Bangalore District Court
State Of Karnataka vs Abdul Khayyum on 27 December, 2022
KABC010195602007
IN THE COURT OF LXXVIII ADDL.CITY CIVIL &
SESSIONS JUDGE & SPECIAL JUDGE (P.C.Act),
BENGALURU (CCH No.79)
Present: Smt. Vineetha P. Shetty,
B.Sc., M.A. (Sanskrit, English), LL.M.,
LXXVIII Addl. City Civil & Sessions
Judge & Special Judge (P.C. Act),
Bengaluru.
Dated: 27th December 2022
Spl.C.C.No.137/2007
Complainant: State of Karnataka,
Represented by Police Inspector,
Karnataka Lokayukta,
Bengaluru.
(By Public Prosecutor)
V/s.
Accused: 1. Abdul Khayyum,
S/o. A.Abdul Sattar,
Former Director, Collegiate
Education, Bengaluru
(By Sri. C.G. Sundar, Advocate)
2. K.S. Srivatsa,
General Manager,
KSIMC, Bengaluru.
(Abated)
2 Spl.C.C.No.137/2007
3. M.A. Khan,
Owner of M/s. Shahee Traders,
Factory No.20, Pukaraj Layout,
Banerghatta Road,
Bengaluru 560030
(Splitup)
4. K.H.Puttaswamygowda,
No.10/3A, Dr.Kuvempu main road,
Ramaswamypalya, (R.S.Palya),
Bengaluru33.
M/s. Ashoka Steel Industries,
Bengaluru. Office No.3,
Munikalappa Building,
Kammanahalli main road,
Bengaluru33.
(By Sri. L.P. Suresh, Advocate)
5. Sherieff,
Owner of Karnataka Wood Works,
1st Main Road, Palace Guttahalli,
Bengaluru 560003
(Splitup)
6. Virupakshaiah,
Owner of Triveni Industries,
No.192, 18th Cross, 20th Main Road,
Vijayanagara, Bengaluru 560040
(Abated)
7. Mahaveer Kumar,
Owner of Bengaluru Engineering,
No.2/1, M.T. Street,
BVK Iyengar Road Cross,
Bengaluru - 560053.
(Abated)
3 Spl.C.C.No.137/2007
Date of commission of : During the year 1992
offence
Date of report of : 02.04.1994
occurrence
Date of arrest of accused : Not arrested
Date of release of accused : Accused No.1 released on bail
on bail on 05.09.2007,
Accused No.4 released on bail
on 07.06.2008.
Date of commencement : 23.07.2018
of evidence
Date of closing of : 04.08.2022
evidence
Name of the complainant : Sri. D. Narayana Swamy, the
Police Inspector, Bureau of
Investigation, Karnataka
Lokayukta, Kolar
Offences complained of : Under 13(1)(d), r/w.
Sec.13(2) of the PC Act, 1988
and Sec.120B, and Sec.420
IPC.
Opinion of the Judge : Accused No.1 and 4 are not
found guilty
JUDGMENT
The Police Inspector, Karnataka Lokayukta, City Division, Bengaluru, has submitted the Charge Sheet, against the accused persons No.1 to 7, for the offences 4 Spl.C.C.No.137/2007 punishable under Sec.7, 8, 9, 10, 12 and 13(1)(c) & (d) r/w. Sec.13(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, and Sec.120B, and Sec.420 of Indian Penal Code.
2. The case of the Prosecution in brief is that: The complainant D. Narayana Swamy, the Police Inspector, Bureau of Investigation, Karnataka Lokayukta, Kolar, received a credible information that, the State Government in the year 199192, had sanctioned Rs.40 lakhs to the Director of Collegiate Education, to purchase wooden furnitures, to various First Grade Colleges in the State, vide G.0.No.343 dated 27.03.1992, and that the said Director had drawn the amount, and deposited the same, with the Karnataka Small Industries Marketing Corporation Limited.
3. That, to encourage the marketing activities of small industries, directions were issued by the State Government to all the departments, to purchase the items produced by small industries, through Karnataka 5 Spl.C.C.No.137/2007 Small Industries Marketing Corporation Limited, ('KSIMC' in short) and the said items also included the wooden furnitures.
4. The KSIMC had identified some firms, in all the districts, for supply of wooden furnitures, and the departments were expected to place orders with the said firms. As far as possible, orders were expected to be placed with the firms located in the districts where supply was required to be made, but if the firms were not existing in those districts, orders were allowed to be placed with the firms of neighbouring districts. Further, if the supply order is within Rs.1,00,000/, the departments were allowed to place orders directly with the firms, but, if the supply order exceeded Rs.1,00,000/, orders were allowed to be placed only through KSIMC. The said Corporation has nominated Officers for each district, to inspect the materials.
5. Accused No.1 - Abdul Khayyum being the Director of Collegiate Education, on receipt of indents 6 Spl.C.C.No.137/2007 for wooden desks, from various First Grade Colleges, placed orders with Shahee Traders, Bangalore, vide order No.DCE 11/Plan/9091 dated 28.03.92, for supply of 360 desks, to different colleges in Bangalore and Kolar Districts. He has also placed orders with the said Traders, for supply of wooden desks, to colleges situated in Tumkur and Chitradurga Districts, though approved firms were existing, in the said districts. Shahee Traders supplied 360 desks to different colleges, situated in Bangalore and Kolar Districts. The payment for these supplies, was made by KSIMC, as the entire amount, which was sanctioned by the State, was deposited with them.
6. On the information that, the wood reversible desks supplied by Shahee Traders, were of sub standard wood, the Forest Department was requested to inspect the same, and the Range Forest Officer, who was deputed by the Deputy Conservator of Forest (Utilisation Division), for the said purpose, has opined 7 Spl.C.C.No.137/2007 that, the wood used for the desks, was not that of teak. It was also ascertained that, the cost of one desk which was supplied by Shahee Traders, was only Rs.550/, as against Rs.1,700/, which was fixed for teak wood desks. Thus, the difference amount of Rs.4.12 lakhs was spent, for 360 desks,
7. It is alleged that, accused No.1 being the Director of Collegiate Education placed orders, with a single firm, situated in Bangalore, to supply desks to Bangalore, Kolar, Tumkur and Chitradurga Districts, for utilisation of more than Rs.7 lakhs, by violating the guidelines issued in Schedule of Rate Contract, issued by Karnataka Small Industries Marketing Corporation Limited, and the deceased accused No.2 being the Deputy Chief Manager, KSIMC, passed the bill without ensuring that the desks were made up of teakwood.
8. The accused No.3 to 7 being the traders, supplied the desks made up of low quality wood, by instigating accused No.1 and 2, and offering to bribe 8 Spl.C.C.No.137/2007 them. Accused No.4 being the owner of Ashoka Steel Industries, Bengaluru, conspired with accused No.1 to 3 and 5 to 7 to cheat the State, to an extent of Rs.4.12 lakhs, in the matter of supply of teak wood furnitures. Hence, as per the orders of Inspector General of Police, Bureau of Investigation, Karnataka Lokayukta, Bangalore, vide Memo No.LAC/Cr.No.37/94 dated 02.02.94, a case has been registered against the accused persons, in Cr.No.37/1994, for the offences under Sec.13(1)(d) R/w Sec.13(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act 1988, and under Sec.120B, 420 of Indian Penal Code.
9. During investigation, the Lokayukta Police, visited various colleges to which the desks were supplied, and collected small pieces of desks as samples, and sent them for Expert Opinion. CW186 - the Scientist, after examination of the samples, sent his Report, to the Institute of Wood Science and Technology. In his Report, he has stated that, only 155 9 Spl.C.C.No.137/2007 desks were made up of Teak Wood, and the others were made up of different types of Wood.
10. It is alleged in the Charge Sheet that, accused No.1 Abdul Khayyum being the Director of Collegiate Education, had purchased, low quality wooden desks, and accused No.2 - Srivatsa, General Manager KSIMC had issued a false Certificate that, the desks were made up of teak wood, and made a payment of a sum of Rs.39,93,792/ to the private firms namely M/s. Shahee Traders, M/s. Karnataka wood Works, M/s. Bengaluru Engineering, M/s. Ashoka Steel Industries, and M/s. Triveni Industries, and thereby caused loss to the tune of Rs.38,62,042.30/ to the State.
11. That accused No.3 M.A. Khan is the owner of Shahee Traders, accused No.4 K.H.Puttaswamy Gowda is the owner of Ashoka Steel Industries, accused No.5 Sherieff is the owner of Karnataka Wood works, accused No.6 Virupakshaiah is the owner of Triveni 10 Spl.C.C.No.137/2007 Industries, accused No.7 Mahavir Kumar is the owner of Bengaluru Engineering.
12. It is also alleged that, accused No.3 to 7 have instigated accused No.1 and 2 by offering to bribe them, and supplied the desks made up of low quality wood, instead of teak wood, and thereby cheated and caused a loss to the tune of Rs.38,62,042.30/, to the State, and accordingly, Charge Sheet was filed against them, by CW306 Irshad Khan, the Police Inspector, City Division, Karnataka Lokayukta, for the offences punishable under Sec.120B, 409 and 420 of Indian Penal Code and also under Sec.7, 8, 9, 10, 12 and 13(1)(c) & (d) r/w. Sec.13(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.
