Bangalore District Court
The State Of Karnataka vs Mr.H.V.Thippeswamy on 29 July, 2017
IN THE COURT OF LXXVII ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL AND
SESSIONS COURT AND SPECIAL COURT UNDER
PREVENTION OF CORRUPTION ACT 1988, BENGALURU.
(CCH-78)
PRESENT: SRI MALLIKARJUNAGOUD,
B.A.L. LL.B.,
LXXVII ADDL. CITY CIVIL &
SESSIONS JUDGE &
SPECIAL JUDGE, BENGALURU.
DATED: 29th JULY 2017.
Spl. C.C.No. 66/2012
*****
COMPLAINANT: The State of Karnataka,
Rep by Inspector of Police,
Karnataka Lokayuktha Police,
Bengaluru City Wing, Bengaluru.
(Rep by Sri S.P.Hubballi, Public
Prosecutor)
V/s
ACCUSED: 1. Mr.H.V.Thippeswamy, Aged 39 years,
S/o Late Veeranagappa,
Tax Inspector, BBMP,
Byatarayanapura Division,
Yalahank Zone, Bengaluru,
R/o No.72, 17th A Cross,
Bhuvaneshwari Nagara,
Dasarahalli Main Road,
Bengaluru 24.
2 Spl.C.C.No.66/2012
2. Mr.Nagaraju, Aged 27 years,
S/o Eranna,
R/o House No.28, 12th cross,
Nagamma Badavane,
Chokkasandra,
Jalahalli cross, Bengaluru.
(Rep by Sri B.J.Prakash Singh,
Advocate)
1. Nature of Offence: Offence punishable under
Sec.7, 12, 13(1)(d) R/w Sec.13(2) of
Prevention of Corruption Act 1988.
2. Date of Commission 26-09-2011.
of offence:
3. Date of First Information 26-09-2011.
Report:
4. Date of Arrest: 26-09-2011.
5. Date of Commencement 14-09-2016.
Of recording of evidence:
6. Date of Closing of evidence: 27-02-2017.
7. Date of Pronouncement of 29-07-2017.
Judgment.
8. Result of the case: Accused No.1 and 2 are acquitted.
^^^^^
JUDGMENT
In this case Police Inspector of Karnataka Lokayuktha Police, City Wing, Bengaluru City, has filed charge sheet against the above named accused for the offences punishable under Sec.7,12 and 13(1)(d) R/w Sec.13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act 1988. 3 Spl.C.C.No.66/2012
2. The charges leveled against the accused are that on 19-09- 2011 the complainant-CW.1 Laxman N. had been to the Bruhath Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike office situated at Kogilu village. There he met accused No.1 and asked him for making 'B' katha in respect of his land bearing Sy.No.9/3 of Jakkuru Agrahara Village. At that time, accused No.1 demanded a sum of Rs.10,000-00 as bribe amount and after bargaining, it was reduced for Rs.8,000-00. On that day accused No.1 has received part of the bribe amount of Rs.5,000-00 from the complainant. Thereafter accused No.1 was insisting the complainant to pay the balance amount. The complainant was not interested in paying the balance amount, so on 26-09-2011 he went and informed the same to the Lokayuktha Police and filed a complaint and produced voice recorder of his conversation with accused No.1. On the strength of the same, Lokayuktha Police have registered a case against the accused No.1 and secured the presence of punch witnesses. Thereafter they conducted pre trap mahazar in their office informing the punch witnesses about the fact of filing a complaint by the complainant and what the complainant and shadow witnesses should do during trap. Thereafter they left Lokayuktha office went to the BBMP office situated at Kogilu village wherein the accused No.1 was working. When they went there, accused No.1 was not present in his office. The complainant enquired whereaboutness of accused No.1 by giving a 4 Spl.C.C.No.66/2012 call. At that time accused No.1 asked him to come to his office. When the complainant went inside the office of accused No.1, he was not present there. Thereafter he enquired accused No.2 about accused No.1. Later, accused No.2 enquired accused No.1 by giving a call to him informed him about the arrival of complainant to the office. At that time accused No.1 informed accused No.2 to collect the balance amount of Rs.3,000-00 from the complainant and informed the complainant to pay that amount to accused No.2. At the instance of accused No.1, the complainant paid the balance amount of Rs.3,000- 00 in the hands of accused No.2 as demanded by accused No.1 for doing B katha with respect to his above said property. At that time Lokayuktha Police have arrested accused No.2 in the presence of shadow witnesses, conducted trap mahazar, brought him to their Lokayuktha office, investigated entire matter and submitted charge sheet against the accused for the above said offences. After completion of entire investigation, Investigating Officer obtained sanction from the appointing authority of accused No.1 and submitted charge sheet against the accused for the offences stated above.
3. The presence of accused was secured and accused appeared before the court through their counsel. Copy of the charge sheet was supplied them under Section 207 of Cr.P.C. and they are enlarged on bail.
5 Spl.C.C.No.66/2012
4. Heard Special Public Prosecutor and the counsel for the accused on hearing before charge.
5. After hearing on HBC, after perusal of the charge sheet and the documents placed before the court, this court held that there is prima facie case against the accused to prosecute them for the offences punishable under Sections 7,12, 13(1)(d) r/w 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.
6. The charges against accused for the offences punishable under Sections 7,12,13(1)(d) r/w 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act are read over and explained to them in the language known to them, for that they pleaded not guilty and claims to be tried.
7. In all the Lokayuktha Police have cited as many as 24 witnesses in the charge sheet. Out of them prosecution has examined CW.1-Laxman N.-the complainant is examined as PW.2, CW.2- Prasanna and CW.3-Shashwath S.M. are the shadow witnesses are examined as PW.1 and 3, CW.4-Puttarajanna, Assistant Revenue Inspector, BBMP office, Thanisandra, is examined as PW.6, CW.5- Chandrashekaraiah, who was working as Revenue Inspector, at BBMP Ward No.5, Bengaluru is examined as PW.4 and CW.6-Sowmya- computer operator of BBMP office at Kogilu are examined is examined 6 Spl.C.C.No.66/2012 as PW.7, CW.8-Anjanappa, who was working in BBMP office at Kogilu village, Bengaluru, on daily wages is examined as PW.9, CW.23- M.K.Shankar Lingegowda, the then Commissioner of BBMP, Bengaluru, who issued sanction to prosecute accused for the offences alleged against them is examined as PW.5, CW.24-Shivashankara N.G., Investigating Officer is examined as PW.8 and got marked Ex.P.1 to P.27 and M.O.1 to 11 are marked. The defence counsel got marked one document as Ex.D.1. Learned Public Prosecutor submitted that he has closed his side.
