Bangalore District Court
The State Of Karnataka Through vs M.Thulasidas on 27 July, 2020
0
IN THE COURT OF XXIV ADDL. CHIEF
METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE, BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 27th DAY OF JULY 2020
C.C.No.9328/13
Present: SRI. BALAGOPALAKRISHNA.
XXIV ADDL. C.M.M., BENGALURU.
COMPLAINANT : The State of Karnataka through
Chamarajpet Police Station
(State by Sr. A.P.P.)
V/s.
Accused 1. M.Thulasidas,
s/o.late.M.N.Muddanna, 66 yrs,
R/at.No.244, 6th main, 4th block,
Jayanagar, Bangalore.
2. M.T.Kirandas, s/o.M.Thulasidas, 28
yrs, R/at.No.244, 6th main, 4th block,
Jayanagar, Bangalore.
DATE OF COMMENCEMENT :
OF OFFENCE
DATE OF ARREST OF THE : Accused No.1 and 2 are on bail.
ACCUSED
OFFENCES ALLEGED : U/s.418, 420, 468, 469, 471
r/w.34 of IPC
DATE OF COMMENCEMENT : 21/02/15
1
OF EVIDENCE
DATE OF CLOSING OF : 21/09/19
EVIDENCE
OPINION OF THE JUDGE : Accused found not guilty
(Balagopalakrishna.)
XXIV A.C.M.M., BENGALURU.
: J U D G M E N T :
The PSI of Chamarajpet Police Station has filed
charge sheet against accused for the offence
punishable U/s.418, 420, 468, 469, 471 r/w.34 of
IPC
2. The case of the prosecution in brief is as
under:
It is the case of the prosecution that, A1 and 2
being a father and son respectively having common
intention and in furtherance of the same, in order to
make wrongful gain created Khatha Certificate,
Kandayam paid receipt in respect of site No.49, 4 th
main road, Chamarajpet of CW 1 and produced
before the CW 8, the Sub Registrar, Chamarajpet,
Bangalore and made believed him as a genuine and
2
A1 executed and created a registered gift deed in
favour of A2 by misusing the property of CW 4
(property bearing Reg.No.6789/0607) on 02/02/09
bearing Reg.No.2311/0809 and deceived the owner
i.e., CW 1, thereby committed an offence punishable
U/s.418, 420, 468, 469 and 471 r/w.34 of IPC.
3. In pursuance of the complaint given by the
complainant by name Smt. Pramila Nesargi,, the
Police have registered crime in Cr.No.186/12 for the
offence punishable U/s. 365, 384, 418, 420, 468,
469, 471 r/w.34 of IPC. After conclusion of the
investigation, the Investigating Officer has filed
charge sheet against the accused for the offences
punishable U/s.418, 420, 468, 469 and 471 r/w.34
of IPC.
4. This court has taken cognizance for the
offence punishable U/s.418, 420, 468, 469 and 471
r/w.34 of IPC and issued summons to the accused
and accused are on bail.
5. The copy of the charge sheet and other
material documents has been supplied to the
accused as required U/s. 207 of Cr.P.C.
3
6. Heard before framing charge and charge
was framed for the offence punishable U/s.418, 420,
468, 469 and 471 r/w.34 of IPC and read over and
explained to the accused in the language known to
them. Accused pleaded not guilty and claimed for
trial.
7. In order to prove the case of the prosecution,
the prosecution has got examined PW.1 to 4 and got
marked Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.37 and closed their side.
8. Statement of the accused as required
U/s.313 of Cr.P.C. is recorded. The accused have
denied the incriminating evidence found in the
evidence of prosecution as false. No defense evidence
on the side of the Accused, but confronted Ex.D.1 to
D.4.
9. Heard both side.
10. The following point arises for my consideration:
1) Whether prosecution proves beyond
reasonable doubt that, A1 and 2 being a
father and son respectively having
common intention and in furtherance of
the same, in order to make wrongful
gain created Khatha Certificate,
Kandayam paid receipt in respect of site
4
No.49, 4th main road, Chamarajpet of
CW 1 and produced before the CW 8,
the Sub Registrar, Chamarajpet,
Bangalore and made believed him as a
genuine and A1 executed and created a
registered gift deed in favour of A2 by
misusing the property of CW 4 (property
bearing Reg.No.6789/0607) on
02/02/09 bearing Reg.No.2311/0809
and deceived the owner i.e., CW 1,
thereby committed an offence
punishable U/s.418, 420, 468, 469
and 471 r/w.34 of IPC ?