13. Initially the Charge Sheet was filed before the XXIII Addl. City Civil & Sessions Court and Special Court (CCH24), and the accused No.1 and 2 got released on bail on 05.09.2007, and 16.10.2007 respectively. As per the anticipatory bail granted in 11 Spl.C.C.No.137/2007 Crl.Misc1368/2008, the accused No.4 was enlarged on bail on 07.06.2008. The presence of accused No.3 - M.A. Khan and 5 - Sherieff, could not be secured, and therefore, the case against them was split up, as per the order dated 15.12.2009 of the then learned predecessorinoffice of the said Court. The case was abated against accused No.2 - K.S. Srivatsa on 16.09.2013, and against accused No.7 - Mahavir Kumar on 28.10.2008, as they were reported dead. Death of accused No.6 - Virupakshaiah is reported in the Charge Sheet itself.
14. Copies of the prosecution papers were furnished to accused No.1 and 4. This case is transferred from XXIII Addl. City Civil & Sessions Court and Special Court (CCH24) to this Court, vide Notification RSB No.87/2016 dated 04.03.2016 of the Hon'ble Registrar General of Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka, Bengaluru.
12 Spl.C.C.No.137/2007
15. After hearing both sides, the Charge was framed against accused No.1 - Abdul Khayyum, for the offences under Sec.13(1)(d) punishable under Sec.13(2) of the PC Act, and Sec.120B and 420 R/w. Sec.34 of IPC, and against accused No.4 - K.H. Puttaswamy Gowda, for the offences under Sec.120B and 420 R/w. Sec.34 of IPC, by the then learned Predecessorinoffice of this Court, on 11.12.2017. The accused No.1 and 4 have denied the charges against them, and claimed to be tried.
16. The prosecution has examined 28 witnesses, as PW1 to PW28 and produced documents at Ex.P.1 to P.104.
17. After closure of the evidence on prosecution side, the accused No.1 and 4 were examined, as required under Sec.313 of Cr.P.C. They denied the incriminating evidence, which appeared against them, and submitted that, there is no evidence in defence. 13 Spl.C.C.No.137/2007
18. Heard the arguments of learned PP for the State, and Sri. C.G. Sundar, Advocate, the learned counsel for accused No.1, and Sri. L.P. Suresh, Advocate, the learned counsel for accused No.4. The learned counsel for accused No.1, also filed written arguments.
19. The learned counsel for accused No.1 has relied on the citations - ILR 2013 KAR 983 Girishchandra and another vs. The State by Lokayukta Police, Yadgir, 2012(5) Kar.L.J. 545 L. Shankaramurthy and others vs. State by Lokayukta Police, Writ Petition No.2112 of 2017 (GMRES) A.M. Naik, vs. CID Police, Writ Petition No.61307 of 2016 B.T. Ramesh vs. CID Police, Criminal Appeal No.31 of 2009 P. Satyanarayana Murthy vs. Dist. Inspector of Police, 2022 Crl.L.J. 1516 State of Karnataka vs. V. Chandrashekhar, (2015) 16 SCC 350 Khaleel Ahmed vs. State of Karnataka.
20. Now, the following points would arise for my consideration:
14 Spl.C.C.No.137/2007
1) Does the prosecution prove that, a valid sanction, to prosecute the accused persons, has been duly obtained?
2) Does the prosecution, beyond reasonable doubt, prove that the accused No.1 - Abdul Khayyum, being the former Director of Collegiate Education, with fraudulent intention had agreed with accused No.2 to 7, to do illegal act of supply of standard reversible desks, and placed orders with the accused No.3 to 7, to supply substandard reversible desks to various colleges, and thereby committed the offence under Sec.120B of Indian Penal Code?
3) Does the prosecution, beyond reasonable doubt, prove that, the accused No.1 made payment to the tune of Rs.38,62,042.30/, by cheating the State and thereby committed the offence under Sec.420 R/w. Sec.34 of the Indian Penal Code?
4) Does the prosecution, beyond reasonable doubt, prove that, the accused No.1 being a public servant, by corrupt and illegal means obtained valuable thing and pecuniary advantage from the traders, and thereby committed criminal misconduct under Sec.13(1)
(d) R/w. Sec.13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988?15 Spl.C.C.No.137/2007
5) Does the prosecution, beyond reasonable doubt, prove that accused No.4 - K.H. Puttaswamygowda being the owner of Ashoka Steel Industries, Bengaluru, with fraudulent intention has agreed with the accused No.1 to 3, 5 to 7, to do illegal act of supply of substandard reversible desks, and in pursuance of the said conspiracy, accused No.4 along with accused No.3, 5 to 7, supplied substandard reversible desks to various colleges, and thereby committed the offence under 120B of Indian Penal Code?
6) Does the prosecution, beyond reasonable doubt, prove that in pursuance of common dishonest intention of accused No.4, along with accused No.3, 5 to 7, they had supplied only 155 reversible teak wood desks and supplied remaining reversible desks of some other wood, and got a false Certificate from accused No.2 that, supply was made as per Contract, and cheated the State to cause a loss to the tune of Rs.38,62,042.30/ and thereby committed the offence under Sec.420 R/w. Sec.34 of the Indian Penal Code?
7) What order?
21. My findings on the above points are as under:
Point No.1: in the Affirmative;
Point No.2: in the Negative;16 Spl.C.C.No.137/2007
Point No.3: in the Negative;
Point No.4: in the Negative;
Point No.5: in the Negative;
Point No.6: in the Negative;
Point No.7: As per the final order for the following REASONS
22. Point No.1: As per the provision under Sec.19 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, it is mandatory to secure the previous sanction of the Competent Authority, to take cognizance of the offences punishable under Sec.13 of the said Act, against a public servant, and as per Sec.197 of Cr.P.C. it is mandatory to secure previous sanction of the Competent Authority to take cognizance of the offences punishable under Sec.420 and 120B of Indian Penal Code, against a public servant.
23. The Prosecution Sanction Order in respect of accused No.1, is as per Ex.P.46 dated 17.06.2006, and 17 Spl.C.C.No.137/2007 the same has been issued by PW4 Raghuram Bhandari K, the then Under Secretary to DPAR. PW8/ the IO, during his evidence has also referred to Ex.P.46
- Sanction Order, received by him, on 28.02.2007. PW4 has deposed that, on 09.09.2005 ADGP, Karnataka Lokayuktha, had sent a requisition, to accord prosecution sanction, to prosecute accused No.1 Abdul Khayyum, Director, Collegiate Education Department, and also had sent the Final Report, along with required documents and that the said documents were examined by him. He found that, it was a fit case, to accord sanction to prosecute the accused No.1, and hence submitted the file to the Deputy Secretary, DPAR (Services) for onward submissions to the Prl. Secretary, DPAR, and the Chief Secretary to the Government.
24. It is found in his evidence that, the Chief Secretary had placed the file for the approval of Hon'ble Chief Minister, with a note "there is primafacie case for prosecution, may kindly be approved", and 18 Spl.C.C.No.137/2007 accordingly, the Hon'ble Chief Minister approved the Sanction on 07.01.2006, and accordingly the Prosecution Sanction Order was issued on 20.01.2006. As there was no mention with regard to examination of documents by the sanctioning authority, a revised and rectified Prosecution Sanction Order was issued on 05.05.2006, and after carrying out the corrections in the preamble portion of the said Order, he had finally issued the corrected Prosecution Sanction Order on 17.06.2006, as per Ex.P.46.
25. On perusal of Ex.P.46 - Sanction Order, it is clearly stated that, the Sanctioning Authority after perusing the investigation materials, came to the conclusion that, there was a primafacie case for grant of sanction, against the accused No.1 - Abdul Khayyum for the offences punishable under Sec.7, 10 and 13(1)(d) R/w. Sec.13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and Sec.120B, 409 and 420 of Indian Penal Code. During cross examination, PW4 denied the suggestion that, 19 Spl.C.C.No.137/2007 Ex.P.46 Order is contrary to the provisions of Karnataka Government Transaction of Business Rules 1977. Contention disputing the Prosecution Sanction cannot be accepted, in the background of the fact that, the accused No.1 retired from service on 30.04.1994, i.e., much prior to the filing of the Charge Sheet on 27.07.2007. Hence, it is to be held that, a valid Sanction Order as per Ex.P.46 has been duly obtained, by the Investigating Officer, to proceed against the accused No.1. As accused No.4 is not a public servant, the question of obtaining Sanction against him, does not arise. Hence, point No.1 is answered accordingly, in favour of the prosecution and in the Affirmative.
26. Point No.2 to 6: As these points are inter related, and to avoid repetition of discussion, these points are taken up together for consideration.
27. It is for the Prosecution to prove that, the accused No.1 - Abdul Khayyum, being the Director in Collegiate Education, Bengaluru, has agreed with 20 Spl.C.C.No.137/2007 accused Nos.2 to 7, with a fraudulent intention, to do an illegal act of supply of substandard reversible desks, and in pursuance of the said conspiracy in the year 199293, placed orders, pursuant to which the accused No.3 to 7 supplied substandard reversible desks, to various colleges.
28. That, the deceased accused No.2 being the General Manager, KSIMC Ltd., falsely certified that supplies were made as per contract. Accused No.1 placed orders for supply of teakwood reversible desks, and accused No.3 to 7 supplied only 155 teakwood reversible desks, and remaining desks of some other wood, and falsely got certified from accused No.2, that the supply was made as per the contract, based on which a payment to the tune of Rs.38,62,042.30/, was made by accused No.1, and thereby the accused persons caused a loss to the tune of Rs.38,62,042.30/, to the State. Further, the accused No.1 being the public servant, abused his position as a 21 Spl.C.C.No.137/2007 public servant to obtain valuable thing or pecuniary advantage from accused No.3 to 7.
29. It is also for the Prosecution to prove that, the accused No.4 K.H.Puttaswamygowda, had agreed with other accused No.1 to 3, 5 to 7 with fraudulent intention to do illegal act of supply of substandard reversible desks, and in pursuance of the said conspiracy in the year 199293 supplied substandard reversible desks to various colleges.
