Bangalore District Court
Bescom Vigilance Police vs K.P.Champakadhamaswamy on 28 October, 2024
1 SPL.C.C.4 / 2013
KABC010229112013
IN THE COURT OF LXXVI ADDL.CITY CIVIL &
SESSIONS JUDGE & SPECIAL JUDGE (P.C.Act.),
BENGALURU (C.C.H.No.77)
Present: Sri.Nandeesha. R.P. B.A., LL.B., LLM.,
LXXVIII Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge
C/c LXXVI Addl City Civil & Sessions
Judge (Special JudgeP.C.Act.),
Bengaluru.
DATED THIS THE 28TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2024.
Spl.CC. No. 04/2013
Complainant : The State of Karnataka,
Represented by
Police Inspector,
Karnataka Lokayukta
Police, City Division,
Bengaluru.
(By Public Prosecutor)
v/s
Accused : Sri.K.P.Champakadaswamy
S/o. K.S.Puttaswamy,
aged about 46 years,
Mechanic GradeII,
M.R.T., K.P.T.C.L.,
Anandrao Circle,
2 SPL.C.C.4 / 2013
Bengaluru City.
( Sri. P.N.H., advocate)
Date of commission of 03.05.1976 to 27.03.1999
offence:
Date of report of 27.03.1999
occurrence:
Date of arrest of accused:
Date of release of accused
on bail:
Date of commencement of 10.10.2018
evidence:
Date of closing of 07.06.2023
evidence:
Name of the complainant: KEB Vigilance Police
Offence complained of: Under Sections 13 (1) (e)
r/w Section 13 (2) of the
Prevention of Corruption
Act, 1988
Opinion of the Judge Acquitted
Date of Judgment 28.10.2024
JUDGMENT
The Police Inspector, Karnataka Lokayukta, City Division, Bengaluru, has filed this charge sheet against the accused for the offence punishable under Sections 13(1)(e) read with Section 13(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.
3 SPL.C.C.4 / 20132. On the basis of Source Information Report dated 27.03.1999, which was submitted by CW1, the Superintendent of Police, BESCOM Vigilence Cell (CW43/PW12) has registered the FIR against the accused in Cr.No.06/2009, thereafter, CW43 to CW46 and CW48 have conducted investigation, on completion of investigation CW48 who was the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Vigilance Wing, KPTCL, Bengaluru has laid this chargesheet against the accused making allegation of the offence punishable under Sections 13 (1) (e) r/w Section 13 (2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 ('PC Act' in short).
3. Case of the prosecution in brief is as follows: On 03.05.1976, the accused was appointed as a Meter Reader Attendant, GradeII in KEB, Bangalore, then he was promoted as Mechanic GradeII, during the check period which begins from 03.05.1976 to 27.03.1999, the accused has made assets to the tune of Rs.1,13,34,54300 and his total expenditure is Rs.33,26,28200, but his total income from all sources is Rs.72,93,65800, thus the accused posessed properties disproportionate to his known source income to an extent 4 SPL.C.C.4 / 2013 of Rs.73,67,167/ ie., 101% of his known source of income, for which the accused could not give satisfactory accounts.
4. As there are prima facie materials to take cognizance, cognizance of the offence punishable under section 13 (1) (e) r/w section 13 (2) of P.C. Act., was taken and process was issued against the accused. In response to the summons the accused has appeared before the court through his counsel and he is on bail. The copies of final report are furnished to the accused as contemplated under Section 207 of Cr.P.C., After dismissal of the applications filed by the accused for his discharge, charges are framed for the alleged offences, read over the charges to the accused in the language known to him, after understanding the same, the accused has not pleaded guilty and he claimed to be tried.
5. Evidence of prosecution:In order to bring home the guilt of the accused, the prosecution has cited 48 witnesses in the charge sheet, out these witnesses it has got examined 12 witnesses and got marked 41 documents. The prosecution has not got examined CW1 who has submitted the source report, CW3, CW4, 5 SPL.C.C.4 / 2013 CW44 and CW48 who are the Investigating Officer as they are reported to be dead and it has also not got examined CW7who is the mahazar witness, CW32who reported about income of agricultural lands and CW41 who assisted the Investigating Officer as they have also been reported to be dead. The witnesses examined and the documents got marked by the prosecution are as under:
Witness Name of Evidence regarding Exhibits Number witness marked PW1 Sri.M.D. With regard seizure Ex.P1 to Basavannavar mahazars, receipt of Ex.P38 schedule from accused, valuation reports, expenditure reports, reports of agriculture income etc., PW2 Sri.K. Prakash Mahazar in KEB Office Ex.P10(a) PW3 Sri.N.G. Thavane Valuation of the House Ex.P18(a) and No.291, Mahalakshmi P18 (b) Puram, Bengaluru PW4 Sri. S. Mukundan Issuance of 'B' Extract Ex.P19(a) of vehicle No.KA03N9187 PW5 Sri. Fuel Expenses of Ex.P22(a), (b) S.N. Nanjundaiah vehicles bearing and Ex.P23(a), Shetty Nos.KA04M9187 and (b) CTL6459 PW6 Sri. Kareem Baig Issuance of 'B' Extract Ex.P21(a), (b) of vehicle No. & (c) KA02N9187 6 SPL.C.C.4 / 2013 PW7 Sri.Surendranath Issuance of 'B' Extract Ex.P22(c) of vehicle No. KA04M9187 PW8 Sri.Jayaprakash Mahazar in KEB Office Ex.P10(b) gowda PW9 K.Rajagopal Search and Seizure in Ex.P9(a) the house of accused in Mahalakshmi Extentsion PW10 R. Sridhar Issuance of Sanction ExP39 Order PW11 Sri.Ajjappa Final report filed against accused PW12 Sri.B.R. Jalade Receipt of SIR and Ex.P13(a), registration of FIR Ex.P40, 40(a), Ex.P41 & 41(a).