8. Statement of the accused Under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. is recorded, they denies the incriminating evidence against them. Enquired the accused about the defence evidence for that they submitted that they have no defence evidence, so their defence evidence is taken as nil and recording of evidence is closed and case was posted for hearing arguments.
9. Heard the arguments of learned Public Prosecutor and counsels for the accused.
10. After hearing the arguments, after perusal of the charge sheet and evidence of the prosecution witnesses, the following points arise for consideration of this court:-
7 Spl.C.C.No.66/2012
1. Point No.1: Whether the prosecution proves its case against the accused beyond all reasonable doubt that, the sanction order issued against the accused No.1 to prosecute him for the offences alleged is a valid sanction?
2. Point No.2: Whether the prosecution proves its case against the accused No.1 beyond all reasonable doubt that the accused No.1 being the public servant, on 19-09-2011 when the complainant CW.1 Laxman N. had approached him in BBMP office at Kogilu village, Bengaluru, for the purpose of making 'B' katha in respect of his land bearing Sy.No.9/3 of Jakkur Agrahara village, at that time accused No.1 demanded a sum of Rs.10,000-00 as bribe amount and after bargaining the same was reduced to Rs.8,000-
00, thereafter accused No.1 has received a sum of Rs.5,000-00 as a part of bribe amount and asked him to pay the balance amount, thereafter on 26-09-2011 at about 3.33 p.m. when the complainant had been to office of accused No.1 along with Lokayuktha Police and independent witnesses, at that time accused No.1 instructed accused No.2 to colleted balance bribe amount of Rs.3,000-00 and at the instance of accused No.1, accused No.2 has accepted that amount for rendering the official favour to the complainant and thereby he has committed the offence punishable under Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988?
3. Point No.2: Whether the prosecution proves its case against the accused No.1 beyond all reasonable doubt that he being a public servant by illegal means abused his possession as a public servant, demanded and accepted illegal gratification of Rs.8,000-00 from the complainant against the public interest and thereby he has committed criminal misconduct punishable under Section 8 Spl.C.C.No.66/2012 13(1)(d) r/w 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988?
4. Point No.2: Whether the prosecution proves its case against the accused No. 2 beyond all reasonable doubt that, he being a private individual, on 26-09-2011 at about 3.33 p.m. at the instance of accused No.1 accepted the balance bribe amount of Rs.3,000-00 from the complainant, abated the accused No.1 for doing official favour to the complainant and thereby he has committed the offence punishable under Section 12 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988?
5. Point No.5: What Order?
11. My answers for the above point is in the followings because of my below discussed reasons.
POINT No.1: IN THE AFFIRMATIVE.
POINT No.2: IN THE NEGATIVE.
POINT No.3: IN THE NEGATIVE.
POINT No.4: IN THE NEGATIVE.
POINT No.5: AS PER FINAL ORDER.
REASONS
12. Point No.1: Here in this case, the fact that accused No.1 is a pubic servant working in BBMP office at Kogilu village, Bengaluru, is not in dispute. When he was working as a public servant, to prosecute him for any of the offences committed by him during discharging his duty as a public servant. Under such circumstances, for prosecuting him for such offences sanction is must. Because Section 197 of Cr.P.C. states about the same and Section 19 of the Prevention of Corruption 9 Spl.C.C.No.66/2012 Act, 1988 also states that no court shall take cognizance of an offence publishable under Section 7,10,11,13 and 15 of Prevention of Corruption Act, have been committed by a public servant except without previous sanction. When it is stated so, it is clear that sanction is must. Here in this case, the prosecution is cited PW.5-M.K.Shankar Lingegowda, the retired Principal Secretary in Government of Karnataka as sanctioning officer. In his examination in chief, he has stated that from 21-11-2011 to 29-08-2012 he served as a Commissioner in Bruhath Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike, Bengaluru. During that time, ADGP Lokayuktha has sent a requisition letter requesting him to accrue sanction to prosecute accused No.1 for the offences alleged against him. Along with that letter he has annexed certified copies of complaint, FIR, mahazar, trap mahazar, chemical analysis report, sketch map of the scene of offences, statements of witnesses, explanation given by the accused No.1 and final report of Assistant Revenue Officer, Byatarayanapura. After verifying all the records he satisfied that there is a prima facie case against the accused No.1 to prosecute him for the offences alleged against him. So he accrued sanction as per Ex.P.13. Here in this case, the counsel for the accused submitted that the sanction issued by PW.5 is not valid, as there is no evidence to satisfy that, there is a prima facie case against the accused No.1. So the issuance of sanction itself is illegal, hence 10 Spl.C.C.No.66/2012 accused is entitled for acquittal. In support of his case, he relied on the following decisions:
1. 1979 Supreme Court Cases Crimes 926 in between (Mohd. Iqbal Ahmed V/s State of Andra Pradesh),
2. 2001(1) Crimes 315 Karnataka High Court, in between (J.S. Sathyanarayana (deceased) by LRs., and another V/s State by Inspector of Police, Karnataka Lokayuktha, Madikeri),
3. 2007 SAR (Criminal) 845 in between State of Karnataka V/s Ameer Jan,
4. 2010 (2) KCCR 1010 in between (Babappa V/s State by Lokayuktha Police, Gulbarga),
5. 2015 SAR (Criminal) 939 Supreme Court in between (Nanjappa V/s State of Karnataka),
6. 2002 (2) Crimes 198, Allahabad High Court in between (Udai Narain V/s State of U.P. through CBI).
13. Contrary to this, learned Public Prosecutor submitted before the court stating that for issuing sanction, the sanctioning authority is not suppose to hold any mini trial by recording evidence of its witnesses and to ascertain the truth of the case. He has to verify all the records sent for his examination and if the said report satisfies him, that there is a prima facie case against the accused to prosecute, then he can accrue the sanction otherwise not. Here in this case, PW.5 has specifically stated about the documents verified by him and the statements of witnesses and statement of accused given before the 11 Spl.C.C.No.66/2012 Investigating Officer. By looking into the said documents, he satisfied that there is a prima facie case, for accruing sanction. As he has satisfied with the said records, he accrued sanction, so there is no any illegality on the part of the sanctioning authority in issuing the sanction. So he requested the court to answer point No.1 in the Affirmative.
14. After hearing the submissions of both the sides and after going through the ratio involved in the decisions relied upon by the counsel fofr the accused, the point remains for consideration of this court is whether the sanction order issued by PW.5 marked at Ex.P.13 to prosecute accused No.1 for the offences alleged against him, is valid or not is the fact to be considered by the court. Because in a decision reported in 1979 Supreme Court 926, in between (Mohd. Iqbal Ahmed V/s State of Andra Pradesh) their Lordships held as follows:
"Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947-Section 6- Sanction for prosecution under-proof and valid of- sanctioning authority must be shown to have applied its mind-No presumption regarding the satisfaction arising on facts-In absence of any valid sanction, the whole prosecution, held invalid".