30. Out of the 28 witnesses examined by the Prosecution, to establish its case, PW1 Dr. D. Narayanaswamy is the PI, and PW2 - P.N. Kallappa is the Dy.S.P., both attached to Karnataka Lokayukta, Bengaluru, PW3 Pradeep is the Second Division Assistant at PWD Circle, Dharawada, PW4 - Raghuram Bhandari K. is the Under Secretary to DPAR and Department of Revenue, Government of Karnataka, PW5 - L.C. Lamani is the Principal in First Grade College, Hirekeroor, PW6 - Akbar Papalal Mulla is the 22 Spl.C.C.No.137/2007 Lecturer at Government First Grade College, Akki Alur, PW7 - S.M. Sathmaru is the Senior Lecturer in the Government First Grade College, Rona Taluk, Gadag District.
31. PW8 - Irshad Ahmed Khan is the Police Inspector, PW9 - Shanthachennegowda is the Range Forest Officer, PW10 - Somashekhar is the Second Division Assistant of office of ADLR, Chitradurga, PW11
- Mallappa Basavannappa Karki, is the Senior Veterinary Inspector at Nesargi, PW12 - H.T. Padmanabhashastri is the First Division Assistant at Taluk Office, Kundapura, PW13 - Narasimha is the Second Division Surveyor at Survey Office, Bagalkote, PW14 - Om Prakash is the First Division Assistant at Taluk Office, Belthangadi.
32. PW15 Manjunath Thimmappa Nayak is the Second Division Assistant at Office of the Assistant Executive Engineer, Mundagodi, PW16 - Prabhakar H.B. is the Second Division Assistant at Taluk Office, 23 Spl.C.C.No.137/2007 Hassan, PW17 - Ramanna K. is the Second Division Assistant, at Taluk Office, Hassan, PW18 M.S. Rajegowda is the Junior Engineer at Mysuru Urban Development Authority, PW19 - K. Ramesh is the Second Division Assistant at Taluk Office, Chennapatna, PW20 - Narasimhamurthy is the Security at RTO Office, Shivamogga.
33. PW21 - Rathnakar is the Second Division Assistant at Baindooru Department of Social Welfare, Kundapur Talu, PW22 - L.P. Daniel is the Village Accountant at Somavarapet Taluk, PW23 - Ravishankar is the Lecturer at Government College, Panchanahalli, PW24 - P. Jayaram Rai is the Second Division Assistant at Mysore District Collector's Office, PW25 - Syed Ghouse is the Lecturer at Government First Grade College, Ajjampur, Tharikere Taluk, Chikmagalur District, PW26 H.M. Mahesh is the Lecturer at Government First Grade College, Moodigere, PW27 - Venkatesh K.C. is the Professor at 24 Spl.C.C.No.137/2007 Government First Grade College, Koppa, PW28 - Abdul Rehaman is the Lecturer at Government First Grade College, Narasimharajapura, Chikmagalur District.
34. PW1 - Dr. D. Narayanaswamy, the Police Inspector, has deposed that, he had received a credible information, that substandard desks were supplied to different Government First Grade Colleges in Kolar, Tumkur and Bengaluru, by violating the Government norms, and hence, he had requested the Forest Department to inspect the desks supplied to different colleges in Kolar District. On 17.02.1994, 22.02.1994 and 01.03.1994, CW304 - Shanthachannegowda, RFO had visited the First Grade Colleges in Kolar, and colleges in Chikkaballapur, Bangarpet, Chinthamani, Mulabagilu and Shidlaghatta, and also collected the samples of the desks supplied, from the said colleges, and gave a Report on 08.03.1994, stating that, the samples collected were found to be of the wood other than teak wood. On the basis of the said Report, IGP, 25 Spl.C.C.No.137/2007 Karnataka Lokayukta, Bengaluru directed PW1 on 02.04.1994, to register a case against accused No.1 Abdul Khayyum and others, and directed to supervise investigation, as per Ex.P.1 and accordingly, he registered a case in crime no.37/1994 against accused No.1 to 3 and submitted FIR as per Ex.P.2.
35. On 04.04.1994, PW1 went to the house of accused No.2, along with panchas, and also by securing the search warrant at Ex.P.4. All the valuables and articles found in the house of accused No.2 were noted, and search mahazar was prepared by him as per Ex.P.3. On the next day, he went to the office of accused No.2 at KSIMC Ltd., Vayyalikaval, Bengaluru, along with search warrant at Ex.P.5, and found three files in connection with this case. He seized the said files under Ex.P.6. It is in his evidence that, a bank locker key was also found at the time of search of the house, and therefore, on 05.04.1994 he went to Corporation Bank, Sheshadripuram Branch, 26 Spl.C.C.No.137/2007 Bengaluru, along with accused no.2, and searched bank locker, in the presence of Bank Manager. After ascertaining the value of silver articles found in the locker, he prepared locker opening mahazar as per Ex.P.7, and handed over the locker key to accused No.2.
36. PW1 deposed that, as huge assets appearing to be disproportionate to the known source of income of accused no.2 was found, he gave a Source Report to Superintendent of Police, Karnataka Lokayuktha, City Division, Bengaluru, and a separate case in crime no.38/1994 was registered against accused no.2, for disproportionate assets.
37. On 08.04.1994, he recorded the statement of CW302 Dhanesh Murthy, and on 25.04.1994, recorded the statement of C.M. Narayana, Deputy Chief Manager, KSIMC, and learnt that, substandard desks were supplied to 60 other Government First Grade Colleges also, by violating the Government norms. He 27 Spl.C.C.No.137/2007 reported the same to his higher officer, who in turn had directed PW1 to continue the investigation, in respect of other Colleges also, and also gave directions to the concerned Police Inspectors of Dharwad, Belagavi, Bijapur, Chitradurga, Shimoga, Chikkamangalore, Dakshina Kannada, Karwar, Hassan, Mysuru, Mandya, Kodagu, Bengaluru Rural, Gulbarga, to secure the samples of desks supplied, in the year 1992.
38. According to PW1, he was asked to examine the sample desks supplied in Bengaluru City and Tumkur Districts, and accordingly, he had collected the samples and sent them to Lokayuktha office, Bengaluru, along with the Mahazars, PFs and Statements. He received 4015 samples, and on 17.10.1996, he sent the said samples to Wood Science Technology Section of Aranya Bhavan, Bengaluru. He received the Ex.P.9 Report from the said office on 31.07.2001, and as per the Report, out of 4,015 samples, only 155 samples were found to be that of 28 Spl.C.C.No.137/2007 teak wood, and others were found to be other than teak wood. His Report was also enclosed with a Memo of the Superintendent of Police as per Ex.P.8, and the mahazar drawn on 07.08.1996 in Government first grade college, Gubbi Town, Tumkur district as per Ex.P10.
39. PW1 further deposed that, the mahazar was drawn on 07.08.1996 in Government First Grade College, Chikkanayakanahalli Town as per Ex.P11, the mahazar was drawn on 08.08.1996 in Government First Grade College, Kunigal as per Ex.P12, the mahazar was drawn on 08.08.1996 in Government First Grade College, Turuvekere town, Tumkur District as per Ex.P13, the mahazar was drawn on 09.08.1996 in Government First Grade College, Sira Town, Tumkur district as per Ex.P14, the mahazar was drawn on 09.08.1996 in Government First Grade College, Pavagada Town, Tumkur district as per Ex.P15, the mahazar was drawn on 12.08.1996 in Government 29 Spl.C.C.No.137/2007 First Grade College, Koratagere Town, Tumkur district as per Ex.P16, the mahazar was drawn on 25.09.1996 in Government First Grade College, K.R.Puram, Bengaluru city as per Ex.P17, the mahazar was drawn on 03.10.1996 in Government First Grade College, Vijayanagar, Bengaluru city as per Ex.P18.
40. PW1 also deposed that, he recorded the statements of the witnesses namely, CW298 M.K. Narasimha Prasad, CW299 Abdul Gafur, CW300 M.N. Venkataramanappa, CW301 - C.Nanjundegowda, B.V. Lakshmikanth and D.N. Venkataramanappa, CW254 A.S Rangaraju, and T.Venkatanarasappa, and also recorded the statement of Shanthachennegowda of Forest Department.
41. PW1 secured the documents i.e., Service details of the accused from Chief Administrative Officer of Collegiate Education as per Ex.P23, letters, circulars and other documents seized from the office of Director, Collegiate Education as per Ex.P24, supply orders 30 Spl.C.C.No.137/2007 issued to Shahee Traders and letters addressed to KSIMC, copies of invoices and credit bills raised by Shahee Traders, Inspection report by KSIMC, Delivery copies of desks to various colleges from Office of Collegiate Education and office of KSIMC as per Ex.P.25.
42. During the course of investigation, PW1 collected the mahazars drawn by Lokayuktha Police Officers, along with samples of desks pertaining to Government First Grade Colleges of almost all over the State, and prepared the list of articles received from 65 colleges, as per Ex.P26. He collected placement orders, payment details, copies of invoices and credit bills, Inspection Reports, and delivery challan as per Ex.P.27, in respect of Karnataka Wood Works. Similarly, the documents pertaining to M/s. Bangalore Engineering Works, as per Ex.P.28, those pertaining to Ashoka Steel Industries as per Ex.P29, of Triveni 31 Spl.C.C.No.137/2007 Industries, as per Ex.P30, and of Shahee Traders as per Ex.P.31.