2) What order?
11. My answer to the above points is as under;
Point No.1 In the Negative.
Point No.2As per final order for the following;
REASONS
12. POINT NO.1 :
Sec.418 of IPC defines cheating with knowledge that
wrongful loss may ensure to person whose interest offender is
bound to protect.
Sec.468 of IPC deals with forgery for the purpose of
cheating. The ingredients has to be satisfied is :
1) Forgery has been committed ;
2) that the forgery has been committed by the accused;
5
3) That forgery has been committed by the accused
intending that the document forged shall be used for the
purpose of cheating ;
Sec.469 of IPC defines forgery for purpose of harming
reputation.
Sec.471 of IPC deals with using as a genuine a forged.
The ingredients has to be satisfied is :
1) There must be use of document ;
2) As genuine ;
3) Document which accused knows to be forged or which
he believes to be forged document ;
4) the use of document must be fraudulently or
dishonestly;
Now comes to Sec.420 of IPC deals with using as a
genuine a forged. The ingredients has to be satisfied is :
1) That the accused cheated the another person;
2) That he thereby induced
a) Delivery of property to any person, which property did not
belonged to the accused, or
b) To make, alter or destroy the whole or any part of valuable
security, or
c) anything which is signed or sealed and capable of being
6
converted to a valuable security ;
3) That he did so dishonestly.
Before discussing the evidence of the prosecution, how
the circumstances had lead to file complaint by the CW 1 has
to be considered. As per the Ex.P.1 at para NO.2, it is stated
by the PW 1 that "I was called upon by the Jayanagar police
on 18/8/12 to the Police Station in respect of complaint lodged
by one M.K.Goutham Chand against the accused herein for the
offences punishable u/s.418, 420, 421, 423, 425, 465, 468,
471, 120(B) r/w.34 of IPC. The Jayanagar police brought to
my notice that while investigating the said case with regard to
Gift deed dtd: 2/2/09 executed by accused No.1 in favour of
accused No.2 involved in the said case in respect of property
bearing No.244, 6th main, 4th block, Jayanagar, Bangalore, the
said Gift deed was also in respect of property bearing No.48,
4th main road, Chamarajpet, Bangalore and on further
investigation, the police came to know that Khatha of the
property bearing No.48, 4th main road, Chamarajpet, Bangalore
stands in my name, hence, PW 1 was called upon by the police
to give her statement with regard to the same."
13. Soon after that the PW 1 got the certified copy of the
Gift deed and came to know that the accused No.1 gifted her
property to accused No.2, hence, she has given complaint as
7
per Ex.P.1 to take action against this accused.
14. On the basis of the complaint, the Chamarajpet
police registered a crime against the accused and filed
chargesheet in this case.
15. Learned Sr.APP vehemently argued that the
prosecution by examining PW 1 to 4 and also producing the
documents at Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.37 has proved the guilt against
the accused that the accused No.1 with a criminal intention
by mentioning the property number of the complainant (CW1)
gifted the same in favour of the accused No.2, who is the son.
16. On the other hand, the defence counsel
Sri.T.Nagaraj vehemently argued that there is no consistency
in the evidence of PW 1, the PW 1 further admitted that there
are variations in schedule and also extent when compared
with the sale deed with gift deed. As per the prosecution
case, CW 4 is the victim, she has not supported the case of
the prosecution, so, only on the basis of the self interested
testimony of the PW 1, SubRegistrar and Investigating
officer, it cannot be said that the prosecution has proved the
case. It is further argued that, at the instance of one
Goutham Chand, a false complaint has been filed and in
order to help the Goutham Chand, the PW 1 is deposing false.
It is further stated that in respect of property under Ex.P.27,
8
there is a case pending in CC.No.19820/12 on the file of the
ACMM court. Case of the prosecution is civil in nature and no
criminal intention on part of the accused. Considering all
the circumstances, the prosecution has failed to prove the
guilt against the accused beyond all reasonable doubt and
accordingly prayed to acquit the accused.
17. To appreciate the case on hand, as admitted by the
PW 1 in the cross examination, erstwhile property number is
41 and subsequently it was made as No.48 and 49 and now
both were merged and renumbered as 49 is having following
boundaries:
1) East by : Site No.40
2) West by : remaining property of PW 1
3) North by : Road
4) South by : Conservancy galli measuring
east to west 90ft., and north to
south 110.5 ft.,
18. Side by side let me mention the boundaries
mentioned in the Gift deed marked at Ex.P.27, which is the
disputed document whereunder two items were gifted by
accused No.1 to accused No.2.