In another decision reported in 2001(1) Crimes 315 Karnataka High Court, in between (J.S. Sathyanarayana (deceased) by LRs., and 12 Spl.C.C.No.66/2012 another V/s State by Inspector of Police, Karnataka Lokayuktha, Madikeri):
"Sanction order for prosecution of an accused under Prevention of Corruption Act, on the face of it, must indicate to Court clearly that sanctioning authority has evaluated material placed before it and has come to conclusion that case warranted a prosecute."
In a decision reported in 2007 SAR (Criminal) 845 in between State of Karnataka V/s Ameer Jan:
"A. Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988., Sec.19- Sanction order contains irregularities Conviction can be set aside-Before passing an order of sanction entire record containing the materials collected against the accused, should be placed before sanctioning authority-Offence u/Secs. 7 and 13(1)(d) r/w Sec./13(2) of the Act-Sanction was granted on the basis of a report issued by IG Police-Sanctioning Authority was examined-He however did not produced the report and the same was not brought on record- High Court set aside the conviction holding that order of sanction was illegal-Legality of-Entire records containing the materials collected against the accused was not placed before Sanctioning Authority-Whether order shows a non-application of mind on the part of authority-Held : Yes-Whether the Judgment of High Court is sustainable-Held: Yes".
15. By considering the ratio involved in the said decisions and other decision relied upon by the counsel for the accused No.1, it is clear that for issuing valid sanction, the sanctioning authority must satisfied that, there is a prima facie case against the accused for prosecuting him, so issuance of sanction is necessary. Here PW.5 who has issued the sanction order marked at Ex.P.13 has specifically stated that he has verified all the document sent for his consideration. By 13 Spl.C.C.No.66/2012 looking into the complaint and FIR, it indicates that the complainant has filed a complaint against the accused before Lokayuktha Police. On the strength of the same, the Lokayuktha Police have registered a case and conducted pre trap mahazar, trap mahazar, arrested accused No.2 and seized tainted currency notes of Rs.3,000-00 from him. On enquiry they came to know that at the instance of accused No.1, accused No.2 has received the said balance bribe amount of Rs.3,000- 00 from the complainant. Accused No.1 has also admitted about the allegations made by the complainant against him. So by considering all these facts into consideration along with the investigation papers place before him for his verification, he satisfied that there is a prima facie case against the accused No.1 for prosecuting him for the offences punishable under Sections 7,13(1)(d) r/w 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. So he accrued the sanction to prosecute accused No.1 for the offences alleged against him. By considering all these facts into consideration, this court held that sanction issued by PW.5 for prosecuting accused No.1 for the above said offences is valid. Hence, this court answered point No.1 in the Affirmative.
16. POINT Nos.2 TO 4: For giving findings of this court on point No.2 to 4, common discussion of the oral and documentary 14 Spl.C.C.No.66/2012 evidence placed by the prosecution before the court is necessary. So all these points are taken up for common discussion.
17. Here after considering the evidence of the prosecution witnesses, the documents placed before the court and statements of both the sides, the fact that accused No.1 is a public servant working in BBMP office in Kogilu village, as a tax inspector in revenue section, Ward No.5 is not in dispute. The fact that the complainant PW.2- Laxman has submitted an application for issuance of 'B' katha with respect to his land bearing Sy.No.9/3 of Jakkur Agrahara village, is not in dispute. Whether at any point of time, this accused No.1 was authorized by the BBMP for effecting the change of any kathas or issuance of B kathas pertains to the property situated within its jurisdiction or not. Whether at any point of time complainant-PW.2- Laxman met accused No.1, discussed with him with respect to issuance of B katha in respect of his property bearing Sy.No.9/3 of Jakkur Agrahara village and received a sum of Rs.5,000-00 as part bribe amount and subsequently on 26-09-2011 when the complainant appeared in the office of accused No.1 for collecting the papers of his property, at that time accused No.1 instructed him to pay the balance bribe amount of Rs.3,000-00 to accused No.2 and collect the papers. At his instance only accused No.2 collected that Rs.3,000-00 as 15 Spl.C.C.No.66/2012 balance bribe amount seized in this case and marked as M.O.11 from the complainant or not is the fact to be considered by this court. Because it is the case of the prosecution that after purchase of property by the complainant, has submitted his application before BBMP office situated in Kogilu village for obtaining B katha with respect to his property. At that time he met accused No.1 and he demanded a sum of Rs.10,000-00 for making B katha. After bargaining, it was reduced into Rs.8,000-00 and on 19-09-2011 he paid a sum of Rs.5,000-00 as advance and agreed to pay the balance bribe amount of Rs.3,000-00 after completion of his work. After completing the work on 24-09-2011 the accused No.1 called complainant over his phone and informed him to meet him on 25-09- 2011. As he was busy in some other work, so he did not go there on 25-09-2011. Further he was not interested in paying that amount of Rs.3,000-00 to accused No.1 as bribe, so on 26-09-2011 he had been to Lokayuktha office, filed a complaint and thereafter Lokayuktha Police visited that office for conducting trap along with shadow witnesses and staff. At that time, accused No.1 was not present in that office, so complainant enquired accused No.1 over his phone about his work and regarding payment of balance bribe amount, at that time accused No.1 told him that he has to pay that balance bribe amount to accused No.2 and collect his papers. Thereafter accused No.2 enquired 16 Spl.C.C.No.66/2012 with the accused No.1 and after confirmation, he collected the said bribe amount of Rs.3,000-00 from the complainant and issued his papers. The complainant was instructed by Lokayuktha Police to give signal to them after making payment on demand, so he gave signal to them by wiping his head. Thereafter Lokayuktha Police surrounded the accused No.2, got introduced themselves, got his hands washed in sodium carbonate solution which was turned into pink colour and it was seized. Thereafter collected the bribe amount of Rs.3,000-00 from accused No.2, returned to their station, drafted trap mahazar, secured presence of accused, taken the statements of accused No.1 and 2, taken the signatures of complainant, punch witnesses to the trap mahazar, transmitted the conversation between the complainant and accused into CD, reduced it into writing and obtained the signatures of complainant and the shadow witnesses. Thereafter Investigating Officer get the witnesses present before 17th ACMM Court, Bengaluru, for recording their statements under Section 164 of Cr.P.C. and after completion of entire investigation and after obtaining the sanction, he has submitted charge sheet against the accused. When the prosecution has come up with specific case stating that accused No.1 being a public servant has demanded and accepted illegal gratification from the complainant through accused No.2 for doing official work in favour of the complainant, the prosecution has to prove its case 17 Spl.C.C.No.66/2012 against the accused beyond all reasonable doubt. Section 103 of Indian Evidence Act states that in criminal cases, the prosecution has to prove its case against the accused beyond all reasonable doubt. If there is any benefit of doubt, such benefit shall be given to the accused for acquittal and accused shall not convicted by taking benefit of doubt.