43. The Note sheets and Rate Contract Agreement with KSIMC by Shahee Traders, and payment details collectively are as per Ex.P.32, and the said documents pertaining to Karnataka Woodworks are as per Ex.P.33, those pertaining M/s.Bangalore Engineering Works are as per Ex.P.34, of M/s. Ashoka Steel Industries are as per Ex.P.35, of Triveni Industries are as per Ex.P.36. The Inspection certificates and payment calculations made by deceased accused No.2 K.S.Shreevatsa are as per Ex.P.37, and the Note sheets of Collegiate Education in file No.DCE/11/plan/199091 of Office of Collegiate Education are as per Ex.P.38.
44. PW1 during the course of investigation, had collected the letter of Principal, Government Womens College, Kolar, addressed to the Director, Collegiate Education, Bengaluru, which is at Ex.P.39. He has drawn a mahazar on 03.10.1996, at Government First 32 Spl.C.C.No.137/2007 Grade College, Vijayanagara, as per Ex.P.40. He has collected copy of Register containing the particulars of desks supplied to the said college, as per Ex.P.41. He has drawn a Mahazar on 25.09.1996, at First Grade College, K.R.Puram as per Ex.P.42, and collected the true copies of Credit Bills as per Ex.P.43 and Ex.P.44 and true copy of Inspection Certificate as per Ex.P.45.
45. During cross examination, PW1 admitted that, nobody had ever complained to him that, accused No.1 had demanded bribe. He has also admitted that, no written complaint was lodged with him, alleging that accused No.1 had collected any amount illegally. PW1 admitted that, an order passed by the Higher Officer under Sec.17 of Prevention of Corruption Act, is a must to entrust the investigation to any Police Inspector, and that, he had not sent the Source Report to the Jurisdictional Magistrate.
46. It is elicited from PW1 that, as per the requirement, the Principals of concerned Colleges make 33 Spl.C.C.No.137/2007 a requisition to the Directorate, for the supply of desks and in turn the Directorate places the requisition before the State Government for approval, and as a Director, the accused No.1 has issued an order for the supply of Teakwood desks to the concerned colleges.
47. PW1 admitted that, as per condition No.1 in Ex.P.35 i.e., in Rate Contract Agreement - the supply should be made as per the specifications stipulated in the Rate Contract, and that, full payment should be made only after the delivery of the articles to the respective Colleges, along with the Inspection Certificate of the Industries and Commerce Department and verification by the consignee. Further, as per condition No.2, a separate bill for each College in triplicate should be sent to the office, duly furnishing the Stock Certificate, along with the bills by the concerned Principals of the Colleges, for arranging the payment. It is elicited from PW1 that, it is the 34 Spl.C.C.No.137/2007 responsibility of the Department of Industries and Commerce to certify the wood.
48. PW1 admitted that, as per the orders, it is for the Principals of 64 Colleges, to receive the wooden desks, and as per the conditions, it is for the said concerned Principals, to intimate the Director of Collegiate Education, about the acceptance or otherwise of the order, by telegram, and it is for the said Principals to verify the description of the material and specification thereon. Further, if the furniture supplied did not confirm with the specification and standard, the Principals had every authority to reject the same. PW1 also admitted that, as per the terms, acceptance of substandard material would be only at the risk and responsibility of the Principals, and the said conditions applied to all the 64 Colleges.
49. PW1 deposed that, at the time of his visit, the concerned Principals had produced the desks and the Stock Registers. According to PW1, some of them had 35 Spl.C.C.No.137/2007 mentioned in the said Registers of receiving of the wooden desks and some others of receiving of the Teakwood desks. PW1 deposed that, Industries and Commerce Department, Karnataka Small Scale Industries, is the competent authority to certify the specifications and standards, and as per Ex.P.35 Inspection certificate has been issued by Deputy Chief Manager, Karnataka Small Scale Industries, Marketing Corporation Ltd., in respect of the supply of wood by Accused No.4. PW1 admitted that, as per Ex.P.29, there are stock certificates issued by Principals of respective colleges, to the effect that, they have checked the materials supplied with specification and standards.
50. PW2 - P.N. Kallappa, the DY.S.P. Lokayukta Bengaluru, has deposed that, on 04.04.1994 he accompanied PW1 to execute the Search Warrants. He deposed that, the search warrant given to him for the search of house of accused No.1 on 02.04.1994, is at 36 Spl.C.C.No.137/2007 Ex.P.20, and that, he had seized three files from the said house, and handed over them to PW1. The valuable articles found in the house were noted in Ex.P.19 Search Mahazar. The search warrant at Ex.P.21 was given to him, for search of official chambers of accused No.1 situated at Sheshadri Road, Bangalore, and accordingly, he had conducted the search, but no incriminating materials were found in the said office. The mahazar prepared by him is as per Ex.P.22. During cross examination, PW2 deposed that, he did not remember, as to if any order was passed by Superintendent of Police, Karnataka Lokayukta, under Sec.17 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, authorizing him to investigate.
51. PW3 - Pradeep, the Second Division Assistant at PWD Circle, Dharawada, has deposed that, on 01.08.1996 police took him to Savanuru First Grade College, and in the college the IO had verified the documents and Stock Register, and also took the samples from 20 desks. The IO had conducted the 37 Spl.C.C.No.137/2007 Mahazar as per Ex.P.67. That, on 03.08.1996, they took him to Government College at Naragunda, to take samples from 50 desks, as per mahazar at Ex.P.68. On the same day, he went to Government College at Gajendragad, along with the police, and samples from 20 desks were taken under the mahazar at Ex.P.69. Thereafter, he went to Government College at Rona, wherein the samples from 20 desks were taken under the mahazar at Ex.P.58.
52. PW3 deposed that on 05.08.1996, he accompanied the police to Government College at Haliyala, wherein the samples from 50 desks were taken, under the mahazar at Ex.P.70. During cross examination PW3 pleaded inability to state the contents of the mahazar, mention the number of desks kept in each class. He pleaded ignorance as to in which year the desks were supplied, and who had supplied the desks. He pleaded inability to state the name of the carpenter, who was present for taking the samples. 38 Spl.C.C.No.137/2007
53. PW5 - L.C. Lamani, the retired Principal of First Grade College, Hirekeroor, has deposed that, on 02.08.1996, Police Inspector of Karnataka Lokayukta had visited their college, and collected wooden samples from 50 desks, under the Mahazar at Ex.P.47. Three letters written by his predecessorinoffice, for supply of wooden desks are at Ex.P.48, P.49 and P.50, and the acknowledgment given by the Principal who had received the desks, is at Ex.P.51. The certificate issued by Karnataka Small Industries Marketing Corporation Ltd., is at Ex.P.52. Prosecution has not subjected PW5 for cross examination by other side.
54. PW6 - Akbar Papalal Mulla, the Lecturer at Government First Grade College, Akki Alur, has deposed that, on 02.08.1996, the Police had gone to their college for inspection, and one Bellad was the Principal at that time, but, as he was on leave, PW6 was incharge, and the police collected wooden samples from 20 desks, under the mahazar at Ex.P.53. The 39 Spl.C.C.No.137/2007 cashcredit bill, delivery challan and its carbon copy were marked during his evidence as per Ex.P.54, P.55 and P.56. During cross examination, PW6 pleaded inability to state, as to who had supplied wood for the manufacture of the desks, and who had supplied the desks to their college. PW6 admitted that, it is the Principal who should have issued the Certificate for taking delivery of the desks.
55. PW7 - S.M. Sathmar, the Senior Professor who had worked as such from 1994 to 2002, at Government First Grade College, Rona Taluk, Gadag District, has deposed that, on 03.08.1996, the police visited their college, for examining the desks supplied to the college and they had secured the presence of one Namadeva Chitragara, for the said purpose. It is in his evidence that, he was the incharge for Principal on that day and he gave the copy of the Stock Register and other documents, sought by the Police. The documents given by him collectively are at Ex.P.57, and Ex.P.58 is the 40 Spl.C.C.No.137/2007 Mahazar drawn by the police. During cross examination, PW8 pleaded inability to state, as to when the desks were supplied to their college. He did not remember, if the Principal had issued any Certificate with regard to the quality of the desks.
56. PW8 - Irshad Ahmed Khan, the Police Inspector, who had worked as such from September 2005 to November 2009, at Police Wing of Karnataka Lokayukta, has deposed that on 28.02.2007, he received the Prosecution Sanction Orders from ADGP Lokayukta, and Ex.P.46 is the one relating accused No.1 - Abdul Khayyum. He received the said order along with a memo at Ex.P.60. After receipt of the sanction order, he had verified the material evidence collected by the Investigating Officer. It is in his evidence that, according to his verification, accused No.1 to 7 have caused a loss to the tune of Rs.38,62,042.30/ to the State and hence, he had 41 Spl.C.C.No.137/2007 prepared the Charge Sheet and submitted the same before the Superintendent of Police.
57. During crossexamination, PW8 admitted that, there was no complaint with regard to demand of money for any work to be done, and no one had lodged any complaint alleging that, the accused had received money for the work to be done. He has admitted that, as per Ex.P.35, the quality of the desks would be certified by the Principal, and based on the Certificate the payment would be made. PW8 has further admitted that, the principals of 64 colleges had issued such Certificates. It is elicited that, as per Ex.P.29, the Principal had issued the Certificates and no such Certificate was issued by accused No.1. It is found in the evidence of PW8, that the wooden samples were sent to Expert Opinion, only in the year 1996.
58. During further examination in chief, PW8 deposed that, the Reports of the expert was received by PW1 as per Ex.P.8 and P.9. He has deposed that, 42 Spl.C.C.No.137/2007 Ex.P.8 was issued by one T.R. Hemavathi and that she is no more. It is elicited from PW8 that, 4015 sample pieces were collected by the IO, but the said samples have not been produced before the Court. Further, the Report of CW304 Shanthachennegowda, Range Forest Officer, and the Report of CW305 Shivannegowda, the Accounts Officer, attached to the Office of Director of Collegiate Education, have also not been submitted to the Court, along with the Charge Sheet.