6. After closure of evidence of prosecution, the accused was examined and his statement was recorded as contemplated under Section 313 of Criminal Procedure Code (Cr.P.C. in short), wherein the accused has denied all incriminating evidence appeared against him and he has chosen to lead evidence on his side. The accused has got examined 2 witnesses and got marked 29 documents. The witnesses examined and the documents got marked on the side of accused are as under: 7 SPL.C.C.4 / 2013 Name of Evidence regarding Exhibits Witness witness marked Number DW1 Sri.K.P. His family background, Ex.D1 to Chamakadh acquisition of properties, Ex.D12, ama Swamy income etc., Ex.D14 to Ex.D29 DW2 Sri.K.P. FD amount, acquisition of Ex.D13 Ramesh properties and payment of Rs.27,00,000/ to the accused.
7. I have heard the arguments of learned Public Prosecutor and learned counsel for the accused. In addition to his oral arguments, the learned counsel for the accused has also filed written arguments and he has also relied on following decisions of Hon'ble Supreme Court and Hon'ble High Court:
1. (1977) 1 Supreme Court Cases 816 (Krishnand Agnihotri v/s the State of Madhya Pradesh)
2. (2006) 1 Supreme Court Cases 420 (DSP, Chennai v/s K. Inbasagaran)
3. 1998 SCC Online AP 752 (G.V.S. Lingam v/s State of A.P.) 8 SPL.C.C.4 / 2013
4. Criminal Appeal No.275/2011:
Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka (G.T. Gowda v/s State of Karnataka)
5. W.P. No.7911/2022: Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka.
6. ILR 2001 KAR 2843 (H.S. Gotla v/s State)
7. (2006) 7 Supreme Court Cases 172 (State Inspector of Police, Vishakapathan v/s Surya Sankaram Karri)
8. C.R.P No.484/2020: Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka
9. (1997) 6 Supreme Court Cases 185 (Kaptan Singh and Others v/s State of MP and another)
10. (1997) 6 Supreme Court Cases 171.
11. 1987 (supp) Supreme Court Cases 379 (State of Maharashtra v/s Pollonji Darabshaw Daruwalla).9 SPL.C.C.4 / 2013
12. (2017) 14 Supreme Court Cases 442 (Vasant Rao Guhe v/s State of M P)
8. After perusal of the allegations made in the final report, the defense taken by the accused and hearing the arguments of both sides, the points that arise for consideration of this court are:
1. Whether the prosecution able to convince and demonstrate that the Sanction Order obtained in respect of the accused, which is marked at Ex.P38 is valid, sustainable, tenable and is free from any inherent defects?
2. Whether all the Investigating Officers were authorized to investigate into the matter as contemplated under Section 17 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988?
3. Whether K.P.T.C.L., previously 10 SPL.C.C.4 / 2013 known as KEB was having power of police and authority to register the case and to investigate into the case for the offences under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, at the time of registration of this case and investigation?
4. Whether the prosecution has proved beyond reasonable doubt that the accused being a public servant, during the check period which commenced from 03.05.1976 to 27.03.1999 was found in possession of the property of worth Rs.73,75,544/, which is accounted for 101% disproportionate to his known source of income, for which the accused could not satisfactorily account, thereby the accused has committed the offence punishable under Section 13 (1) (e) r/w Section 13 (2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988?
5. What order?11 SPL.C.C.4 / 2013
9. After hearing the arguments of both sides, perusal of oral and documentary evidence available on record, points urged in the written arguments of learned counsel for the accused and referring the proposition of law enunciating in the decisions relied on by both sides, I have answered the above points as under:
Point No.1: In the Affirmative;
Point No.2: In the Negative;
Point No.3: In the Negative;
Point No.4: Partly in the
Affirmative;
Point No.5: As per the final order
for following:
REASONS
10. Before discussing the points for consideration, I would like to mention the admitted facts here itself for better understanding. It is not in dispute that on 03.05.1976 the accused has appointed as a Meter Reader Attendant GradeII in Karnataka Electricity Board and on 03.02.1984 he was promoted to Mechanic GradeII and thus the accused was a public servant 12 SPL.C.C.4 / 2013 during the check period ie., from 03.05.1976 to 27.03.1999 as contemplated under Section 2(c) of the Prevention of Corruption Act. There is no dispute that natural father of the accused is one Puttaswamy S/o Sampangaiah and he is adopted by one Puttaiah S/o Channappa. Further, the prosecution has not disputed contention of the accused about execution of a Will dated 12.05.1977 by adoptive father in favour of the accused.
11. POINT NO.1: Though the accused has contended that KEB vigilence cell had no authority to register the case and for investigation of a case relating to the offences punishable under provisions of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, he has not disputed validity of the sanction order. In a case of Jaswant Singh v/s State of Punjab (AIR 1958 SC 124), the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that no cognizance could be taken for prosecution of the accused for an offence under the Prevention of Corruption Act, unless sanction is obtained from the competent authority with regard to a specific offence. Hence, I now proceed to decide as to whether sanction order is in conformity with the law laid down in various judgments by Hon'ble 13 SPL.C.C.4 / 2013 Supreme Court. For this purpose, I deem it appropriate at this stage to go through the contents of sanction order ie., Ex.P38. In view of section 19 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, the Court cannot take cognizance of the offences punishable under section 7, 10, 11, 13 and 15 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 alleged to have been committed by the public servant except with the previous sanction obtained by the competent authority. As per Section 19 of Prevention of Corruption Act, the investigating officer, who prepared the final report has no authority to submit the final report to the Court unless he obtained the order of sanction from the competent authority to prosecute the accused. Sanction for prosecution granted by a person not authorized in law amounts issuance of sanction without jurisdiction. Further, As provided under Section 19 of the the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, court cannot take cognizance of the offence punishable under Sections 7, 11, 13 and 15 alleged to have been committed by the public servant except with previous sanction of the concerned as provided under the said provision. In the entire arguments of learned counsel for the accused, he has not raised any objection 14 SPL.C.C.4 / 2013 about the authority to issue sanction order dated 08.10.2012 and its validity, which is marked at Ex.P38.