18. Here in this case, learned Public Prosecutor submitted before the court stating that by considering the oral and documentary evidence placed by it before the court, the fact that, accused No.1 as a public servant in BBMP office at Kogilu village, Bengaluru, dealing with the property matters and on 15-09-2011 when the complainant approached accused No.1 for getting B katha with respect to his property bearing Sy.No.9/3 of Jakkur Agrahara village, at that time he demanded Rs.10,000-00. As the complainant was not interested in paying that amount, so he approached the Lokayuktha Police at that time they issued voice recorder to him to record and produced the same before Lokayuktha Police while filing complaint. As per their instruction on 19-09-2011 again he went and met accused No.1 and discussed about issuance of B katha in respect of his property, at that time after bargaining, the said bribe amount was reduced to Rs.8,000- 00 and received a sum of Rs.5,000-00 as advance and told the complainant to pay the balance amount after completion of his work. 18 Spl.C.C.No.66/2012 The said conversation was recorded in voice recorder. On 24-09-2011 this accused No.1 informed about the completion of work and asked him to come on 25-09-2011. As this complainant was not free on that day, on 26-09-2011 he met Lokayuktha Police filed his complaint as per Ex.P.11 and handed over his voice recorder. Thereafter they secured the presence of shadow witnesses PW.1 and 3, after their arrival, Investigating Officer handed over copy of the complaint filed by the complainant and requested them to assist for conducting trap proceedings and thereafter he conducted pre trap proceedings in his office and after completion of the pre trap proceedings, he along with the complainant, shadow witnesses and his staff went to the office of accused No.1. At that time, he was not present there. So the complainant enquired the accused No.1 about his whereaboutness and informed him that he is in BBMP office. After receiving phone call accused No.1 informed the complainant to pay the balance amount of Rs.3,000-00 to accused No.2 and collect his papers. Thereafter accused No.2 has also made conversation with accused No.1 and at his instance, he has collected the balance bribe amount of Rs.3,000-00 from the complainant and issued his papers. At that time, Lokayuktha Police arrested him, got his hands washed in the sodium carbonate solution and it was turned into pink colour. Thereafter they arrested him, brought him to their station, drawn trap mahazar, secured the 19 Spl.C.C.No.66/2012 presence of accused No.1, interrogated him, secured presence of his officials, got his voice identified which was recorded in the voice recorder and obtained the statement in that regard. By considering the evidence of the prosecution witnesses, the prosecution has proved its case against the accused beyond all reasonable doubt. There are no any materials omissions and contradictions on the part of the prosecution witnesses to disbelieve its case. Though there are any omissions and contradictions in the evidence of prosecution witnesses, it is not of much important for acquittal of the accused. So he requested the court to convict the accused by awarding maximum sentence.
19. Contrary to this, learned counsel for the accused submitted before the court stating that for prosecuting the accused under Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, the prosecution has to establish the fact that at the time of alleged incident, this accused No.1 was entrusted with change of katha and to issue B katha with respect to the properties situated within the said BBMP limits. But by looking into the admissions of complainant and other prosecution witnesses examined before the court, it is clear that this accused was not working as Revenue Inspector in BBMP office at Kogilu village and not changed any katha and issue of B katha to any of the properties situated within the said BBMP Limits. So the question of any demand 20 Spl.C.C.No.66/2012 and acceptance of bribe amount by accused No.1 from the complainant do not arise. It is the case of the prosecution that earlier conversation between accused No.1 and complainant was recorded in voice recorder given by Lokayuktha Police to the complainant. Without registering any case by the Lokayuktha Police supply of such voice recorder is illegal. In support of this contention he relied on a decision reported in 2012(3) KCCR 1738 HN-Bengaluru Karnataka High Court, Circuit Bench at Gulbarga, in between (Sri. Ramesh desai and another V/s The State of Karnataka by Raichur Lokayuktha P.S.):
"B. CRIMINAL PROCEDURE CODE,1973-Section 172-Investigation-Role of Investigating Officer -He should act as impartial and independent investigating agency-He should not associate himself and assist the complainant, giving tape recorded to record conversation (via Bribe case) with regard to demand of bribe does not constitute preliminary enquiry, rather it amounts to collecting the evidence against in person accused of".
20. Though the complainant stated that on 15-09-2011 when he had been to file complaint before Lokayuktha Police against the accused No.1, they did not register the case. However, the Investigating Officer has handed over a voice recorder to the complainant to record his conversation with accused No.1 for demand of bribe. Though he has stated that on 26-09-2011 he approached Lokayuktha Police, filed his complaint as per Ex.P.11 and handed over 21 Spl.C.C.No.66/2012 that voice recorder. The Investigating Officer has not produced that original voice recorder before the court or obtained the certificate from the person who transmitted that conversation into a CD. Apart from it, the Investigating Officer ought to have takes specimen voice of accused No.1 and send the admitted voice with the disputed voice to the experts for voice testing stating as to whether the voice recorded in both the CDs are of the same person or not. So it is fatal to the prosecution case.