59. PW9 - Shanthachannegowda, the RFO attached to Utilization Division of Aranya Bhavan at Bengaluru, who had worked as such from July 1992 to June 1994, has deposed that, he had accompanied PW1 to the First Grade Colleges at Kolar, Malur, Bangarpet, Mulbagal, Srinivasapura, Chintamani, and Chikkaballapura, and taken the samples with the help of Carpenter Jayanna. His inspection revealed that, the desks were made up of low quality wood, instead of Teak Wood. He secured the opinion from the Experts of Utilization Division, and sent 43 Spl.C.C.No.137/2007 a Report to IO on 17.04.1994. He sought opinion from Forest Research Institute, Malleshwaram, who also opined that, the samples were not that of Teak Wood. During crossexamination, PW9 deposed that, the Principals of concerned colleges have not given any statement, confirming that the desks were supplied by accused No.1.
60. PW10 - Somashekar, the Second Division Assistant attached to ADLR Office at Chitradurga, who had worked as such from 1990 to 2003, has deposed that, on 13.08.1996, he went to Lokayukta office as instructed by his Superiors, and as per the instructions of the Lokayukta Police, he had accompanied them to Molakalmur First Grade College on 14.08.1996. 60 samples were collected from the desks kept in the said college, under the Mahazar at Ex.P.62. That, on 16.08.1996, they went to Chellakere First Grade College, and 80 samples were collected, under the Mahazar at Ex.P.63. On 17.08.1996, they went to Nayakonda, First 44 Spl.C.C.No.137/2007 Grade College, and 40 samples were collected, under the Mahazar at Ex.P.64. On the same day, they went to Hosadurga First Grade College, and 60 samples were collected, under the Mahazar at Ex.P.65. During cross examination, PW10 pleaded inability to state, as to who had supplied the desks, and in which year the desks were supplied.
61. PW11 - Mallappa Basavannappa Karki, who had worked as senior Veterinary Inspector in the year 1995, has deposed that, on 03.08.1996 the Police had taken him to Government College of Nesargi, and collected samples from 30 desks, under the Mahazar at Ex.P.66. During crossexamination, PW11 pleaded inability to state, as to when the desks were supplied.
62. PW12 - H.T. Padmanabha Shastri, the First Division Assistant, who had worked as such from 1993 to 1997 at Taluk Office, Kundapur, has deposed that, in the year 1996, the Police took him to Government College of Baindur, and collected samples from out of 50 45 Spl.C.C.No.137/2007 desks, under the Mahazar at Ex.P.71. During cross examination, PW12 pleaded inability to state, as to in which year the desks were supplied to the college.
63. PW13 - Narasimha, the Second Grade Surveyor who had worked as such from 1992 to 2014 at Survey Office, at Bagalkot, has deposed that, he was taken to Government College at Bilagi, and that, he had signed Ex.P.72 Mahazar in the said college, but, he is not aware of the contents of Ex.P.72. Hence, the prosecution treated PW13 as a hostile witness, but, nothing could be elicited from him, in favour of the prosecution, during his crossexamination.
64. PW14 - Om Prakash, the first Division Assistant, who had worked as such 1990 to 1995 at Taluk Office, at Belthangadi, has deposed that, he was taken to Government College at Melanthabettu, Belthangadi, on 13.08.1996, and samples from out of 20 folding desks were collected in the said college, under the Mahazar at Ex.P.73. During crossexamination, PW14 pleaded 46 Spl.C.C.No.137/2007 inability to state, as to in which year the desks were supplied.
65. PW15 - Manjunath Thimmappa Nayak, the First Division Assistant, who had worked as such from 1993 to 2003 at PWD Office, at Mundagod, has deposed that, on 27.05.1996 he went to Government First Grade College at Mundagod, and samples from out of 20 desks and 20 benches were collected, under the Mahazar at Ex.P.74. During crossexamination, PW15 pleaded inability to state as to, in which year the desks were supplied.
66. PW16 - Prabhakar H.V., the Second Division Assistant, who had worked as such for five years from 1993, in the Taluk Office, at Hassan, has deposed that, on 02.08.1996 he visited the Government College at Arakalagudu, and that, samples from out of 30 desks were collected, under the Mahazar at Ex.P.75. On 03.08.1996, the police took him to, another Degree College at Arakalagudu, and samples from out of 29 47 Spl.C.C.No.137/2007 desks were collected, under the Mahazar at Ex.P.76. Further, on 05.08.1996, the police took him to another Degree College at Konanuru, and samples from out of 30 desks were collected, under the Mahazar at Ex.P.77. During crossexamination, PW16 pleaded inability to state as to, in which year the desks were supplied.
67. PW17 - Ramanna K., the Second Division Assistant, who had worked as such for ten years from 1996, in the Taluk Office, at Hassan, has deposed that, on 06.08.1996, he visited the Government College at Holenarasipura, and samples were collected, under the Mahazar at Ex.P.78. On 07.08.1996, the police took him to another Government College at Sakaleshpura, and samples from out of 20 benches and desks were collected, under the Mahazar at Ex.P.79. Further, on 08.08.1996, the police took him to another Government College at Beluru, and samples from out of 20 benches and desks were collected, under the Mahazar at Ex.P.80. That, on the same day, the police took him to Y.D.D. 48 Spl.C.C.No.137/2007 College at Beluru, and samples from out of 20 benches and desks were collected, under the Mahazar at Ex.P.81. Again on the same day, the police took him to Government College at Javgal, and samples from out of 20 benches and desks were collected, under the Mahazar at Ex.P.82. During crossexamination, PW17 pleaded inability to state the particulars of the inspection, and stated that, he did not remember the same, as the incident occurred many years ago.
68. PW18 - M.S. Rajegowda, the Junior Engineer at Mysuru Urban Development Authority, has deposed that, on 08.08.1996, he visited the Government Commerce College at Srirangapatna, and samples from out of 30 benches were collected, under the Mahazar at Ex.P.83. On 09.08.1996, he visited the Government First Grade College at K.R. Pete, and samples from out of 30 benches were collected, under Mahazar at Ex.P.84. During crossexamination, PW18 pleaded inability to state as to, in which year the desks were supplied. 49 Spl.C.C.No.137/2007
69. PW19 - K. Ramesh, the Second Division Assistant. who had worked as such from 24.01.1987 to 1998, in the Taluk Office, at Chennapatna, has deposed that, on 24.09.1996, he visited the Government First Grade College at Chennapatna, and samples from out of 30 folding desks were collected, under the Mahazar at Ex.P.85. During crossexamination, PW19 pleaded inability to state as to, who had supplied the desks, and stated that, the police have not collected the documents to confirm the year of purchase of the desks.
70. PW20 - Narasimhamurthy, the Attender at RTO Office, Shivamogga, who had worked as such for 45 years from 28.04.1986, has deposed that, he did not remember, if he was taken to Government First Grade College of Holehonnur, Government First Grade College of Channagiri, Government First Grade College of Nyamathi, Government First Grade College of Shikaripura, Government First Grade College of Aanavatti, Government First Grade College of Soraba, 50 Spl.C.C.No.137/2007 Government First Grade College of Sagara, Government First Grade College of Hosanagar, though he has identified his signature in the Mahazars at Ex.P.86 to P.92. The prosecution treated PW20 as a hostile witness, but, nothing favourable to the prosecution, could be elicited from PW20.
71. PW21 - Rathnakar, the Second Division Assistant in the Office of Department of Social Welfare, at Baindur, Kundapura Taluk, who had worked as such from the year 1996 to 200708, has deposed that, on 02.08.1996, he visited the Government College at Shankaranarayana, and the police verified 20 benches and desks, under the Mahazar at Ex.P.93. That, on 03.08.1996, he visited the Government First Grade College at Hebri, and the police verified 50 benches and desks, under the Mahazar at Ex.P.94. That, on 03.08.1996, he visited the Manjunatha Pai First Grade College at Karkala, and the police verified 20 benches and desks, under the Mahazar at Ex.P.95. The 51 Spl.C.C.No.137/2007 prosecution treated PW21 as a hostile witness. During crossexamination on behalf of the prosecution, PW21 deposed that, he did not remember as to if the Police had taken the samples from desks.
72. PW22 - L.P. Daniel, the Village Accountant at Somavarapete Taluk, who had worked as such from the year 1990 to 1996, has deposed that, on 02.08.1996, he visited the Government First Grade College at Kushalnagar, along with one Sanjay from Department of Rural Development, and samples from desks were collected, under the Mahazar at Ex.P.96. During cross examination, PW22 pleaded inability to state as to, in which year the desks were supplied and who had supplied the desks.
73. PW23 - Ravishankar, the Lecturer at in Government College of Panchanahalli, who had worked as such from the year 1995 to 1998, has deposed that, on 26.07.1996, he was incharge of the Principal, and the Police visited their college, and inspected the folding 52 Spl.C.C.No.137/2007 desks. They obtained the Bills and Register, to check the supply of desks, and collected samples from out of 50 benches, under the Mahazar at Ex.P.97. During cross examination, PW23 deposed that, he was not working in the said college, when the desks were supplied.