A perusal of para No.32 of chief examination of PW1, Para Nos.4 and 5 of chief examination of PW10, para No.6 of crossexamination of PW11 coupled with Ex.P1, which is marked in Spl., C.C. No.117/2004 (which is not marked in this case) makes it clear that firstly Order of Sanction was issued on 04.02.2004 by the Executive Engineer of K.P.T.C.L., Bengaluru, but as the court has ordered in Spl., C.C. No.117/2004 for issuance of Sanction order by the K.P.T.C.L., only, a fresh Sanction order has been issued on 08.10.2012, which is marked at Ex.P38. At para No.32 of his examination in chief examination, PW1 has deposed that CW46 (who has been examined as PW11) filed the charge sheet after obtaining fresh sanction. The prosecution has got marked the copy of sanction order as Ex.P38 through PW1. CW46/PW11 has deposed that on 04.02.2004 his predecessor had obtained sanction order from Executive Engineer of K.P.T.C.L., on that basis he has filed the final report. But, the documents got marked by the prosecution and its oral evidence clearly proved that after the order passed in Spl.,C.C. No.117/2004 on 15 SPL.C.C.4 / 2013 28.02.2006, the Investigating Officer has obtained fresh sanction order dated 08.10.2012 as per Ex.P38 to prosecute the accused. It is to be noted that Ex.P38 is a xerox copy, the original sanction order is at page Nos. 216 to 218 of the final report in file No.7, but the prosecution has not got it marked. But, it is pertinent to note that the accused has not objected to mark the copy of the sanction order.
12. It is not in dispute that K.P.T.C.L. / KEB, is the employer of the accused, further, even in his argument, the learned counsel for the accused has not argued anything about the sanction order and he has not raised any objection to consider the sanction order which is marked at Ex.P38. But Section 19 is a mechanism in the special statute to see that the public servants are not unnecessarily harassed or put to a type of fear psychosis, which in a way definitely will come in the way of discharge of public duties. Therefore, it is the duty of this court to find out whether the competent authority has issued the sanction order and it is in conformity with Section 19 of the Prevention of Corruption Act. I have gone through the Sanction order dated 08.10.2012, which is marked as Ex.P38 and also 16 SPL.C.C.4 / 2013 original Sanction order. The sanction order is issued by the Company Secretary, K.P.T.C.L., under the order of K.P.T.C.L., Regarding sanction order, it is just and proper to refer the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, reported in (2013) 8 SCC 119 in the case between State of Maharashtra Through CBI v/s Mahesh G Jain. In this decision, the Hon'ble Apex Court has held that "the adequacy of the material placed before the sanctioning authority cannot be gone into by the court as it does not sit in appeal over the sanction order. An order of sanction should not be construed in a pedantic manner and there should not be a hyper technical approach to test its validity. When there is an order of sanction by the competent authority indicating the application of mind, the same should not be lightly dealt with. The flimsy technicalities cannot be allowed to become tools in the hands of the accused". On going through the order of sanctioning prosecution, in my view the order fulfills the requisites of valid sanction as has been held by Hon'ble Supreme Court in various decisions. A perusal of sanction order discloses that the sanctioning authority had considered the evidence and other materials placed before it. What I 17 SPL.C.C.4 / 2013 know from the perusal of the sanction order is that the facts of the case are found in the sanction order and it shows that the documents seized at the time of the investigation were submitted before the sanctioning authority. The order also reveals that the sanctioning authority has taken into consideration all the facts and circumstances of the case including the documents submitted to it. Admittedly, the prosecution has not got examined the authority who has issued the sanction order, but sanction order itself discloses the facts and the satisfaction of the sanctioning authority is apparent by reading the order. Therefore, I am of the considered opinion that there is due application of mind by the sanctioning authority and the sanction is valid. At the cost of repetition, again I would like to mention here that, the accused has not raised his voice against validity of sanction order as well as the authority of K.P.T.C.L., to issue sanction order. My consideration to the entire materials on record and no objection of the accused to the sanction order, I am of the firm opinion that sanction order is well reasoned speaking order and recitals of the sanction order are clear that after application of mind the competent authority has given 18 SPL.C.C.4 / 2013 sanction for prosecution of the accused. Therefore, in the end, it can be summed up that the prosecution has placed a valid sanction order to prosecute the accused.
Accordingly, Point No.1 is answered in the Affirmative.
13. POINT No.2: The Learned counsel for the accused has argued that there was no authorization in terms of Section 17 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, to any of the Investigating Officers except CW43 and even the authorization said to be given to CW43 has not been got marked by the prosecution, therefore entire proceedings is vitiated. In this regard the learned counsel has relied on a decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court reported in (2006) 7 Supreme Court Cases 172 which arose between State Inspector of Police, Vishakhapatnam v/s Surya Sankaram Karri. I have gone through this decision and applied the principles of this decision to the case on hand. The Learned public prosecutor has argued that CW43 was authorized to investigate the matter and in this regard authorization letter is marked as Ex.P40. No doubt, the authorization letter given only to CW43 has been 19 SPL.C.C.4 / 2013 marked as Ex.P40. Admittedly, the alleged offences in the present case are under Section 13 (1) (e) r/w Section 13 (2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. Now I would like to go through the Section 17 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.