9
Item No.1
Property comes within BBMP limit, ward No.46,
Chamarajpet, 4th main road (Corporation No.48) measuring
East West 60 ft., North South 30 ft., consisting house
bounded by :
East by : Site No.47
West by : Site No.49
North by : Road
South by : Site No.51
Item No.2
Property comes within BBMP limit, Jayanagar 4 th
block, 6th main road ( present No.244 and property No.136)
measuring East - West 60 ft., North - South 40 ft., consisting
ground and first floor bounded by :
East by : Road
West by : Site No.265
North by : site NO.243A
South by : Site No.245
19. The prosecution to prove the guilt against the
accused the CW 1 herself examined as PW 1 wherein she has
given her evidence on par with the avernments made in the
complaint at Ex.P.1. She further deposed that the accused
10
person not only created the Gift deed in respect of the
property of the Goutham, but also to her property. She
further deposed that she has obtained a document in respect
of property No.48 and 49, it reveals that the same has been
created as if it was issued by the Corporation in the name of
Lakshmamma and on the basis of that, accused No.1 gifted
the property in favour of the accused No.2, so, she has given
complaint as per Ex.P.1 and then the police were visited to
her property No.49 and drawn the mahazar as per Ex.P.2,
signature at Ex.P.2(a). Thus contended that the accused No.1
by executing gift deed in favour of accused No.2 by forgery,
deceived her. Through her following documents are got
marked:
Ex.P.1 : Complaint
Ex.P.2 : Mahazar
Ex.P.3 : is the Notarised copy of the sale deed
dtd: 21/10/1953 for property NO.48 (old
site No.41/1)
Ex.P.4 : is the typed copy of the above said Sale
deed
Ex.P.5 : is the Notarised copy of the sale deed
dtd: 28/4/1956 for property NO.49 (old
site No.38/41)
Ex.P.6 : is the Notarised copy of the
Endorsement issued by Corporation for
site No.38/41.
11
Ex.P.7 : is the Notarised copy of the
Endorsement issued by Corporation for
site No.41/1.
Ex.P.8 : is the Notarised copy of the Death
certificate of the mother of the CW 1
Ex.P.9 : is the Notarised copy of the Will dtd:
1/12/1969 executed by the mother of
the CW 1 in her favour
Ex.P.1014 : are the Affidavits
Ex.P.15 : is the property card in respect of the
property No.48 standing in the name of
CW 1.
Ex.P.1617 : are the notarized copies of the Field
book extracts
Ex.P.18 : is the notarized copy of the
P.T.Sheet/spot sketch48
Ex.P.19 : is the notarized copy of the
Endorsement issued by Corporation in
respect of house No.4849
Ex.P.2021 : are the notarized copies of Khatha
extract in respect of the property No.48
& 49 respectively
Ex.P.2223 : are the notarized copy of tax paid
receipts
Ex.P.24 : is the notarized copy of the Special
notice for having combined property
12
No.48, 49 and assigned property No.49
Ex.P.25 : is the notarised copy of the Khatha
extract for property NO.49 of CW 1
Ex.P.26 : is the notarized copy of the License
Ex.P.27 : is the Registered original gift deed
Ex.P.28 : is the Registered Sale Agreement
Ex.P.29 : is the statement
Ex.P.30 : is the certified copy of the Affidavit
Ex.P.31 : is the cc of Khatha extract for property
No.48 standing in the name of accused
No.1
Ex.P.32 : is the cc of the Khatha certificate
standing in the name of accused No.1
Ex.P.33 : is the cc of the tax paid receipts
Ex.P.34 : is the cc of the khatha extract in respect
of property No.136 standing in the name
of A1
Ex.P.35 : is the cc of the khatha certificate in
respect of property No.136 standing in
the name of A1
Ex.P.36 : is the FIR
Ex.P.37 : is the seizure mahazar
Thus, PW 1 deposed that the accused No.1 by creating
the documents in respect of her property No.48 and 49, had
gifted the same in favour of the accused No.2 who is the son
13
and deceived her. She has also identified the accused No.1
and 2 before the court.