74. PW24 - P. Jayaram Rai, the Second Division Assistant at Mysuru District Collector office, who had worked as such from 1995 to 2011, has deposed that, on 07.08.1996 he visited the Government First Grade College at Piriyapatna, and the police took samples from out of 20 desks, under the Mahazar at Ex.P.98. That, on 08.08.1996, he visited the First Grade College at H.D. Kote, and the police took samples from out of 30 folding desks, under the Mahazar at Ex.P.99. Further, on 09.08.1996, he visited the First Grade College at K.R. Nagara, and the police took samples from out of 30 folding desks, under the Mahazar at Ex.P.100. During crossexamination, PW24 pleaded inability to state as to, who had received the desks, and in which year the desks were supplied.
53 Spl.C.C.No.137/2007
75. PW25 - Syed Gouse, the Lecturer in Government First Grade College at Ajjampura, Tharikere Taluk, Chikkamagaluru District, who had worked as such from the year 1992 to 2004, has deposed that, on 18.07.1996, Police visited their college, and collected the Stock Register and Bills with regard to supply of desks, and also collected samples from out of 20 folding desks, under the Mahazar at Ex.P.101. During cross examination, PW25 pleaded inability to state, as to in which year desks were supplied.
76. PW26 - H.M. Mahesh, the Lecturer in Government First Grade College at Mudigere, who had worked as such from the year 1996 to 2004, has deposed that, CW58 - Jagadish had worked as a Lecturer, CW60 - Vasantharaja Shetty had worked as Principal in the same College. According to PW26, on 20.07.1996, Police visited their college, and collected the copies of Stock Register and Bills, from the Principal, and also collected 58 samples from out of 30 desks, 54 Spl.C.C.No.137/2007 under the Mahazar at Ex.P.102. During cross examination, PW25 pleaded inability to state as to, when the desks were supplied.
77. PW27 - Venkatesh K.C., the Professor in Government First Grade College at Koppa, who had worked as such from 08.06.1992 to 2016, has deposed that, on 30.07.1996, Police visited their college, and collected information touching the desks supplied on 08.07.1992. He deposed that, 25 desks were supplied, as per the Furniture Register. According to PW27, the cost of each desk was Rs.1,700/, and in total the desks worth Rs.44,200/ were supplied, and the same was certified by an employee of the Education Department. PW27 deposed that, the police had collected the Stock Register, and collected 50 samples from out of 25 desks, under the Mahazar at Ex.P.103. During cross examination, PW27 admitted that, he was the Principal during the year 1992, and that, he had not rejected any 55 Spl.C.C.No.137/2007 desk for it's low quality, and on the contrary, he had recommended for the payment.
78. PW28 - Abdul Rehman, the Lecturer in Government First Grade College at Narasimharajapura, Chikkamagaluru District, who had worked as such from 26.06.1996 to 2002, has deposed that, on 01.08.1996, Police visited their college, and collected the information about the desks supplied in the year 1992. He deposed that, 20 desks were supplied to their college, as per the Stock Register. The desks were supplied by Department of Collegiate Education, and the cost of each desk was Rs.1,700/, with the total cost of the desks at Rs.35,360/. He has further deposed that, the Police had collected 40 samples from out of 20 desks, under the Mahazar at Ex.P.104. During crossexamination, PW27 pleaded inability to state as to, in which year the desks were supplied.
79. Thus, it is seen that, PW1/IO also being the Complainant himself, has admitted that, nobody had 56 Spl.C.C.No.137/2007 complained to him that, the accused No.1 demanded bribe, and no written complaint was lodged with him, alleging that, accused No.1 had collected any amount illegally. PW1 also admitted that, as per the order of the Director of Collegiate Education, it was the responsibility of the concerned Principals to verify the furnitures supplied. The relevant portion in his evidence reads "It is true to suggest that as per the order of Director of Collegiate Education it is the responsibility of concerned Principals and it is not the responsibility of accused no.1". PW8/IO also has admitted that, there was no allegation or complaint against accused No.1, with regard to any demand or receipt of money, to do official favour.
80. It is found in the evidence of PW8 that, the desks were supplied to 64 Government First Grade Colleges, during 199293, and as per the requirement, the Principals of concerned colleges sent the requisitions to the Directorate, for the supply of desks, and in turn Directorate placed their requisitions before the 57 Spl.C.C.No.137/2007 Government, for approval, and accordingly, after approval, he had only issued order for the supply of teakwood desks.
81. On perusal of Ex.P.35 - Rate Contract Agreement, as per the condition No.1, the supply should be made as per the specifications stipulated in the Rate Contract, and the payment would be made only after the delivery of the desks, along with Inspection Certificate of the Industries and Commerce Department, and verification by the consignee. Further, as per condition No.2, separate bill for each college in triplicate is required to be sent by the concerned Principals, duly furnishing the Stock Certificate. PW1/IO has clearly admitted that, it is the responsibility of the Department of Industry and Commerce to certify the wood, and it is the responsibility of the concerned Principals to verify the description of the material and specification thereon, and if the furnitures supplied did not confirm the standard and specification, they had every authority to 58 Spl.C.C.No.137/2007 reject the same, and also to intimate the acceptance or otherwise of the order, to the Director of Collegiate Education, by telegram. It is elicited from the IO that, the conditions in Ex.P.35 applied to all the colleges, and that, he had not enquired about the consequences, in case if the desks were received by the Principals, contrary to the conditions in Ex.P.35.
82. According to PW1/IO, he had only collected the samples and reported the same, in separate Property Forms, but, wooden samples are not made available to the Court, during evidence. The Stock Certificates have been collectively marked as Ex.P.29, and at page 473, there is a Stock Certificate issued by the Principal of Shivalingeshwara Swamy, Government First Grade College, Chennagiri, and on careful perusal of the same, there is no mention that, there is any defect in the furniture supplied. Similarly, at page 475, 477 and 479, there are Stock Certificates issued by the Principals of the First Grade Colleges of Shikaripura, Soraba and 59 Spl.C.C.No.137/2007 Hosanagar, and there is no mention of any defect in the furniture supplied. IO has admitted that, as per the Stock Certificate at page 481 of Ex.P.29, it was issued by the Deputy Chief Manager, Karnataka Small Scale Industries, Marketing Corporation Limited, certifying the specification and standards after considering the materials supplied.
83. It is elicited during cross examination of PW1 that, an Inspection Certificate as found in page 339 and 341 of Ex.P.35, has been issued by the Deputy Chief Manager, Karnataka Small Scale Industries, Marketing Corporation Limited, Bengaluru, and Manager - 2, for the supply of wood by accused No.4, but, the Investigating Officer has not deposed anything about the Authorities who have affixed their signature in Page 339 and 341 of Ex.P.35.
84. PW8/IO also admitted that, the quality of the desks has to be verified by the concerned Principals, and on the basis of the Certificate of Quality issued by the 60 Spl.C.C.No.137/2007 concerned Principals, the amount would be released for making the payment. He has admitted that, the principals of all 64 colleges have certified the quality of the desks supplied. Though he has stated that, it is the responsibility of accused No.1 to verify the quality, he has admitted that, there are no documents to support the said statement. The relevant portion in his evidence reads as "ನಪ 35 ರ ಪಪಕಕರ ಡಡಸಸಸ ನ ಗಗಣಮಟಟತಯ ಡ ನಗನ ಪಕಪಪಶಗಪಕಲರಗ ಪರಶಶಲಸದ ನಪತರದಲಲ ಅವರಗ ಕಡಕಟಟ ಗಗಣಮಟಟತಯ ಡ ದದಢಶಕರಣದ ಆಧಕರದಲಲ ಹಣವನಗನ ಬಡಗಗಡಡ ಮಕಡಬಡಶಕಗ ಎನಗನವವದಗ ನಜ. ಈ ಪಪಕರಣದಲಲ 64 ಕಕಲಡಶಜನ ಪಕಪಪಶಗಪಕಲರಗಗಳಗ ಡಡಸಸಸ ನಗನ ಸಸಶಕರಸ ಗಗಣಮಟಟತಯ ಡ ಕಗರತಗ ದದಢಶಕರಣ ಪತಪವನಗನ ಕಡಕಟಟದಕದರಡ ಎನಗನವವದಗ ನಜ. ಮರದ ಡಡಸಸಸ ಗಳನಗನ ಸಸಶಕರಸಗವ ಮತಗತ ಗಗಣಮಟಟತಯ ಡ ಕಗರತಗ ದದಢಶಕರಣ ಕಡಕಡಗವ ಅಧಕಕರ ವಕವಪತ 1 ನಡಶ ಆರಡಕಶಪಯದಗದ ಅಲಲ ಎನಗನವವದಗ ಸರಯಲಲ. ಸಕಕಕ ಸಸತತ ಆ ರಶತ ಗಗಣಮಟಟತಯ ಡ ನಗನ ಪರಶಶಲಸಗವ ಜವಕಬಕದರ 1 ನಡಶ ಆರಡಕಶಪಯದಕದಗದಡ ಎಪದಗ ಉತತರಸದಕದರಡ. ಆದರಡ ಈ ಕಗರತಗ ಯಕವವದಡಶ ದಕಖಲಡಗಳಗ ಇರಗವವದಲಲ".
85. PW8 has further admitted that, the Principals of concerned colleges have issued such Certificates, but, there is no such Certificate alleged to be issued by 61 Spl.C.C.No.137/2007 accused No.1. The relevant portion in his evidence reads as "ನಪ 29 ರ ಪಪಕಕರ ಸಪಬಪಧಪಟಟ ಕಕಲಡಶಜನ ಪಕಪಪಶಗಪಕಲರಗಗಳಗ ಡಡಸಸನ ಗಗಣಮಟಟತಯ ಡ ನಗನ ಪರಶಶಲಸ ದದಢಶಕರಣ ಪತಪವನಗನ ಕಡಕಟಟದಕದರಡ ಎನಗನವವದಗ ಸರ. ಈ ಪಪಕರಣದಲಲ 1 ನಡಶ ಆರಡಕಶಪ ದದಢಶಕರಣ ಕಡಕಟಟರಗವ ಕಗರತಗ ಯಕವವದಡಶ ದಕಖಲಡಗಳಗ ಇಲಲ ಎನಗನವವದಗ ಸರ".
