 C.C.No.25869/2012
12. It is pertinent to note here that, the prosecution to prove its above case has got examined CW7-Shri B. M. Dinesh s/o Sreeramareddy-the Assistant Registrar of Rajeev Gandhi University of Health Science as PW6. It is pertinent to note here that, PW6 in his examination-in-chief has deposed that on 29-01-2012 the PGET entrance examination had conducted in Sri Bhagavan Mahaveer Jain College and in examination hall accused no.1 was committing the malpractice and the squad members Dr. Niranjan and Dr. Ashok Kumar have caught hold him and for which the Registrar had lodged the complaint against the accused no.1 and the said Registrar asked him for visiting the S. J. Park Police Station and on his said request he visited the said Police Station at about 3.00 p.m. and at that time accused no.1 was also present in said Police Station.
It is pertinent to note here that, PW6 in his examination-in-chief has further deposed that the said police have took him and accused no.1 to the house of accused no.2 and in said house the police have seized the two books, one Apple computer, one printer, one C-Gate hard disc, one Del company laptop and blue tooth. 14 C.C.No.25869/2012
It is to be noted here that, PW6 in his cross-examination at page no.4 at 1st line has specifically deposed that- D ¢£À ¨ÀsUÀªÁ£ï ªÀiÁºÁ«Ãgï eÉÊ£ï PÁ¯ÉÃf£À°è £ÀqÉAiÀÄÄwÛzÀÝ JPÁìªÀiï ¯ÉÊªï ªÉ¨ï ¹ÖçêÀiï gÁfêï UÁA¢ü DgÉÆÃUÀå «YõÁÕ£À «±Àé«zÁ央AiÀÄ°è ¯ÉÊªï £ÉÆÃqÀÄwÛzÉÝêÀÅ.
It is pertinent to note here that, PW6 in his cross-examination at page no.5 at 3rd line has deposed that-D ¢£À gÉPÁrðAUï DVzÀÝ£ÀÄß £Á£ÀÄ ¥ÀÅ£ÀB £ÉÆÃrzÁUÀ £À£ÀUÉ ªÀiÁ¯ï ¥ÁæQÖÃ¸ï §UÉÎ K£ÀÆ PÁtô¹gÀĪÀÅ¢®è. D ¢£À £ÀqÉzÀ JPÁìªÀiï£À ¹ÌçÃ£ï ±Ámï£À MAzÀÄ ¥sÉÆÃmÉÆ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ D ¢£À JPÁìªÀiï ºÁ¯ï£À°è gÉPÁqïð DVzÀÝ ¹rAiÀÄ£ÀÄß £Á£ÀÄ ¥ÉÇðøÀjUÉ PÉÆnÖgÀÄvÉÛãÉ. D ¥sÉÇÃmÉÆÃzÀ°è ªÀÄvÀÄÛ ¹rAiÀÄ°è DgÉÆæ-1 gÀªÀgÀÄ ªÀiÁ¯ï ¥ÁæQÖÃ¸ï ªÀiÁrgÀĪÀ §UÉÎ AiÀiÁªÀÅzÉà PÀÄgÀĺÀÄ EgÀĪÀÅ¢®è.
It is pertinent to note here that, the said evidence of PW6 is quite sufficient to hold that accused no.1 has not committed any offence as alleged by the prosecution.
13. It is pertinent to note here that, the prosecution to prove its above case has got examined CW13-Shri M. Chandrashekar s/o Mariyappa- the Investigating Officer as PW8. It is pertinent to note here that, PW8 in his examination-in-chief has deposed about 15 C.C.No.25869/2012 the investigation conducted by him in present case. It is pertinent to note here that, from perusal of evidence of PWs6 and 8 it clearly appears that there is no corroboration in their evidence. It is pertinent to note here that, PW6 in his evidence has deposed that he handed over the said photo of screen shot and one CD to PW8 and whereas, PW8 in his cross-examination at page no.15 at 12th line has denied the same.