21. It is true that the prosecution has proved its case with regard to the pre trap mahazar in the presence of PW.1 to 3. But it is not sufficient to conclude the guilt of the accused. Though the complaint is against accused No.1, on that day they trapped accused No.2. There is no any satisfactory explanation from the prosecution to trap accused No.2 and to file the case against accused No.1 and 2. Though the complainant stated that after his arrival to the office of accused No.1 on 26-09-2011 he did not notice accused No.1 in the office, so he gave a phone call and discussed with him, at that time he told him to pay that amount in the hands of accused No.2. For proving such fact, the conversation taken place between accused No.1,2 and complainant over mobile phone is must and it is not produced before the court and proved it with any cogent evidence. Under such circumstances, mere seizure of money from the possession of accused 22 Spl.C.C.No.66/2012 No.2 will not prove the prosecution case against accused No.1. But accused No.2 is not a public servant, so the complainant ought not to have pay the said amount in his hand. In the cross-examination of PW.2 he has stated that, accused No.1 has not approached him to collect tax and he know that the revenue inspector or assistant revenue inspector are the competent persons to issue B katha. So this admission also goes to show that with malafide intention to falsify the case against the accused, Lokayuktha Police hatched a plan, trapped accused No.2 and falsified the case against accused. All the prosecution witnesses examined before the court have stated that on the date of trap this accused No.1 was not present in that office and he had been to attend election work at Chamarajapete along with his staff. If really accused No.1 demanded the amount and he was not available in the office, Lokayuktha Police ought to have returned to their station or they ought to have go along with the complainant to Chamarajapete for conducting a fair trap. As there is no role of this accused No.1 in the matter of complaint, so he shall not be punished for any of the offences alleged against him. There are so many omissions and contradictions in the evidence of complainant, shadow witnesses and other witnesses. Said omissions and contradictions are material omissions and contradictions, it creates doubt in the mind of the court about prosecution case. PW.4-Chandrashekaraiah who 23 Spl.C.C.No.66/2012 alleged to have identified the voice of accused No.1 and issued his statement as per Ex.P.12 has denied that fact. In his cross- examination by the counsel for the accused he has admitted that from Sept. 2011 to Nov. 2011 accused No.1 was entrusted with preparing of voter list and he was attending the same along with the other officials. Further he has admitted that before affixing his signature to Ex.P.12, he did not read its contents. So it is clear that, at the instance of Lokayuktha Police, he has affixed his signature to the same. PW.6- Puttaraju has also stated that this accused No.1 has no role in issuing B katha. Further he has stated that he did not see accused No.1 in the video clip or he did not hear the voice of accused No.1 in the same. So the said evidence of PW.6 also contradicts the case of the prosecution. PW.7-Sowmya has stated in her cross-examination stating that she gave her statement before Magistrate as per the instructions of Lokayuktha and for the first time she is seeing her statement marked at Ex.P.16. Her evidence contradicts the prosecution case and creates doubt in the mind of the court. PW.8-Shivashankar N.G. Inspector though supported the prosecution case. By considering the omissions and contradictions and defect appearing in the cross-examination falsifies the prosecution case against the accused. PW.9-Anjinappa has not fully supported the prosecution case. By considering the evidence of all the above said prosecution witnesses into consideration, it 24 Spl.C.C.No.66/2012 indicates that the prosecution has miserably failed to prove its case against the accused beyond all reasonable doubt. Hence, he requested the court to acquit the accused. In support of his case the counsel for accused No.1 has relied upon the following decisions:
1. 2012(3) KCCR 1738 HN-Bengaluru Karnataka High Court, Circuit Bench at Gulbarga, in between (Sri. Ramesh desai and another V/s The State of Karnataka by Raichur Lokayuktha P.S.),
2. Unreported decision of Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka in Crl.Pet.No.3750/2013 dated:11-02-2016 in between ((Lakshmikantha V.s State and another),
3. Unreported decision of Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka in Crl.Pet.No.3202/2017 dated:27-04-2017 in between (M.R.Hiremath V.s The State by Karnataka Lokayuktha Police Station, Bengaluru),
4. 2006 (3) KCCR 1445 in between (State of Karnataka V/s K.T.Hanumanthaiah),
5. Hon'ble Karnataka High Court reported in 2010(2) KCCR 1010 (Babappa V/s State by Lokayuktha Police, Gulbarga),
6. 2014(3) SCC 55 in between (B. Jayaraj V/s State of Andhra Pradesh),
7. 2012(4) KCCR 3156 (SC) Supreme Court of India in between (State of Kerala and Another V/s C.P.Rao),
8. 2008(2) KCCR 985 in between (State by Lokayuktha Police, Mandya V/s K.M.Gangadhar),
9. 2009SAR (Criminal) 906 Supreme Court in between (State of Maharashtra V/s Dnyaneshwar Laxman Rao Wankhede.),
10. 2010 AIR (Criminal) 495 Supreme Court of India in between (Banarsi Das V/s State of Haryana), 25 Spl.C.C.No.66/2012
11. 2013 (1) KCCR 381 Karnataka High Court, Circuit Bench at Dharwad, in between (Smt. Mamtax Begum V/s The State of Karnataka),
12. 2012 (1) KCCR 414 Karnataka High Court, in between (R. Malini V/s State of Karnataka),
13. 2011 SAR (Criminal) 719, Supreme Court, in between (P. Parasurami Reddy V/s State of A.P.) and
14. 2008 SAR (Criminal) 433, Supreme Court, in between (Udaykumar Pandharinath Jadhav @ Munna V/s State of Maharashtra).
22. The counsel for the accused No.2 submitted before the court stating that except the fact of seizure of money from the accused No.2, the prosecution has not established any of its case stating as to what was the role of this accused in the matter. Mere seizure of money from the possession of the accused No.2 will not amount to an offence and he shall not be convicted for the same. Because for convicting the accused, the prosecution has to establish its case stating that work pertains to the complainant was pending with accused No.2, he demanded the amount and accepted the same. When no work pertains to the complainant was pending with accused No.2 and as there was no any demand of money from accused No.2, he shall not be convicted for any of the offences alleged against him. In support of his contention he relied on the following decisions:
1. 2012 (1) KCCR 414 Karnataka High Court, Head Note B, C and D, in between (R. Malini V/s State of Karnataka):26 Spl.C.C.No.66/2012
"B. Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.-Sections, 7,13(1)(d)-Therefore mere possession of the amount by the accused cannot be taken as receipt of the amount by the accused after demand made by him as the evidence of demand is totally lacking".
"C. Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988-Sections 7,13(1)(d)-It is not the passing of the money alone that establishes a Corruption charge because the grave men of the offence lies in the fact that the money was paid for a corrupt purpose and it is that aspect which is paramount".
"D. Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.-Sections 7,13(1)(d)-In the absence of any evidence of demand and acceptance of the amount as illegal gratification-Mere acceptance of Money by the appellant will not be sufficient to fasten the guilt".
23. Here after considering the submissions of both sides, after going through the evidence of the prosecution witnesses placed before the court along with the decisions relied upon by the counsel for the accused, now the points that remains for consideration of this court are whether the accused No.1 being a public servant has illegally demanded and received gratification of Rs.5,000-00 for making B katha with respect to his property bearing Sy.No.9/3 of Jakkur Agrahara village and thereafter he told the complainant has to pay the balance consideration of Rs.3,000-00 in the hands of accused No.2 and collect his papers or not are the facts to be considered by the court. That Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, states about taking gratification other than the illegal remuneration in respect of official act. The said Section defines that "any public servant accepts or 27 Spl.C.C.No.66/2012 obtains or agrees to accept or attempt to obtain any gratification whatever, other than legal remuneration for himself or for any other person as a motive or reward for doing or forbearing to do any official act or for showing or forbearing to show, in the exercise of his official functions, then he shall be punished with imprisonment which may extend not less than six months but which may extend to five years and shall also be liable to fine". By considering that definition, whether change of katha of the complainant's property was vest with accused No.1 or not is the fact to be considered by the court. For deciding this fact the admission given by the complainant in his cross-examination is most important. Because in his cross-examination on page 5 at para No.4 in the middle he has stated as follows:
" ....Accused No.1 has not approached me for collection of tax in respect of my property or for any other purpose. I know that my work relating to getting the B katha has to be done by Revenue Inspector or Assistant Revenue Inspector. At that time, I do not know in which capacity accused No.1 was working in the BBMP. I got no hurdle to produce the voice recorder before the Lokayuktha Police and lodge the complaint till 24-09-2011......".