86. It is seen that, there is no such condition in page No.332 of Ex.P.35 that, it is for the accused No.1 being the Director Collegiate Education, to examine and confirm the quality of the desks and then to release the amount, and on the other hand, in page 333 of Ex.P.35 it is specifically informed in the letter sent to Principals of various colleges that, only after duly verifying the description of the material and specification thereon, the bills are to be sent along with the Stock Certificate. Accordingly, they have sent such Certificates to the Karnataka Small Scale Industries, and the Deputy Chief Manager, Karnataka Small Industries, Marketing Corporation Limited has also issued Ex.P.29 - Stock Certificate, and thereafter, the amount has been released 62 Spl.C.C.No.137/2007 by accused No.1. How the guidelines were violated by accused No.1, has not been spelt out in the evidence of the prosecution witnesses.
87. No material has been placed by the prosecution to show that, it was only the responsibility of the accused No.1 to inspect the wood supplied, before releasing the amount. It is also seen that, there is no Departmental Enquiry in this regard, and no Report has been secured by the IO, from the higher ups of accused No.1, nor any such Senior Officer has been examined by the Prosecution to depose that, it was only the responsibility of the accused No.1, to inspect the wood and to release the amount. No material evidence is placed by the Prosecution to show that, the amount paid in excess, has been recovered by the State, from the accused persons.
88. PW4 the Sanctioning Authority of accused No.1 has admitted that, as per the Investigation materials, the accused No.1 did not demand and accept any illegal 63 Spl.C.C.No.137/2007 gratification. There is no material evidence placed by the prosecution to show that, there was demand and acceptance of illegal gratification by accused No.1. Both the I.O's PW1 and PW8 have clearly admitted in their evidence that, nobody had lodged any complaint nor there was any allegation of any demand or acceptance of illegal gratification by accused No.1. No witness has given any incriminating evidence against accused No.1, and it is seen that, there is no evidence to show that, it was accused No.1 who had recommended the name of accused No.4 or other accused persons, to supply the wood to the colleges. It is also seen that, he had released the amount, based on the Certificate of the Small Scale Industries.
89. PW4 further admitted fact that, it was the duty of the respective Principals to certify the desks, and it was not the responsibility of the accused No.1 to receive or certify the desks. The admission found in the evidence of IO's and the documentary evidence placed by the 64 Spl.C.C.No.137/2007 prosecution would indicate that, accused No.1 as a Directorate of Collegiate Education, had no role to play either in receiving or in certifying the wood.
90. As already stated, the prosecution has not produced the samples seized in this case. It is contended on behalf of the accused that, the nonproduction of material objects before the Court, is fatal to the case of the prosecution, and the same has rendered the case against the accused, without any legal basis. It is also seen that, the officials of the colleges and the Mahazar witnesses, were not able to speak as to the persons who had supplied the wood, and as to when they had supplied the wood, and the nexus between the wood seized and the wood supplied. The very fact of, seizure and preservation of samples, has not been proved by the prosecution, with convincing material evidence.
91. It is also pertinent to note that, the alleged incident occurred in the year 19921993, but the Final Report was submitted only in the year 2007, after a 65 Spl.C.C.No.137/2007 lapse of 15 years. Learned Counsel for accused No.1 contended that, the accused No.1 is aged above 80 years, and that the law laid down by the Hon'ble High Court in B.J.Ramesh and A.M.Naik's case is squarely applicable to the facts of the case, and that, in WP No.61305/2016 and in WP No.2112/2017 (GMRES) both dated 5/7/2022, the Hon'ble High Court has made it clear that Rule 214(3) and SubRule(6)(b) of the Karnataka Civil Service Rules, specifies that no judicial proceedings, if not instituted while the Government servant was in service, whether before his retirement or during his reemployment, shall be instituted, in respect of a cause of action which arose or in respect of an event which took place, more than four years before such institution. It is contended on behalf of the accused that, in view of the aforesaid citations, even the cognizance taken against the accused is contrary to Rule 214(3) and Sub Rule6 of the Karnataka Civil Service Rules, and hence, the very filing of Charge Sheet itself needs to be held as the one without any authority of law. 66 Spl.C.C.No.137/2007
92. As already stated, there is no complaint from any person to show that, illegal gratification was made, and there is absolutely no evidence with regard to demand and acceptance of illegal gratification. The learned Counsel for accused No.1 relied on the decision reported in ILR 2013 KAR 983, Girishchandra vs. The State of Lokayukta Police, Yadgir and submitted that, the recording of complaint and registration of the FIR is a condition precedent in cases of this nature.
93. The learned counsel for accused No.1 relied on the decision reported in 2015 SC Online 814, P. Satyanarayana Murthy v. Dist. Inspector of Police, and submitted that in the absence of any proof of demand for illegal gratification, the use of corrupt or illegal means or abuse of position as a public servant to obtain any valuable thing or pecuniary advantage, cannot be held to be proved under section 13(1)(d) r/w. Sec.13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act.
67 Spl.C.C.No.137/2007
94. On appreciation of entire evidence both oral and documentary, it is seen that, the prosecution has not placed any evidence, to prove the meeting of minds, in so far as acts of accused No.1 and 4 with the splitup and dead accused persons. The role of accused No.1 and 4, in the release of amount, in respect of low quality desks, as alleged by the prosecution, and the criminal intention attached to the said act, are also not proved by the prosecution. The fact that, in the FIR at Ex.P.2, the name of accused No.4 was not included, also cannot be lost sight of. Demand and acceptance of illegal gratification, or the intention to receive such gratification, itself is not proved. Further, there is absolutely no evidence with regard to the recovery of the bribe amount, from the accused persons.
95. In the circumstances, it has to be held that, the prosecution has not established that, accused No.1 - Abdul Khayyum, being the Director in Collegiate Education, Bengaluru, has agreed with accused Nos.2 68 Spl.C.C.No.137/2007 to 7, to supply the substandard reversible desks to the colleges. Alleged fraudulent intention of accused No.1 or accused No.4, has not been established by the prosecution. The prosecution has not brought out the sequence of events, that happened in pursuance of alleged conspiracy in the year 199293, till the supply of the desks, by accused No.4. There is no convincing evidence to show that, accused No.1 in furtherance of common dishonest intention, placed orders for supply of reversible desks, in the year 199293 and to show that, accused No.4 had supplied the reversible desks of wood other than teak, and falsely got the Certificate from accused No.2 stating that, the supply was made as per the contract. The prosecution has not established that, accused No.1 had made payment to the tune of Rs.38,62,042.30/, to cheat the Government. There is no convincing evidence to show that, by abusing his position as public servant, accused No.1 obtained valuable thing or pecuniary advantage, to release the amount.
69 Spl.C.C.No.137/2007
96. In the circumstances therefore, it cannot be held that the charge against accused No.1 for the offences punishable under Sections 13(1)(d), R/w. Sec.13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, and Sec.120B and 420 R/w. Sec.34 of Indian Penal Code, and accused No.4 for the offences punishable under Sec.120B and 420 R/w. Sec.34 of Indian Penal Code, are established by the prosecution, beyond reasonable doubt. Though the Charge Sheet was filed for the offences Sec.7, 8, 9, 10, 12 and 13(1)(c) & (d) r/w. Sec.13(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, and Sec.120B, and Sec.420 of Indian Penal Code, after perusal of the records, cognizance of the offences under Sec.120B, and 420 of Indian Penal Code, sec.13(1)(d) r/w. 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, was taken by the then learned predecessorin office on 21.08.2007.
97. Further, the charge for the offences under Sec.120B, and 420 of Indian Penal Code, sec.13(1)(d) 70 Spl.C.C.No.137/2007 r/w. 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, was framed by the then learned predecessorinoffice on 11.12.2017, and as already stated, the said charges against the accused, have not been proved by the prosecution. There is no convincing evidence even in respect of other offences alleged in the Charge Sheet i.e., in respect of Sec.7, 8, 9, 10, 12 and 13(1)(c) r/w. Sec.13(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act. Hence, I answer point No.2 to 6, in the Negative.
98. Point No.7: In view of my findings on point No.2 to 6, therefore, I proceed to pass the following:
ORDER Acting under Sec.235(1) of Cr.P.C., the accused No.1 - Abdul Khayyum, is acquitted of the offences punishable under Sec.120B, Sec.420 r/w. Sec.34 of Indian Penal Code, and Sec.13(1)(d) r/w. Sec.13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, and the accused No.4 - K.H. 71 Spl.C.C.No.137/2007 Puttaswamygowda is acquitted of the offences punishable under Sec.120B and Sec.420 r/w.
Sec.34 of Indian Penal Code.
Their bail bonds and the surety bonds are cancelled.
Accused No.1 and 4 are directed to execute a personal bond for Rs.50,000/ each, as per Sec.437A of Cr.P.C., for their due appearance before the Appellate Court, in case, if any Appeal is preferred against this Judgment.
(Dictated to the Stenographer directly on computer, typed by her, corrected, signed and pronounced by me in the open court, on this 27th day of December 2022).