17. Persons authorised to investigate: Notwithstanding anything contained in the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), no police officer below the rank,
(a) in the case of the Delhi Special Police Establishment, of an Inspector of Police;
(b) in the metropolitan areas of
Bombay, Calcutta, Madras and
Ahmedabad and in any other
metropolitan area notified as such under subsection (1) of section 8 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), of an Assistant Commissioner of Police;
20 SPL.C.C.4 / 2013(c) elsewhere, of a Deputy Superintendent of Police or a police officer of equivalent rank, shall investigate any offence punishable under this Act without the order of a Metropolitan Magistrate or a Magistrate of the first class, as the case may be, or make any arrest therefor without a warrant:
Provided that if a police officer not below the rank of an Inspector of Police is authorised by the State Government in this behalf by general or special order, he may also investigate any such offence without the order of a Metropolitan Magistrate or a Magistrate of the first class, as the case may be, or makes arrest therefor without a warrant:
Provided further that an offence referred to in clause (e) of subsection (1) of section 13 shall not be investigated without the order of a police officer not below the rank of a Superintendent of Police.21 SPL.C.C.4 / 2013
14. As per Section 17 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, authorization by Superintendent of Police in favour of an officer so as to enable him to carry out investigation in terms of Section 17 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, is a statutory one and hence, it is mandatory in character. The power to issue such authority has been conferred upon the authorities not below the rank of superintendent of police. When the authority of a person to carry out investigation is questioned on the ground that, he do not fulfil the statutory requirements laid down in terms of 2nd proviso to Section 17 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, the burden would be on the prosecution to prove the same.
It is not in dispute before this court that except CW43, no Investigating Officers were authorized for investigation. CW43 has not been examined before the court as he is reported to be dead. PW.1, PW.8, PW.9, PW.11 and PW.12 are also the Investigating Officers in the present case. It is not in dispute that PW12 was the Superintendent of Police, who has taken up the investigation and conducted investigation in part. He deposed that on the basis of source report given by CW1, he has registered the case, obtained search warrants 22 SPL.C.C.4 / 2013 and entrusted to 4 police inspectors for search, after seizure of F.D certificates and silver articles in the bank locker of the accused under a mahazar, which is marked as Ex.P13, he has handed over the investigation to T.L.Purnachandra (CW44) and he has issued a memo in his favour under Section 17 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, which is marked as Ex.P40. Except this, the prosecution has not produced any amount of evidence to prove that, the other Investigating Officers were authorized to investigate under Section 17 of the Prevention of Corruption Act. Admittedly, except PW12 all other Investigating Officers were below the rank of Superintendent of Police.
15. The crossexamination of PW1 reveals that at the time of filing of the final report, PW1 who was Dy.S.P. was also in charge of superintendent of police. The Learned counsel for the accused has vehemently argued that as PW1 was the Dy.S.P., and though he was in charge of superintendent of police, he had no authority to file the charge sheet because incharge superintendent of police had no authority for investigation unless he was authorized by the superintendent of police. In the crossexamination, the 23 SPL.C.C.4 / 2013 Learned counsel for the accused has specifically suggested PW1 that the superintendent of police had not authorized him to receive the documents under Section 17 of the Prevention of Corruption Act and to file the charge sheet. For this suggestion PW1 has stated that at that time he was incharge of superintendent of police. Again learned counsel for the accused has suggested PW1 that incharge superintendent of police has no authority to authroize the police officer under Section 17 of the Prevention of Corruption Act. For this suggestion PW1 has stated that in that regard he had to go through the documents. Admittedly, when PW1 was deposing before the court he was a retired superintendent of police and as per his evidence he was working as Dy.S.P and was in charge of superintendent of police when he was submitting the charge sheet. Though PW1 stated that he was incharge of superintendent of police at that time, no evidence has been produced to prove it. The prosecution has also not produced documentary evidence to prove that PW1 being incharge of superintendent of police has authorized himself to taken up the investigation. In this regard the Learned counsel for the accused has relied on a decision of the Hon'ble High 24 SPL.C.C.4 / 2013 Court of Karnataka reported in ILR 2001 KAR 2843, which arose between H.S. Golta v/s State (Crl.P. No.3495/2000). This decision is related to the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. In this decision, the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka relying on section 17 of the the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 has held that:
'In the present case, the Deputy Superintendent of Police has registered the case as Incharge Superintendent of Police at the relevant point of time and exercising his power as incharge Superintendent of Police permitted himself by an order of sanction for investigation into the matter. A substantial question would arise regarding the legality of the conduct of the Deputy Superintendent of Police to investigate into the matter on the bais of the sanction given by himself as Incharge Superintendent of police. The provisions of Section 17 of the Act are mandatory and the sanction by an Officer not below the rank of Superintendent of Police is a pre 25 SPL.C.C.4 / 2013 requisite to conduct the investigation. In the instant case, although the Deputy Superintendent of Police was incharge Superintendent of Police merely being placed as incharge Superintendent of Police, his rank would not get promoted to the cadre of the Superintendent of Police during the period when he is officiating as incharge Superintendent of Police. Therefore, Deputy Superintendent of Police is below the rank of Superintendent of Police.'