In the cross examination it is confronted to the witness
that on the basis of the Ex.D.1, Ex.P.27 had executed by the
accused No.1, witness voluntarily deposed that in that
document, date, extent are different. It is further suggested
that
ಪ ಪಶಶ್ನೆ ಃ ನಿಶಾನೆ ಪಿ 5 ರ ಸಾಕ್ಷಿಯ ನಿವವೇಶನಕಕ್ಕೆ ಸಸಂಬಸಂಧಿಸಿದ ಕ ಕಯಪತ ಕದ
ಷೆಡಡ ಲ ನಿ ಪಿ 27 ರ ಷೆಡಡ
ಡ ಲಡ ಡ ಲ್ (ಐಟಸಂ ನಸಂ.1) ಷಡಡ ಲ ವಡತಡಸ ಇದೆ ಎಸಂದರೆ ?
ಡ ಲಡ
ಉತತರ ಃ ವಾರರ ನಸಂ.46 ಇದೆ, 4 ನೆವೇ ಮಮುಖಡರಸತ , ಚಾಮರಾಜಪವೇಟೆ ಇದೆ
ವಿಸಿತವೇರರ್ಣ ಮತಮುತ ಚಕಮು
ಕ್ಕೆ ಬಸಂದಿಯನಮು
ಶ್ನೆ ನೆ ವಡತಡಸ ಮಾಡಿ ತಡವೇರಿಸಿದ್ದಾರೆ ಎಸಂದಮು
ನಮುಡಿಯಮುತತರೆ.
It is also admitted that the accused were executed
declaration that they don't have right over her property in
No.4849 measuring 90 x 110.5 ft., and rest of the cross
examination is just denial of the chief examination.
20. PW 2 in her examination in chief itself turned hostile
to the case of the prosecution deposing that she does not
know the accused, she knows CW 1 and he claimed her
ignorance about the present case and she has also not given
14
any statement to the police. At request of learned senior APP
this witness has been treated as hostile witness and
permission was accorded to cross examine her. In the cross
examination the learned Sr.APP has suggested the case of the
prosecution and same is denied by the witness.
21. PW 3 who is the then Sub Registrar of Chamarajpet,
he has given his evidence to the effect that on 2/2/09
accused No.1 came to his office to execute a Gift deed in
favour of accused No.2, at that time, accused No.1 has given
Khatha extract, khatha endorsement and affidavit and on
that basis, he has registered gift deed. Through him Ex.P.30
to Ex.P.36 are got marked. In the cross examination it is
suggested that one Goutham Chand and scribe joining
together by showing Lakshmma's property have created a gift
deed through the accused, same is denied by the witness.
22. PW 4 who is the PSI who has conducted the
investigation of this case and he has given his evidence to the
effect that from the date of receiving the complaint, drawing
the mahazar, arresting the accused, recording statement and
filing chargesheet. In the cross examination it is just denial of
the chief examination.
23. Now the court has to verify on the basis of the oral
evidence as well as the documentary evidence as argued
15
whether the prosecution has proved the guilt against the
accused has to be verified. From the evidence of PW 1, what
is gathered is except execution of Ex.D.3 (Cancellation of gift
deed), earlier to that there was no any connection among
accused and the PW 1. The cause of action was arose to the
PW 1 to give complaint as per the Ex.P.1 is when the
Jayanagar police on 18/8/12 called her to enquire in respect
of complaint lodged by one M.K.Goutham Chand, at that
time, she came to know that accused No.1 executed the gift
deed including her property in property No.49 of Chamarajpet
(2 properties i.e., property No.48 and 49 joined together, a
new No.49 was assigned by the Corporation), Bangalore. It is
further alleged that property documents of the CW 4 has been
misused by the accused at the time of execution of the gift
deed. In order to attract ingredients of Sec.420 of IPC,
mensrea at the time of inducing the person deceived to deliver
any property to any person essential to constitute offence
u/s.420 of IPC. On careful evaluation of the evidence of PW1,
before giving complaint as per Ex.P.1, there was no any
connection among the complainant and the accused.
Therefore, from the evidence of PW 1, SubRegistrar and
Investigating officer, the court cannot come to the conclusion
that the accused have committed the offence u/s.420 of IPC.
Here, accused No.1 and 2 are the father and son, merely
because the accused No.1 executed a gift deed to accused
No.2, it cannot be said that the accused No.2 has committed
16
offence under this section, unless it is established the
meeting of minds. In this regard, no evidence at all. Now
comes to the Sec.418 of IPC, as per this section cheating was
made with knowledge that wrongful loss may ensue to person
whose interest the accused are bound to protect. As
discussed above, at the time of executing the gift deed, there
was no connection among the accused and PW 1, so, at that
time, the accused No.1 had knowledge to cause wrongful loss
to PW 1 does not arise. In this regard, the learned counsel
appearing for the accused vehemently argued that since
boundaries and measurements are different when compared
with the properties mentioned in the gift deed and also the
property of the PW 1, there is lot of difference except property
number and further argued that because of the act of the
accused, some wrongful loss should have been caused to PW1
and same has not been forthcoming in the evidence of PW 1.