When he says that changing of his katha is not the duty vest with the accused No.1, then how he made conversation with the accused No.1 and why the accused No.1 demanded Rs.10,000-00 from him for change of his katha is the fact to be considered by the court. The 28 Spl.C.C.No.66/2012 complainant stated that his conversation with accused No.1 was recorded in a CD marked at M.O.8. Section 65-B of Indian Evidence Act states as to how the electronic record produced before the court is admissible in evidence. That in a decision reported in (2015)1 SCC (Cri) 24 in between (Anwar P.V. Vs. P.K.Basheer and others), their Lordships have stated about the facts to be considered by the court while it deciding the prosecution case on electronic records. In Head Note B their Lordships held as follows:-
"B. Evidence Act,1872-S.65B(4)-Secondary evidence of electronic record-Producing copy of statement pertaining to electronic record in evidence not being the original electronic record-Mandatory pre-
requirement-Held, such statement has to be accompanied by a certificate as specified in S.65-B(4)- Essential ingredients of such certificate, enumerated- Held, such certificate must accompany electronic record like CD,VCD, pen drive, etc., which contains the statement which is sought to be given as secondary evidence, when the same is produced in evidence -In absence of such certificate, secondary evidence of electronic record cannot be admitted in evidence, as in present case''.
In view of the said ration, it is clear that any electronic evidence produced before the court should be accompanied with the certificate issued by the person who transmitted the same. Here in this case the CD produced by the prosecution marked at M.O.8 and 11 i.e., alleged conversations of complainant with accused No.1 and 2 are not accompanied with such certificate. Further the original voice recorder and video are not produced before the court. That apart the 29 Spl.C.C.No.66/2012 prosecution ought to have get identified the voice of the accused alleged to be recorded in the CD as per Ex.P.8 and 10. By taking sample of the voice recorder of the accused in a separate CD and get the opinion of the experts by getting it examined. In view of non-
compliance of any of the ingredients of Section 65-B of the Indian Evidence Act, this court held that the alleged conversation of complainant with the accused are not admissible in evidence.
In a decision reported in 2015(1)KCCR 898 in between N.A.Suryanarayana @ Suri V/s State by Inspector of Police, CBI/SPE/Bengaluru, HN-B, his lordships held as follows:
"B. Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. -Section 7-Capacity to do official favour-Initial burden in a trap case lies on prosecution -It should also prove that bribe amount was received only after demand".
For proving this fact the prosecution has not produced any evidence before the court stating that this accused No.1 was dealing with the transfer of katha pertains to the properties situated in BBMP Limits of Kogilu village jurisdiction. Further there is no evidence to prove that earlier to 26-09-2011 accused No.1 has demanded and accepted any part of the amount from the complainant as a part of bribe. Ex.P.11 is a complaint filed by the complainant before the Lokayuktha Police. In that complaint he has stated that on 19-09-2011 he paid Rs.5,000-00 as advance amount and agreed to pay the balance amount after completion of his work. If the said negotiation was with the accused 30 Spl.C.C.No.66/2012 No.1 as alleged in the complaint and if the work of the complainant was completed after receiving any bribe amount. What was the necessity for him to pay the balance amount in the hands of accused No.2 is also the fact to be considered by the court? If really the said negotiation was with the accused No.1 and the complainant, he ought to have pay that amount in the hands of accused No.1 as that complaint was against the accused No.1.
24. To consider the prosecution case for convicting a public servant for the offences punishable under Sections 7 and 13 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, the prosecution has to prove its case about pendency of the official work of the complainant, demand of bribe amount and acceptance of the same. By looking into the evidence of the prosecution witnesses and documents placed before the court, it indicates that the work with respect to issuance of B katha with respect to the property bearing Sy.No.9/3 of Jakkur Agrahara village pertains to the complainant was not pending with accused No.1. When the said work was not pending with him, the question of he demanding any amount and accepting any amount as part of bribe amount itself is doubtful.
25. It is true that the shadow witnesses PW.1 and 3 namely Shaswath and Prasanna have supported the prosecution case with regard to the conducting of pre trap mahazar and trap mahazar and 31 Spl.C.C.No.66/2012 other factors. Whether their evidence are satisfactory to conclude the guilt of the accused or not are also the facts to be considered by the court. By looking into the complaint, it indicates that earlier to conducting of trap, they were called by the Lokayuktha Police to their station and informed about the trap. If really the information given by the complainant to the Lokayuktha Police about the incident then, they ought to have register a case against the accused and to conduct trap. Why they did not do so is also the fact creates doubt in the mind of the court. PW.1 Shashwath has stated that accused No.1 demanded Rs.10,000-00 as bribe amount and received a sum of Rs.7,000-00 as part of that amount and demanded the balance amount after completion of the complainant's work. This statement of PW.1 contradicts with the prosecution case about actually demanding of amount and payment of part of the demanded amount. In his examination in chief he has not specifically stated about the prosecution case and not fully supported the prosecution case. With the permission of the court he was treated as hostile by learned Public Prosecutor and cross-examined at length. In his cross-examination he went on admitting of the suggestions put to him by the prosecution. If really the trap was conducted in his presence, he ought to have specifically stated before the court. Further with regard to any conversation between the accused No.1 and 2 with the complainant, 32 Spl.C.C.No.66/2012 he is not an eye witness. So his evidence is not of much important only because the fact that the Investigating Officer has seized the tainted currency notes of Rs.3,000-00 from the possession of accused No.2 itself is not sufficient to consider the guilt of the accused. Though in the cross-examination by learned Public Prosecutor PW.1 stated that on that day he was sent along with the complainant to the BBMP office at Kogilu. In his cross-examination by the counsel for the accused he has stated that he has not entered in that office along with the complainant. The said deposition in his cross-examination reads as follows:
"...... I was with the Lokayuktha when CW.1 entered the office of accused. I do not know with whom CW.1 met after entering the office of the accused. I do not know at whose direction CW.1 has handed over the tainted currency notes and to whom......".