16. Further, in that case the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka has quashed registration of the case and continuation of the proceedings. Thus, as per the decision of the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka even incharge Dy.S.P cannot investigate the offence under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 without authorization by the superintendent of police. In the present case also, the then Dy.S.P who was said to be in charge of superintendent of police has filed the final report, therefore I have applied the pricniples of the 26 SPL.C.C.4 / 2013 decision of the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka to the case on hand and hold that the investigation by PW1 is without authorization as per section 17 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.
17. PW8 who was the police inspector at that time has also conducted investigation and he deposed about the conduct of search in the office of accused, PW9 who was the Police Inspector at that time has conducted search in the residence of the accused, seizure of cash, golden jewelleries, vehicles of accused and other documents under a mahazar. PW11 was the Dy.S.P., who has submitted the charge sheet at the first instance. In his crossexamination PW11 has denied the suggestion of learned counsel for the accused that Investigating Officers by name Rajagopalgowda, Jayaprakashgowda, M.D. Channabasappa and M.D. Basavannavar had no authority to investigate the case. In his cross examination PW11 has also stated that he has produced documents of authorization to the court. But, except Ex.P40 and 41, which authorize CW44, there is no document on record to prove authorization of PW1, PW8, PW9 and PW11 to investigate in to the case. It is 27 SPL.C.C.4 / 2013 pertinent to note that firstly, PW11 had submitted the charge sheet and after issuance of direction in Spl., C.C. No.117/2004 on 28.02.2006, a fresh sanction order is obtained and final report was filed by CW48 by name Sri. Siddegowda. But CW48 is not examined as he is reported to be dead. As aforesaid, when the authority to investigate is questioned, the burden is on the prosecution to prove the same. But no explanation has been offered by the prosecution regarding non issuance of authorisation to PW.1, PW.8, PW.9 and PW.11 by the Superintendent of Police and even no attempt was made to bring the documents of authorisation on record even at a later stage. Thus, there is no compliance of the mandate of the law by the prosecution. The second proviso of Section 17 makes it further clear that in respect of the offence referred to clause (e) of sub Section 1 of Section 13, the investigation shall be proceed with the order of a police officer not below the rank of superintendent of police. No doubt, The first proviso to Section 17 enables even an officer of the rank of Inspector of Police for investigation without the order of Metropolitan Magistrate or a Magistrate of First Class, if he is authorized by the State Government by 28 SPL.C.C.4 / 2013 general or special order. Undisputably the Inspectors of Police who have taken up investigation in the present case are not authorised by the State Government by general or special order. When that being the case, the investigation done is bad for want of authorisation by the Superintendent of Police under the second proviso to Section 17 of the Act. The burden undoubtedly on the prosecution to prove that there was an order authorizing the investigation and non production of the same has to be treated as fatal to the case.
Accordingly, I have answered Point No.2 in the Affirmative.
18. POINT No.3: The first and foremost argument of the learned counsel for the accused is that KEB vigilence cell has registered the case and investigated the case though it had no power of police. The learned counsel for the accused has argued that KEB vigilence had no authority to register the case and for investigation as it was not a police station. In his cross examination, PW1 has stated that he didn't know whether the KEB vigilence cell had authority to register the case and investigate into the case registered for the 29 SPL.C.C.4 / 2013 offences under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. The learned counsel for the accused has further suggested PW1 that till filing of the final report KEB vigilence cell had no authority to register the case and for investigation for the offence under the provisions of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and for the first time on 25.02.2003 it is given power to register the case and to investigate into the matter in respect of the offences under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. For these suggestions PW1 has stated that he had no information, he did not know and he could not answer. PW11 who is an another Investigating Officer has also stated that he could not say when KEB vigilence cell got power to register the case and investigate into the offences relating to the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. But PW11 has denied the suggestion of the learned counsel for the accused that KEB vigilence had no authority to investigate into the offences under the the Prevention of Corruption Act. PW12 who is also one of the Investigating Officers had denied the suggestion of learned counsel for the accused that KEB vigilence had power only to investigate into the offences under Electricity Act and IPC. But PW12 has stated 30 SPL.C.C.4 / 2013 that he did not know when KEB vigilence got the power of police.
19. Admittedly, the accused had filed an application before this Court seeking discharge of the accused on a ground that KEB vigilence cell was not a police station to register the case and investigate into the alleged offence, said application came to be dismissed by this Court vide its order dated 20.05.2020, challenging this order the accused has approached the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka in Crl.R.P. No.484/2020. The petition was dismissed by the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka with a direction to this court to dispose off the proceedings, uninfluenced by its order dated 20.05.2020 and to decide the case based on available material. Therefore, as rightly aruged by the learned counsel for the accused, in view of the direction of Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka, this court has to agitate the issue once again regarding power of KEB vigilence cell to register the case and investigate into the matter relating to the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.
31 SPL.C.C.4 / 201320. As discussed above, none of the Investigating Officers who are examined before this court are not firm regrding power of KEB vigilence (now BESCOM vigilence Cell) to register the case and investigate into the cases of corruption under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 at the time of registration of this case and investigation. In his chiefexamination, DW1 has deposed that KEB vigilence cell had no authority to raid his house, it had power only to register the cases of theft of electricity and as per the notification, only from 25.02.2003 it has got authority to raid. The learned counsel for the accused has further argued that the though KEB Vigilance cell was headed by the Deputy Inspector General of Police, initially it was not designated as Police Station, for the first time the Government of Karnataka by its Notification dated 25.02.2003 has declared the Vigilance Cell of KEB as Police Station, in the present case investigation by the Vigilance Cell was completed on 29072002 when the sanction was sought for prosecution of the accused, the materials in the final report were collected between 27031999 to 29072002 ie., before empowering the Vigilance cell, therefore the accused is entitle for 32 SPL.C.C.4 / 2013 acquittal.