It is further pertinent to note here that PW8 in his cross- examination at page no.11 at 7th line has deposed that-¸ÁQëUÉ FUÀ ¸ÀzÀj ¯Áå¥ïmÁå¥ï£ÀÄß ¥ÀjÃPÉë ªÀiÁrzÁUÀ CzÀgÀ°è ¤ªÀÄUÉ K£ÀÄ PÀAqÀÄ §A¢gÀÄvÀÛzÉ JAzÀÄ PÉýzÁUÀ ¸ÁQë vÁªÀÅ ¸ÀzÀj ¢£ÀzÀAzÀÄ ¸ÀzÀj ¯Áå¥ïmÁå¥ï D£ï DUÀÄvÀÛzÉÆà E®èªÉÇà JAzÀÄ ªÀiÁvÀæ £ÉÆÃrgÀĪÀÅzÁV ºÉüÀÄvÁÛgÉ".
It is pertinent to note here that, PW8 in his cross-examination at page no.12 at 8th line has further deposed that: ¸ÁQëUÉ FUÀ ¤ÃªÀÅ ¤ªÀÄä ¦J¥sï £ÀA§gï 6-2012 gÀ LlA £ÀA§gï 8gÀ°è MAzÀÄ §ÆèlÆvï ¥É¤ß£À ªÀÄÄA¨sÁUÀzÀ PÉƼÀªÉ JAzÀÄ ºÉýgÀÄwÛÃgÁ CzÀÄ J°ègÀÄvÀÛzÉ JAzÀÄ PÉýzÁUÀ CzÀÄ ªÀÄÄzÉݪÀiÁ®Ä 2 gÀ ªÀÄÄA¨sÁUÀªÁVgÀÄvÀÛzÉ JAzÀÄ ºÉüÀÄvÁÛgÉ. 16 C.C.No.25869/2012
It is pertinent to note here that, PW8 in his cross-examination at page no.14 has further deposed that he has recorded the statement of other persons also. It is to be noted here that, in the instant case PW8 has not recorded the statement of any person. It is to be noted here that, PW8 being a Investigating Officer and responsible person in the society has given a vague answers before the Court and also behaved in a lethargic manner. It is significant to note here that, the evidence of PW8 is very much contrary to the evidence of PWs1 to 4, 6 and 7.
14. It is pertinent to note here that, the prosecution to prove its above case has further got examined CW12-Smt. S. Neeru d/o V. Sridhar-the Assistant Director of Truth Labs, Cyber and Audio and Video as PW7. It is pertinent to note here that, PW7 has deposed about the analysis made by her in respect of MOs1 to 9 and submitting her report as per EXP13.
15. It is pertinent to note here that, in the instant case, the accused have taken defense that on alleged date of incident in examination hall the management was supporting one student for committing the malpractice and when accused no.1 raised his voice then the said 17 C.C.No.25869/2012 management has falsely implicated him in present case. It is pertinent to note here that, in the instant case, though, the accused have not lodged any complaint either against the said management or against the said student, but, it is the bounden duty of the prosecution to prove its case beyond all reasonable doubt. It is pertinent to note here that, in the instant case the evidence of witnesses is not crystal clear to hold that the accused persons have committed the alleged offences. It is pertinent to note here that, there are lot of discrepancies and inconsistencies in evidence of witnesses. It is pertinent to note here that, in the instant case to ascertain the real facts PW8 neither inquired the squad members of the said college nor other students who were present in said examination hall. It is further pertinent to note here that, as stated above from the evidence of PW6 it clearly appears that on alleged date of incident accused no.1 has not committed any offence as alleged by the prosecution. It is significant to note here that, the prosecution has failed to prove that on alleged date of incident accused no.1 was carrying with him MOs1 to 3.
18 C.C.No.25869/2012
It is further pertinent to note here that, PW7 in her cross- examination at page no.6 at para no.1 at 2nd line has deposed that along with her said report she has submitted the annexure- 1 to 3 to the Investigating officer. It is pertinent to note here that, PW8 has not furnished before the Court the said annexures. It is further significant to note here that, PW7 in her report-EXP13 has clearly mentioned that- no evidence of the scanned documents could found in the exhibit marked 'Q7'. It is pertinent to note here that, from said report it can be held that accused have not stored any material in said disc as alleged by the prosecution. It is pertinent to note here that, in the instant case the prosecution has failed to prove beyond all reasonable doubt the guilt of the accused for the offence punishable under sections 420 and 120(B) r/w section 511 of the Indian Penal Code and under section 117 of Karnataka Education Act and under section 66(D) of the Information Technology Act. In view of the same, points no.1 and 2 are answered in the NEGATIVE.