The evidence of the complainant must be corroborated with the evidence of shadow witness. Because as per the prosecution case, PW.1 has accompanied the complainant on that day and he was present with the complainant.
26. That PW.3 Prasanna was with the Lokayuktha Police. So his evidence is of much important. When PW.1 is cited as a shadow witness and stated that he was present with the complainant when went inside that office, then his evidence must be corroborated with the evidence of the complainant. In a decision reported in 2010(4) 33 Spl.C.C.No.66/2012 SCC 450 HN-A, in between (Banarsi Dass V/s State of Hariyana): their Lordships held as follows:
"A. Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947-Ss.5(2) and (1)(d)-Conviction under-Based on inference-
Impropriety-Reiterated, mere recovery of money from the accused by itself is not enough in absence of substantive evidence of demand and acceptance- It is a settled canon of criminal jurisprudence that conviction of accused cannot be founded on basis of inference-Offences should be proved against accused beyond reasonable doubt either by direct evidence or even by circumstantial evidence if each link of chain of events is established pointing towards guilt of accused
-Prosecution has to lead cogent evidence in that regard so far as it satisfies essentials of a complete chain duly supported by appropriate evidence-Hence, High Court erred in drawing inference of demand and receipt of illegal gratification from fact that money was recovered from accused-Criminal Trial-Conviction- Penal Code,1860".
As per the ratio involved in that decisions the conviction of accused cannot be founded on the basis of inference, because the prosecution has to prove its case against the accused beyond all reasonable doubt either by direct evidence or given by circumstantial evidence. Here in this case, PW.1 is a shadow witness to the prosecution case, but he said that he was not present with the complainant at the time of his conversation with accused No.2 and payment of tainted amount of Rs.3,000-00 to him. So the evidence of PW.1 contradicts with the evidence of PW.2 (complainant) and it creates doubt in the mind of the 34 Spl.C.C.No.66/2012 court about the prosecution case. The complainant has stated that he has made conversation with the accused No.1. The call details of the mobile phone of accused No.1 and complainant are not produced before the court and it is not proved with any cogent evidence. In his cross-examination on page 9, he has admitted that his conversation was with Chandrashekaraiah and as said Chandrashekaraiah was not available in that office. So he gave that amount to accused No.2. The said statement of PW.2 as follows:
".......It is true that I have made all the transaction with Chandrashekaraiah and on the date of trap since no others were found I gave the tainted currency notes to the accused No.2......."
Again this admission of PW.2 creates doubt in the mind of the court about the prosecution case to believe it. Because in catena of decisions of Hon'ble Supreme Court and Hon'ble High Courts, their Lordships held that there has to be a evidence to establish the demand and acceptance of the illegal gratification, such facts are considered by Hon'ble Supreme Court in:
(1) 2010(4) SCC 450 in between (Banarsi Dass V/s State of Hariyana), (2) 1980 Supreme Court Cases (Cri) 121 in between (Panalal Damodar Rathi V/s State of Maharastra), 35 Spl.C.C.No.66/2012 (3) ILR 2010 KAR 1983 in between (State of Karnataka, through Police Inspector, Bureau of Investigation V/s Anand Gururao Deshpande), Head Note-D, (4) 2015(1)KCCR 898 in between N.A.Suryanarayana @ Suri V/s State by Inspector of Police, CBI/SPE/Bengaluru.
27. Here in this case accused No.2 has specifically stated that he has never made any conversation with the accused No.1 over phone, never demanded any amount from the complainant. However, he paid that amount immediately Lokayuktha Police have arrested him and seized that amount. It is true that the prosecution has stated that at the instance of accused No.1, the complainant has paid that Rs.3,000- 00 in the hands of accused No.2. What is the evidence for that fact is also the fact to be proved by the prosecution. But it has not proved the same with any cogent evidence. So the evidence of PW.1 to 3 are not satisfactory for considering the prosecution case to hold that the accused No.1 has demanded and accepted any amount from the complainant as illegal gratification for issuance of B katha to the complainant's property bearing Sy.No.9/3, of Jakkur Agrahara village.
28. PW.4-Chandrashekaraiah is a Revenue Inspector. As per the admission of complainant in his cross-examination by the accused 's counsel his transaction with this witness. He has stated in his examination in chief stating that the Lokayuktha Police have conducted 36 Spl.C.C.No.66/2012 a trap on his office while he was on leave and trapped accused No.1 for receiving the bribe amount. It is not the case of the prosecution that Lokayuktha Police trapped accused No.1 in BBMP office and recovered any amount. So his evidence contradicts with the case of the prosecution. Later he was treated as hostile and cross-examined by the learned Public Prosecutor but nothing has been elicited in his cross-examination to believe the prosecution case. He has stated that he do not know the contents of Ex.P.12.
29. PW.6-Puttaraju is a retired Assistant Revenue Inspector. He has also stated that Lokayuktha Police displayed the voice recorded in voice recorder and it was not clear. Again it was displayed he noticed that it was the voice of accused No.1. There is no any explanation as to how he was conversant with the voice of accused No.1. Because there are so many procedures for mimicring the voice of a person by another and there are so many chances of additions and deletions of voice recorded in the voice recorder. Since the prosecution has not established its case on electronic evidence as required under Section 65-B of the Indian evidence Act, so his evidence is not of much important. In his cross-examination at page 3 has stated as follows:
"........In the video clippings shown to me accused No.1 was not found in the Kogilu tax collection office. In the audio recordings shown to me there was no recordings of the conversation held at Kogilu office pertaining to accused No.1".37 Spl.C.C.No.66/2012
This statement of PW.6 creates doubt in the mind of the court to believe the prosecution case.
30. PW.7- Sowmya and PW.9-Anjinappa are cited as two independent witnesses to the prosecution case. But their evidence is of no use to consider the prosecution case to hold that the accused No.1 and 2 have committed the offences alleged against them. Because they have specifically denied the prosecution case about the demand and acceptance of any amount by accused from the complainant. The important ingredient of pendency of work, demand and acceptance of bribe amount by accused No.1 are not proved by the prosecution with any cogent evidence. Further, they have stated that, they have given their statement before ACMM, Bengaluru, as directed by Lokayuktha Police. In view of that statement it is clear that, they have not voluntarily stated before the Magistrate. Under such circumstances, accused shall not be convicted for the offences alleged against them.