21. It must be noted that any amount of oral evidence is not sufficient to conclude whether the KEB vigilence cell had got authority to register this case and investigate in to the matter pertaining to the offences under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. The accused has also got marked letter of Additionl Secretary to Government and Public Information Officer, Vidhana Soudha as per Ex.D11 and a Notification of Government of Karnataka, dated 24.02.2003 bearing No.HD 02 POP 2002 as per Ex.D10. Bearing in mind the arguments of the learned counsel for the accused, I have gone through the oral and documentary evidence available on record. As aforesaid, in his crossexamination, PW.1 has shown his inability to answer whether the KEB Vigilance Cell was having power to investigate into the matter at the time of registration of the case and for investigation. PW.1 further answered that, he did not know whether the Government of Karnataka has empowered KEB Vigilance cell to investigate about the offences under the Prevention of Corruption Act for the first time on 25022003. In his chiefexamination also the 33 SPL.C.C.4 / 2013 accused/DW1 has deposed that the KEB vigilence cell had no power to register the case and for investigation as it was not a police station at that time. In this regard, the accused has got marked notification of the Government of Karnataka, which bearing No. HD 02 POP 2002 dated 25022003. A perusal of this document makes it clear that the offices of the Inspector of Police (Vigilance) Bangalore Electricity Supply Company and other District Electricity supply Companies have been entrusted with the power and jurisdiction in respect of the offences committed under the provisions of Prevention of Corruption Act and other Acts by the Government of Karnataka by its notification dated 25.02.2003. Thus, the Bangalore Electricity Supply Company (Vigilance cell) previously known as KEB has clothed with the power of Registration of the case and investigation in respect of the offences punishable under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 only from 25.02.2003. Further, the prosecution has not disputed this issuance of notification of the Government of Karnataka dated 25.02.2003 giving power of registering the case and for investigation of the offences under the provisions of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.
34 SPL.C.C.4 / 2013Admittedly, the source report was submitted to the superintendent of police, KEB vigilence cell on 27.03.1999 and after investigation, first final report was submitted to this Court on 23.04.2004, but after the order in Spl., C.C. No.117/2004 on 28.02.2006, again fresh sanction was obtained and filed the final report on 28.12.2012. Even though date of filing of charge sheet for the first time is considered, case was registered and investigation was conducted before the Government of Karnataka has authorized the KEB vigilence cell. Thus, in view of the notification of the Government of Karnataka dated 25.02.2003, which has been marked as Ex.D10, I hold that, on the date of registration of FIR and during the investigation, the KEB Vigilance had no power of police and had no authority to register the case and investigate the offences under the the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. Hence, Point No.3 is answered in the Negative.
22. POINT No.4: Arguments of Learned public prosecutor: The learned public prosecutor has argued that Investigating Officer has searched house of accused, place of service, Amogha builders premises, bank locker 35 SPL.C.C.4 / 2013 and also house of a friend of the accused, after considering the schedule submitted by the accused, Investigating Officer has submitted charge sheet. He further argued that accused has not denied the case of prosecution that he was a public servant, the accused has not disputed the documents seized by the Investigating Officer, he has not disputed his ownership over the vehicles seized, but he only disputed value of articles. Learned public prosecutor further argued that that the accused has also not questioned the order of sanction, when the sanction order is valid and the evidence on record substantiated that the accused has got disproportionate asset which is not accounted, he is liable to be convicted for the alleged offences.
23. Arguments of learned counsel for the accused:
On the other hand the learned counsel for the accused has argued that the Investigating Officer has not considered the schedule submitted by the accused and he has wrongly taken value of the properties and failed to consider several heads of income. The learned counsel for the accused has further argued that the burden of proof in the case of disproportionate cases is always on the prosecution, the prosecution must prove 36 SPL.C.C.4 / 2013 that the accused is a public servant, nature and extent of the pecuniary resources or property which were found in the possession of the accused, it must proved as to what were his known sources of income, it must prove resources or property found in possession of the accused were disproportionate to his known source of income, if the prosecution proves these points then the burden shifts to the accused to satisfactorily account for his possession of disproportionate assets. He further argued that a public servant facing such charges cannot be comprehend to furnish any explanation in the absence of the proof of allegations of being in possession pecuniary resources disproportionate to his known source of income. It is further arguments of the learned counsel for the accused that PW1 has not spoken anything about the reason for his ultimate opinion, there is absolutely no evidence to show as to what made him to arrive at a particular conclusion. The learned counsel for the accused has vehemently argued that unfortunately the prosecution has failed to translate the materials collect during investigation into evidence, therefore the court cannot rely on the investigation to decide the case.37 SPL.C.C.4 / 2013
24. Keeping in mind the points urged by the learned public prosecutor and learned counsel for the accused, I have gone through the oral and documentary evidence on record. The accused has not disputed raid and seizure of the properties and documents under the mahazar, which are marked as Ex.P5 to Ex.P8. After raid and search of premises of a public servant, his office, recording statement of witnesses and collecting necessary documents from the house of accused, the Investigating Officer prepares the final report on the basis of collected documents and the schedule submitted by the accused. To know whether the accused has amassed disproportionate assets, investigating officer has to basically consider three aspects viz., value of assets earned during the check period, his expenditure and finally the income. For the purpose of ascertaining as to what is the percentage of disproportionate assets, the accepted formula is that assets and expenditure shall be added, then lawful income has to be deducted from total value of assets and expenditure. In the instant case, according to the Investigating Officer, assets of the accused and his expenditures were far more than the total income during the check period. After the 38 SPL.C.C.4 / 2013 investigation the investigating officer came to the following conclusion in respect of asset, expenditure and income of the accused:
i). Asset of the accused: Rs.1,13,34,54300
ii). Expenditure incurred: Rs.33,26,28200
iii). Income of the accused: Rs.72,93,65800
iv). Disproportionate assets: Rs.73,67,16700. ..