16. Point No.3:- That, as discussed on points no.1 and 2, I proceed to pass the following, 19 C.C.No.25869/2012 ORDER That, acting under section 248(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, accused no.1 and 2 are acquitted for the offence punishable under sections 420 and 120(B) r/w section 511 of the Indian Penal Code and under section 117 of Karnataka Education Act and under section 66(D) of the Information Technology Act.
That, the bail and surety bonds of accused no.1 and 2 are stands cancelled.
That, accused no.1 and 2 shall comply with the provisions of section 437(A) of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
That, M.Os. 1 to 9 shall be returned to accused no.1 and 2. (Dictated to the stenographer, transcript thereof, computerized revised and then corrected by me and then pronounced in open Court on this the 17th day of October 2016) Date: 17.10.2016 (Hema Pastapur) Place:Bengaluru I Addl. C. M. M, Bengaluru.
Annexure List of witnesses examined on behalf of the prosecution PW1: Smt. Nandini w/o Mahadevaiah;
PW2: Dr. D. Premkumar s/o Late K. N. Doddalingappa; 20 C.C.No.25869/2012
PW3: Naveenkumar s/o Muniraju;
PW4: Dr. Shanthi Iyer w/o V. S. Mangalesh;
PW5: Swamy D.K. s/o Dasappa;
PW6: B. M. Dinesh s/o Sreeramareddy;
PW7: Smt. S. Neeru s/o V. Sridhar and
PW8: M. Chandrashekar s/o Mariyappa.
List of documents marked on behalf of the prosecution EXP1: Spot panchanama;
EXP1(a): Signature of PW1;
EXP1(b): Signature of PW5;
EXP1(c): Signature of PW8;
EXP2: Hall ticket of accused no.1;
EXP2(a): Signature of PW1;
EXP2(b): Signature of accused no.1;
EXP3: OMR sheet;
EXP3(a): Signature of PW1;
EXP3(b): Signature of accused no.1;
EXP4: Question booklet:
EXP5: Complaint,
EXP5(a): Signature of PW2;
EXP5(b): Signature of PW8;
EXP6: Report of PW4;
EXP6(a): Signature of PW4;
EXP7: Particulars pertaining to accused no.1;
EXP7(a): Signature of PW4;
21 C.C.No.25869/2012
EXP8: Apology letter of accused no.1;
EXP9: Seizure mahazar;
EXP9(a): Signature of PW6;
EXP9(b): Signature of PW8;
EXP10: Roams book;
EXP11: Sure success entrance test 2011 book;
EXP12: Covering letter of truth lab;
EXP13: Report of PW7;
EXP13(a): Signature of PW7;
EXP14: FIR;
EXP14(a): Signature of PW8;
EXP15: Voluntary statement of accused no.1;
EXP15(a): Portion of EXP15;
EXP16: Voluntary statement of accused no.2;
EXP16(a): Portion of EXP16;
EXP17: Seizure mahazar and
EXP17(a): Signature of PW8.
List of witnesses examined on behalf of accused Nil List of documents marked on behalf of accused Nil List of material objects marked on behalf of the prosecution MO1 : HTC company mobile phone;
MO2: Bluetooth;
MO3: Hearing device;
22 C.C.No.25869/2012
MO4: One thin client of Apple company;
MO5: Scanner-cum-printer;
MO6: One laptop of Del company;
MO7: Bluetooth devices;
MO8: One pair of earphones and
MO9: One external hard disc of Seagate.
Date:17.10.2016 (Hema Pastapur)
Place:Bengaluru I Addl C. M. M, Bengaluru.
23 C.C.No.25869/2012
17-10-2016
State by Sr.APP.,
Accused no.1 and 2- C/B
For judgment
(Judgment pronounced in the Open Court, vide separate order) ORDER That, acting under section 248(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, accused no.1 and 2 are acquitted for the offence punishable under sections 420 and 120(B) r/w section 511 of the Indian Penal Code and under section 117 of Karnataka Education Act and under section 66(D) of the Information Technology Act.
That, the bail and surety bonds of accused no.1 and 2 are stands cancelled.
That, accused no.1 and 2 shall comply with the provisions of section 437(A) of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
That, M.Os. 1 to 9 shall be returned to accused no.1 and 2.
(Hematapur) I Addl.CMM, Bangalore.