In this regard, as per the Ex.D.2 E.C. of PW 1, the property
is still standing in the name of PW 1, so it can infer that no
loss or damages are caused to the PW 1. In order to
substantiate his argument, Sri.T.Nagaraj, Advocate has
pressed into the service of reported ruling of Hon'ble Supreme
Court and Hon'ble Allahabad High Court reported in AIR
1997 Supreme Court 3424 in the matter of Jibrial Diwan
v/s.State of Maharashtra, wherein it is pleased to hold
that :
17
"Hereby delivery of forged letters,
there is neither any wrongful gain to
anyone nor any wrongful loss to another.
The act of appellant could not thus be
termed to have been done dishonestly.
Likewise the appellant cannot be said to
have any intention to defraud because
his action resulted in no disadvantage to
any one which but for the deception the
person defrauded would have acted
otherwise. The basic ingredients of the
act done 'dishonestly' or 'fraudulently'
being missing, the charge under Section
471 r/w.465, IPC was totally misplaced
and the High Court fell into an error in
convicting the appellant on those
charges."
In a ruling reported in 1994 Crl.L.J.657 in the matter
of M/s.Son Bhadra CokeProducts and others v/s.State of
UP wherein it is pleased to hold that :
Before the offence of cheating can
be made out it has to be shown that
damage or harm has been caused to the
person so deceived.
18
The said ruling is aptly applicable to the case on hand,
because, in this case, the PW 1 all along contending that
including her property, the accused No.1 has executed gift
deed in favour of accused No.2, who is the son. But nowhere
she has stated that because of that gift deed some loss
caused to her. Further, as per the evidence of PW 1, the
property number of CW 4 has been misused, in fact the CW 4
has turned hostile to the case of the prosecution. Therefore,
the prosecution utterly failed to prove the guilt against the
accused u/s.418, 420 r/w.34 of IPC.
24. Now comes to the rest of the offences i.e., Sec.468,
469, 471 r/w.34 of IPC. On plain reading of the ingredients
of said sections, forgery has been committed by the accused
and used the same document for the purpose of cheating,
harming the reputation and forged document has been used
as genuine, though accused knows those documents are
forged and used the said documents fraudulently. In this
case, as per the version of the prosecution, the accused No.1
including the property of the PW 1, executed a gift deed as per
Ex.P.27. Under such circumstances, how Sec.468, 469 and
471 of IPC attracts to the case on hand has not been
explained by the prosecution through the evidence of PW 1,
SubRegistrar and evidence of Investigating officer. The
present act of the accused is squarely attracts civil litigation
19
and not criminal. Therefore, for these offences also the
prosecution has not made out a ground that the accused were
committed the offences under this section. Further, Ex.D.3
has been confronted in the cross examination of PW 1 i.e.,
Gift deed cancellation, wherein the accused No.2 executed the
said document in favour of accused No.1. This document
cannot be considered for any purpose for simple reason is
that once the gift deed is made, neither the donor nor the
donee cancel such document. Whatever the gift deed
executed by the accused No.1 in favour of accused No.2 can
be cancelled only through the process of court and not
otherwise. Therefore, this document cannot be considered for
any purpose. It is well established law that mere change of
khatha in the name of the parties, they would not acquire
right under it. Khatha Certificate and Khatha Endorsement
would be effected for the purpose of collection of revenue to
the Government.
25. The defence of the accused is that though the PW 1
is stranger to the Ex.P.27, at the instigation of one
M.K.Goutham Chand, she has given a false complaint and
also stated that there is a civil litigation among these accused
and said Goutham Chand. One more criminal case is
pending before the II ACMM in CC.No.19820/12. The said
fact has been admitted by the PW 1 stating that she is a
witness and claimed her ignorance about the civil suit.
20
Considering the nature of complaint given by the PW 1, it
appears when the Jayanagar police called her for enquiry to
the Police Station, she has given complaint under Ex.P.1.