25. On the basis of the above formula, it is alleged by the prosecution that the accused has amassed wealth which is 101% of his real income, hence the present charge sheet has been filed. The asset possessed, the expenditure made and income of the accused as per the prosecution are discussed as under: ASSETS EARNED BY THE ACCUSED DURING CHECK PERIOD
26. As per the opinion of the investigating officer, during the check period the accused has made movable and immovable assets and their value are as follows:
39 SPL.C.C.4 / 2013Sl. Value of asset
No. Description of Asset as per
Investigating
Officer
1 Purchase value of a site measuring Rs.75,00000
75 ft x 30 ft situated at Malleswaram, Bengaluru 2 Purchase value of a site measuring Rs.70,00000 80 ft x 30 ft situated at Kempapura Agrahara, Padarayanapura, Bengaluru 3 Cost of construction of industrial shed Rs.2,80,00000 on the site mentioned at Sl.No.2 above 4 Purchase value of part of a site Rs.6,60,00000 No.291, situated at Mahalakshmipuram, Bengaluru.
5 Purchase value of part of a site No.291 Rs.6,40,00000
situated at Mahalakshmipuram,
Bengaluru.
6 Cost of construction constructed in Rs.33,00,00000
sites as mentioned above at Sl.No.4 and 5.
7 Amount invested in Vijaya Shares Unit Rs.9,00,00000 8 Bank balance in the account of wife of Rs.2,58,23900 accused during check period 9 FD amount invested in Vijaya Bank in Rs.20,00,00000 the names of accused and members of the family 10 Investment made by accused in Vijaya Rs.8,00,00000 shares in the name of his wife 11 Cash found during raid Rs.4,61,18500 12 Value of household articles found in Rs.4,10,00000 the house of accused 13 Value of Golden Articles found in the Rs.3,98,77400 40 SPL.C.C.4 / 2013 house of accused 14 Value of Golden Articles found in the Rs.9,62300 house of accused.
15 Value of TATA Sumo No.KA03/N9187 Rs.3,68,61000 which is in the name of accused.
16 Value of Maruti Zen Car No.KA02/N9187 Rs.3,60,00000 which is purchased in the name of wife of accused.
17 Value of Maruti800 car No.KA04/N9187 Rs.2,07,81200 which is in the name of accused.
18 Value of Ambassador Car No.CAB07 Rs.25,00000 purchased in the name of wife of accused.
19 Value of Bajaj Scooter CTL4459 which is Rs.11,00000 in the name of accused.
20 Value of NSC Certificates. Rs.5,90000 21 Purchase price of Electronic items Rs.93,40000 found in the house of accused Total Rs.1,13,34,54300
27. Out of these 21 heads of assets which are mentioned in the above mentioned table, the accused has disputed only 6 items which are mentioned at Sl.Nos.1, 6, 9, 12, 13 and 21 (for easy understanding disputed items are typed in black letters). Therefore, only these 6 assets have been taken up for discussion.
41 SPL.C.C.4 / 201328. Sl.No.1: Purchase of a site in Malleswaram for Rs.75,00000:
(i). In the charge sheet, it is stated that the certified copy given by the SubRegistrar, Rajajinagar, shows that the accused has purchased this site for Rs.75,000/ and paid Rs.9000/ towards stamp fee and registration charges, hence Rs.75,000/ is considered as asset of accused and Rs.9,000/ towards expenditure of the accused. The learned public prosecutor has argued that value of the property bearing No.164 situated at Malleshwaram, Bangalore which was purchased by the accused was Rs.75,000/, the contents of Ex.P15 clearly proved that the accused has purchased this property, therefore Investigating Officer has rightly considered Rs.75,000/ as an asset of the accused. The learned counsel for the accused has argued that all the amount to purchase this site was paid by father of the accused by 42 SPL.C.C.4 / 2013 name K.S. Puttaswamy, as the vendor has refused to execute the sale deed, accused has filed O.S.No.7992/1980 through his power of attorney holder ie., his father K.S.Puttaswamy seeking specific performance of the agreement, in that suit his father has clearly deposed that he has paid the amount from his account. He further argued that the suit filed by the accused was decreed which is marked as Ex.D7, after the decree sale deed was executed, at that time of execution of sale deed father of the accused has paid Rs.10,997/ towards stamp fee and registration charges. The learned counsel has also argued that this fact has been narrated by the accused in his schedule which was submitted to the investigating officer and nothing is on record to show that whether the schedule filed by the accused is false and the Investigating Officer has not discussed anything regarding rejection of the claim of the accused made in his schedule.
43 SPL.C.C.4 / 2013(ii). Hearing the arguments of both sides on this point, I have perused the oral and documentary evidence on record. A careful perusal of entire evidence of the prosecution witnesses which reveal that none of the witnesses have deposed anything about assets of accused, his expenditure and income except marking of documents. In the scheduleIII (Ex.P15), which has been furnished by the accused to the Investigating Officer, the accused has specifically stated that date of acquisition of this property is 06.03.1991 ie., during the check period and entire cost including stamp paper and registration charges were paid by his father Sri. K.S.Puttaswamy. But, the learned Public Prosecutor has argued that as per the schedule No.III, the accused himself has admitted that sale agreement dated 21.06.1979 was executed by one R.S. Bhagyalakshmamma in his favor, therefore this schedule coupled with the evidence of PW.1 proved that the accused has purchased 44 SPL.C.C.4 / 2013 this property for Rs.75,000/. As aforesaid, nothing is there about this issue in entire evidence of prosecution witnesses except deposition of PW1 that he had received a sale deed copy and a letter as per Ex.P17.