Sd/ 27.12.2022 (Vineetha P. Shetty) LXXVIII Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge & Special Judge (P.C.Act.), Bengaluru (CCH79).72 Spl.C.C.No.137/2007
ANNEXURES List of witnesses examined for the prosecution:
P.W.1 : Dr. D. Narayanaswamy P.W.2 : P.N. Kallappa P.W.3 : Pradeep P.W.4 : Raghuram Bhandari K. P.W.5 : L.C. Lamani P.W.6 : Akbar Papalal Mulla P.W.7 : S.M. Sathmaru P.W.8 : Irshad Ahmed Khan P.W.9 : Shanthachennegowda P.W.10 : Somashekhar
P.W.11 : Mallappa Basavannappa Karki P.W.12 : H.T. Padmanabhashastri P.W.13 : Narasimha P.W.14 : Om Prakash P.W.15 : Manjunath Thimmappa Nayak P.W.16 : Prabhakar H.B. P.W.17 : Ramanna K. P.W.18 : M.S. Rajegowda P.W.19 : K. Ramesh P.W.20 : Narasimhamurthy P.W.21 : Rathnakar P.W.22 : L.P. Daniel P.W.23 : Ravishankar P.W.24 : P. Jayaram Rai P.W.25 : Syed Ghouse 73 Spl.C.C.No.137/2007 P.W.26 : H.M. Mahesh P.W.27 : Venkatesh K.C. P.W.28 : Abdul Rehaman List of documents exhibited for the prosecution:
Ex.P.1 Memo of IGP
Ex.P.1(a) Signature of PW1
Ex.P.2 FIR
Ex.P.2(a) Signature of PW1
Ex.P.3 Mahazar
Ex.P.3(a) Signature of PW1
Ex.P.4 Search Warrant
Ex.P.4(a) Signature of PW1
Ex.P.5 Search Warrant
Ex.P.5(a) Signature of PW1
Ex.P.6 Search Mahazar
Ex.P.6(a) Signature of PW1
Ex.P.7 Locker opening Mahazar
Ex.P.7(a) Signature of PW1
Ex.P.8 Memo of SP
Ex.P.8(a) Signature of PW1
Ex.P.9 Report of Institute of Wood Science
and Technology
Ex.P.9(a) Signature of PW1
Ex.P.10 Mahazar
Ex.P.10(a) Signature of PW1
Ex.P.11 Mahazar
Ex.P.11(a) Signature of PW1
Ex.P.12 Mahazar
74 Spl.C.C.No.137/2007
Ex.P.12(a) Signature of PW1
Ex.P.13 Mahazar
Ex.P.13(a) Signature of PW1
Ex.P.14 Mahazar
Ex.P.14(a) Signature of PW1
Ex.P.15 Mahazar
Ex.P.15(a) Signature of PW1
Ex.P.16 Mahazar
Ex.P.16(a) Signature of PW1
Ex.P.17 Mahazar
Ex.P.17(a) Signature of PW1
Ex.P.18 Mahazar
Ex.P.18(a) Signature of PW1
Ex.P.19 Search Mahazar
Ex.P.19(a) Signature of PW2
Ex.P.20 Search Warrant
Ex.P.20(a) Signature of PW2
Ex.P.21 Search Warrant
Ex.P.21(a) Signature of PW2
Ex.P.22 Mahazar
Ex.P.22(a) Signature of PW2
Ex.P.23 Service details of accused No.1
Ex.P.24 The letters, Circular and other
enclosures seized from the office of Director, Collegiate Education Ex.P.25 Supply orders issued to Shahee Traders and letters addressed to KSIMC.
Ex.P.26 List of articles received from 65 colleges Ex.P.26(a) Signature of PW1 75 Spl.C.C.No.137/2007 Ex.P.27 Supply orders issued to Karnataka Wood Works and letter addressed to KSIMC Ex.P.28 Supply orders issued to M/s.
Bengaluru Engineering Works and letter addressed to KSIMC Ex.P.29 Supply orders issued to Ashoka Steel Industries and letter addressed to KSIMC Ex.P.30 Supply orders issued to Triveni Industries and letter addressed to KSIMC Ex.P.31 Correspondence between Shahee Traders and different colleges and bills issued by Shahee Traders Ex.P.32 Note Sheets and Rate Contract Agreement with KSIMC Ex.P.33 Note sheets and Rate Contract Agreement with KSIMC Ex.P.34 Note sheets and Rate Contract Agreement with KSIMC Ex.P.35 Note sheets and Rate Contract Agreement with KSIMC Ex.P.36 Note Sheets and Rate Contract Agreement with KSIMC Ex.P.37 Inspection Certificate and payment calculations made by deceased accused No.2 Ex.P.38 Note sheets of Collegiate Education regarding supply of desks to various colleges in file No.DCE/11/plan/1990 91 Ex.P.39 Letter of Principal, Govt Womens College, Kolar Ex.P.40 Mahazar 76 Spl.C.C.No.137/2007 Ex.P.40(a) Signature of PW1 Ex.P.41 True copy of Register Ex.P.42 Mahazar Ex.P.42(a) Signature of PW1 Ex.P.43 and 44 True copies of credit bills Ex.P.45 True copy of Inspection Certificate Ex.P.46 Prosecution Sanction Order dated 17.06.2006, against accused No.1 Ex.P.46(a) Signature of PW4 Ex.P.47 Panchanama Ex.P.47(a) Signature of PW5 Ex.P.48 to P.50 Letter of Principal First Grade College, Hirekeroor Ex.P.51 Acknowledgement of Principal, First Grade College, Hirekeroor Ex.P.52 Certificate issued by Karnataka Small Industries Marketing Corporation Ltd., Ex.P.53 Panchanama Ex.P.53(a) Signature of PW6 Ex.P.54 to 56 Bengaluru Engineerings cashcredit bill, Delivery Challan and its Carbon copy Ex.P.57 Copy of inventory management and other enclosures produced by PW7 before Lokayukta Police Ex.P.58 Mahazar Ex.P.58(a) Signature of PW7 Ex.P.59 Prosecution Sanction Order issued against accused No.2 Ex.P.60 Office memorandum of ADGP, Karnataka Lokayukta Ex.P.60(a) Signature of PW8 77 Spl.C.C.No.137/2007 Ex.P.61 Certificate Ex.P.61(a) Signature of PW8 Ex.P.62 Mahazar Ex.P.62(a) Signature of PW10 Ex.P.63 Mahazar Ex.P.63(a) Signature of PW10 Ex.P.64 Mahazar Ex.P.64(a) Signature of PW10 Ex.P.65 Mahazar Ex.P.65(a) Signature of PW10 Ex.P.66 Mahazar Ex.P.66(a) Signature of PW11 Ex.P.67 Mahazar Ex.P.68 Mahazar Ex.P.69 Mahazar Ex.P.70 Mahazar Ex.P.71 Mahazar Ex.P.71(a) Signature of PW12 Ex.P.72 Mahazar Ex.P.72(a) Signature of PW13 Ex.P.73 Mahazar Ex.P.73(a) Signature of PW14 Ex.P.74 Panchanama Ex.P.74(a) Signature of PW15 Ex.P.75 Mahazar Ex.P.75(a) Signature of PW16 Ex.P.76 Mahazar Ex.P.76(a) Signature of PW16 Ex.P.77 Mahazar 78 Spl.C.C.No.137/2007 Ex.P.77(a) Signature of PW16 Ex.P.78 Mahazar Ex.P.78(a) Signature of PW17 Ex.P.79 Mahazar Ex.P.79(a) Signature of PW17 Ex.P.80 Mahazar Ex.P.80(a) Signature of PW17 Ex.P.81 Mahazar Ex.P.81(a) Signature of PW17 Ex.P.82 Mahazar Ex.P.82(a) Signature of PW17 Ex.P.83 Mahazar Ex.P.83(a) Signature of PW18 Ex.P.84 Mahazar Ex.P.84(a) Signature of PW18 Ex.P.85 Mahazar Ex.P.85(a) Signature of PW19 Ex.P.86 Mahazar Ex.P.86(a) Signature of PW20 Ex.P.87 Mahazar Ex.P.87(a) Signature of PW20 Ex.P.88 Mahazar Ex.P.88(a) Signature of PW20 Ex.P.89 Mahazar Ex.P.89(a) Signature of PW20 Ex.P.90 Mahazar Ex.P.90(a) Signature of PW20 Ex.P.91 Mahazar Ex.P.91(a) Signature of PW20 79 Spl.C.C.No.137/2007 Ex.P.92 Mahazar Ex.P.92(a) Signature of PW20 Ex.P.93 Mahazar Ex.P.93(a) Signature of PW21 Ex.P.94 Mahazar Ex.P.94(a) Signature of PW21 Ex.P.95 Mahazar Ex.P.95(a) Signature of PW21 Ex.P.96 Mahazar Ex.P.96(a) Signature of PW22 Ex.P.97 Mahazar Ex.P.97(a) Signature of PW23 Ex.P.98 Mahazar Ex.P.98(a) Signature of PW24 Ex.P.99 Mahazar Ex.P.99(a) Signature of PW24 Ex.P.100 Mahazar Ex.P.100(a) Signature of PW24 Ex.P.101 Mahazar Ex.P.101(a) Signature of PW25 Ex.P.102 Mahazar Ex.P.102(a) Signature of PW26 Ex.P.102(b) Signature of CW58 Ex.P.102(c) Signature of CW60 Ex.P.103 Mahazar Ex.P.103(a) Signature of PW27 Ex.P.103(b) Signature of Vijayendra Ex.P.103(c) Signature of CW70 Ex.P.104 Mahazar 80 Spl.C.C.No.137/2007 Ex.P.104(a) Signature of PW28 Ex.P.104(b) Signature of Shridar Babu Principal List of witnesses examined on behalf of the defence:
NIL List of documents exhibited on behalf of the defence:
NIL Sd/ 27.12.2022 (Vineetha P. Shetty) LXXVIII Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge & Special Judge (P.C.Act.), Bengaluru (CCH79).
****