This circumstances leads that in order to help the Goutham
Chand, though no loss or damages to her, the PW 1 might
have given the Ex.P.1. Though the complaint has been given
the prosecution utterly failed to establish a guilt against the
accused by examining eye witnesses. Merely the Sub
Registrar was present and he has stated that the accused
were present, the accused No.1 executed gift deed in favour of
the accused No.2 is not sufficient. The prosecution should
have examined the scribe, witnesses to the said Gift deed, no
such attempt is made by the prosecution. The evidence
available on record is not sufficient to arrive a conclusion that
the accused No.1 and 2 have committed the offences as
alleged. Further, from the Ex.P.27 and Ex.P.28, no loss or
damages caused to the PW 1 and Gift deed has not been
further acted upon to get the benefit thereunder. Thus,
prosecution utterly failed to prove the guilt against the
accused anyone of the offences alleged. In my opinion, it is a
fit case to extend benefit of doubt to the accused.
Accordingly point under reference answered in the
Negative.
26. POINT NO.2 :
21
For the aforesaid reason and discussion, I proceed to
pass the following:
ORDER
Acting under section 248(1) of Cr.P.C. Accused No.1 and 2 are hereby acquitted for the offences punishable U/s.418, 420, 468, 469, 471 r/w.sec.34 of IPC. They are set at liberty.
The bail bond executed by the accused stands cancelled. However, Accused shall execute personal bond of Rs.50,000/ each by undertaking to appear before the appellate Court, if any appeal is filed. It is not a fit case to award victim compensation as provided U/s.357(1) of Cr.P.C.
(Dictated to the stenographer, script transcribed by her and then corrected directly on computer and then pronounced by me in open court on this the 27th of July 2020).
(Balagopalakrishna) XXIV A.C.M.M., BENGALURU.
ANNEXURE Witnesses examined for the Prosecution:
PW1 : Pramila Nesargi PW2 : Lakshmamma PW3 : Ravikumar 22 PW4 : D.Venkateshraju
Documents marked for the Prosecution:
Ex.P.1 : Complaint
Ex.P.2 : Mahazar
Ex.P.3 : is the Notarised copy of the sale deed
dtd: 21/10/1953 for property NO.48 (old site No.41/1) Ex.P.4 : is the typed copy of the above said Sale deed Ex.P.5 : is the Notarised copy of the sale deed dtd: 28/4/1956 for property NO.49 (old site No.38/41) Ex.P.6 : is the Notarised copy of the Endorsement issued by Corporation for site No.38/41.
Ex.P.7 : is the Notarised copy of the Endorsement issued by Corporation for site No.41/1.
Ex.P.8 : is the Notarised copy of the Death certificate of the mother of the CW 1 Ex.P.9 : is the Notarised copy of the Will dtd:
1/12/1969 executed by the mother of the CW 1 in her favour Ex.P.1014 : are the Affidavits 23 Ex.P.15 : is the property card in respect of the property No.48 standing in the name of CW 1.
Ex.P.1617 : are the notarized copies of the Field book extracts Ex.P.18 : is the notarized copy of the P.T.Sheet/spot sketch48 Ex.P.19 : is the notarized copy of the Endorsement issued by Corporation in respect of house No.4849 Ex.P.2021 : are the notarized copies of Khatha extract in respect of the property No.48 & 49 respectively Ex.P.2223 : are the notarized copy of tax paid receipts Ex.P.24 : is the notarized copy of the Special notice for having combined property No.48, 49 and assigned property No.49 Ex.P.25 : is the notarised copy of the Khatha extract for property NO.49 of CW 1 Ex.P.26 : is the notarized copy of the License Ex.P.27 : is the Registered original gift deed Ex.P.28 : is the Registered Sale Agreement Ex.P.29 : is the statement Ex.P.30 : is the certified copy of the Affidavit Ex.P.31 : is the cc of Khatha extract for property 24 No.48 standing in the name of accused No.1 Ex.P.32 : is the cc of the Khatha certificate standing in the name of accused No.1 Ex.P.33 : is the cc of the tax paid receipts Ex.P.34 : is the cc of the khatha extract in respect of property No.136 standing in the name of A1 Ex.P.35 : is the cc of the khatha certificate in respect of property No.136 standing in the name of A1 Ex.P.36 : is the FIR Ex.P.37 : is the seizure mahazar Materials marked for the Prosecution: NIL Witnesses examined for the accused: NIL Documents marked for the accused:
Ex.D.1 Sale deed
Ex.D.2 E.C.
Ex.D.3 Cancellation of Gift deed
Ex.D.4 Declaration
(Balagopalakrishna)
XXIV A.C.M.M., BENGALURU.