31. It is true that PW.8-Shivashankar N.G. is the Investigating Officer has supported the prosecution case and he has specifically stated about the investigation work done by him. Further in his evidence he has specifically stated about the documents marked at Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.27 and M.O.1 to 11. His evidence is not convulsive proof for considering the prosecution case. His evidence can be used for 38 Spl.C.C.No.66/2012 corroborating with the evidence of other prosecution witnesses. That I have specifically stated that there are so many omissions and contradictions in the evidence of PW.1 to 3, 6, 7 and 9. For proving the fact of any demand and acceptance of bribe amount by accused No.1 and 2 from the complainant. The prosecution has examined PW.1 to 3, 7 and 9. Said witnesses have not supported the prosecution case and they have specifically stated that, on the date of trap accused No.1 was not present in the office as he was deputed to election duty to Chamarajapete. The fact that his presence was secured in the Lokayuktha office from Chamarajapete is not in dispute. When the alleged negotiations was between the complainant and the accused No.1 for demand and acceptance of bribe amount by the accused No.1, the Lokayuktha Police ought to have trap the accused No.1 in a proper manner and they ought to have prove that fact with cogent evidence. Since the evidence of all the prosecution witnesses examined before the court creates doubt in the mind of the court about the prosecution case, under such circumstances, if the accused are convicted for the offences alleged against them, it amount to convicting them by taking benefit of doubt. In view of the reasons stated above, this court held that the prosecution has failed to prove its case against the accused beyond all reasonable doubt for having committed the offences alleged against them.
39 Spl.C.C.No.66/2012
32. I have gone through the decisions relied upon by the counsel for the accused. The ratio involved in the said decisions are aptly applicable to the case on hand with regard to demand and acceptance of any bribe amount by the accused. Further there are so many omissions and contradictions in the evidence of prosecution witnesses which creates doubt in the mind of the court about the prosecution case. In view of the ratio involved in a decision reported in 2012 (4) KCCR 3156 Supreme Court in between (State of Kerala and Another V.s C.P.Rao.), their Lordships held that "mere recovery of money would not proved the charge. Further it is held that innocence is presumption and guilt is subject to proof". The ratio involved in other decisions are also aptly applicable to the case on hand. In view of the ratio involved in the above decisions and in view of the discussions of this court stated above, this court held that prosecution has failed to prove its case against the accused beyond all reasonable doubt. Hence this court answered point No.2 to 4 in the Negative.
33. POINT No.5: In view of my findings on the above points, this court, proceed to pass the following order:
ORDER 40 Spl.C.C.No.66/2012 Acting u/Sec. 235(1) of Cr.P.C. accused are acquitted for the offences punishable under Sections 7,12,13(1)(d) r/w 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.
Their bail bonds stand cancelled after lapse of appeal period.
MO.1 to 10 are worthless. Hence, they are ordered to be destroyed after expiry of appeal period.
MO.11 currency notes of Rs.3,000-0 is ordered to be confiscated to the State after expiry of appeal period.
****** (Dictated to the judgment-writer, after transcription, corrected by me and then pronounced by me in the open court on this the 29th day of July, 2017) (MALLIKARJUNAGOUD) LXXVII ADDL. CITY CIVIL & SESSIONS JUDGE & SPECIAL JUDGE, BENGALURU.
(CCH-78) ()()()()() ANNEXURE 41 Spl.C.C.No.66/2012 LIST OF WITNESSES EXAMINED FOR PROSECUTION:
PW.1: Shashwath S.M. PW.2: Lakshman PW.3: Prasanna PW.4: Chandrashekaraiah PW.5: M.K. Shankar Lingegowda PW.6: Puttarajanna PW.7: Sowmya PW.8: Shiva Shankar N.G. PW.9: Anjanappa LIST OF DOCUMENTS MARKED FOR PROSECUTION:
Ex.P.1: Note sheet of currency notes numbers Ex.P.1(a to c): Signatures of PW.1,3 & 8 Ex.P.2: Transcription Ex.P.2(a & b): Signatures of PW.1 & 8 Ex.P.3: Pre trap mahazar Ex.P.3(a to d): Signatures of PW.1,2,3 & 8 Ex.P.4: Charge sheet documents page 37 to 56 Ex.P.4(a): Signature of PW.1 on first page Ex.P.5: Copy of the attendance register Ex.P.6: Transcripted recordings Ex.P.6(a&b): Signatures of PW.1 & 8 Ex.P.7: Written explanation of accused No.1. Ex.P.7(a & b): Signatures of PW.1 & 8 Ex.P.8: Written explanation of accused No.2.42 Spl.C.C.No.66/2012
Ex.P.8(a & b): Signatures of PW.1 & 8 Ex.P.9: Trap mahazar Ex.P.9(a to d): Signatures of PW.1,2, 3 & 8 Ex.P.9(e): Signature of accused No.1 Ex.P.9(f): Signature of accused No.2 Ex.P.10: Statement of PW.1 Ex.P.11: Complaint Ex.P.11(a & b): Signatures of PW.2 and 8 Ex.P.12: Statement of CW.5 Ex.P.12(a to c): Signatures of PW.4 & 8 Ex.P.13: Sanction order Ex.P.13(a): Signature of PW.5 Ex.P.14: Report given by PW.6 Ex.P.14(a & b): Signatures of PW.6 & 8 Ex.P.15: Statement of PW.7 Ex.P.15(a): Signature of PW.7 Ex.P.16: Statement of PW.7 Ex.P.17: FIR Ex.P.17(a): Signature of PW.8 Ex.P.18: Letter to depute officials Ex.P.18(a): Signature of PW.8 Ex.P.19: Rough sketch of the spot Ex.P.19(a): Signature of PW.8 Ex.P.20: Sample seal Ex.P.20(a): Signature of PW. 8 Ex.P.21: PWD letter Ex.P.22: PWD sketch of the spot Ex.P.23: Chemical analysis report Ex.P.24: Service particulars of accused 43 Spl.C.C.No.66/2012 Ex.P.25: Call details Ex.P.26: 161 Statement of CW.8/PW.9 Ex.P.27: 164 Statement of CW.8/PW.9 Ex.P.27(a): Signature of PW.9 LIST OF MATERIAL OBJECTS MARKED FOR PROSECUTION:
MO.1: Sample sodium carbonate solution MO.2: Pink colour solution MO.3: CD MO.4: CD MO.5: Sample solution MO.6: Pink colour solution MO.7: Pink colour solution MO.8: CD MO.9: Cover containing the pant MO.10: CD MO.11: Currency notes LIST OF WITNESSES EXAMINED FOR ACCUSED:
-NIL-
LIST OF DOCUMENTS MARKED FOR ACCUSED:
Ex.D.1: Order issued by A.R.O. (MALLIKARJUNA GOUD) LXXVII ADDL. CITY CIVIL & SESSIONS JUDGE & SPECIAL JUDGE, BENGALURU.
(CCH-78) 44 Spl.C.C.No.66/2012