(iii). In his oral evidence, DW.1 has deposed that in the year 1979 his father had purchesed a house in Malleshwaram, measurement of that house was 27 X 75, as there was a dispute, he and his brothers have filed suits in O.S.Nos.7991/1980 and 7992/1980 which were disposed of on 05.11.1990. He further deposed that said property was purchased by his father out of his retirement benefit and rental income. But a perusal of contents of Ex.P.17 makes it clear that consideration amount, stamp paper amount and registration charges were borne by the accused. No doubt the contents of Ex.P9 (seizure mahazar) state that the Investigating Officer has seized order of the court and other documents in respect of a site No.164 of Malleshwaram. But as argued by 45 SPL.C.C.4 / 2013 the learned counsel for the accused, Investigating Officer has not produced these documents along with the final report. On the other hand the accused has produced a certified copy of the judgment in O.S.No.7991/1980 and 7992/1980 as per Ex.D7, which shows that the accused and his brother had filed suits against legal heir of Smt. Bhagyalakshmamma by name S.V. Mohan, seeking specific performance of the agreement pertaining to house No.164 measuring 75 feet X 30 feet and a house No.164/1. Arguments of the learned counsel for the accused is that the contents of Ex.D7 proved that father of the accused has paid entire consideration amount of Rs.75,000/, but the Investigating Officer has wrongly taken said amount towards expenses of the accused. After thorough reading of contents of Ex.D7, I came to know that the accused and his father have decided to purchase one portion each in the said property instead of purchasing entire property by the accused.
46 SPL.C.C.4 / 2013The contents of Ex.D7 also state that father of the accused who represented the accused as a power of attorney holder in O.S.No.7992/1980 was having sufficient amount to pay balance consideration amount to the seller. At para No.17 of his chiefexamination, DW.1 has deposed that originally the house in Malleshwaram belonged to K.S. Bhagyalakshmamma, his father K.S. Puttaswamy had entered in to an agreement dated 21.06.1979 to purchase the said house in his name and in the names his two brothers for a sum of Rs.75,000/, his father had paid Rs.2,000/ in cash, Rs.40,000/ through a cheque, Rs.11,003/ through Malleshwaram Cooperative Bank, the cheque issued for Rs.40,000/ belonged to the account of his father. But, Ex.P17 clearly states that entire consideration amount was paid by the accused. Not even a single document is produced by the accused to show that cheque said to be issued for Rs.40,000/ belonged to the account of his father.
47 SPL.C.C.4 / 2013(iv). The Learned counsel for the accused has argued that evidence given by PW.1 at para No.66 to 68 clearly indicates that he has mechanically investigated the case and the investigation in respect of this property is not proper. A perusal of para No.66 to 68 of evidence of PW.1 makes it clear that though the accused has contended in his schedule which is submitted to the Investigating Officer stating that his father has paid consideration amount, the Investigating Officer has not enquired the seller of the property or witnesses to the said sale deed. In the crossexamination of PW1, the Learned counsel for the accused has suggested that as per the contents of Ex.P17, agreement of sale was between the seller by name Bhagyalakshmamma and father of the accused. But, after perusal of Ex.P17, I came to know that the sale agreement was between Smt. Bhagyalakshmamma and the accused.
(v). Admittedly, father of accused being a power of attorney holder had represented the 48 SPL.C.C.4 / 2013 accused in O.S.No.7992/1980. Though the power of attorney holder of the plaintiff deposed in O.S.No.7992/1980 that he was having sufficient amount to pay balance consideration amount and decided to purchase the property portion by portion by himself and his son instead of purchasing entire property by the accused, the contents of Ex.P17 proved that the accused himself has purchased entire property measuring 75 X 30 feet by paying entire consideration amount of Rs.75,000/. Though PW1 has not deposed anything about the payment of consideration amount in respect of this property, Ex.P.17 is sufficient to hold that the accused has paid entire consideration amount to purchase this property. In the absence any documentary evidence to prove that father of the accused had paid entire consideration amount, on the basis of the clear recitals of Ex.P17 I hold that the accused has paid entire consideration amount. When there is a documentary evidence to prove the payment of 49 SPL.C.C.4 / 2013 consideration amount by the accused, only on the basis of schedule of the accused, it cannot be said that father of the accused has paid consideration amount to purchased the property.
29. Therefore, for the reasons given and discussion made above, I have rejected contention of the accused that his father has paid entire consideration amount and I have considedred the said property as an asset of the accused as he has purchased it by paying an amount of Rs.75,000/.
30. Sl.No.6: Construction cost of the House No.291 which is situated at Mahalaxmipuram:
(i). The next asset, which has been disputed by the accused is the cost of construction. As per the prosecution, cost of construction which was made on a site bearing No.291, which is situated at Mahalakshmipuram is Rs.33,00,000/. As per the argument of the learned counsel for the accused, construction cost of this building was Rs.20,87,02000. It is 50 SPL.C.C.4 / 2013 not in dispute that this property is consisting of ground floor, first floor and 2nd floor. Learned public prosecutor has argued that in his schedule the accused himself has mentioned that construction cost was Rs.33,00,000/, hence the Investigating Officer has taken construction cost at Rs.33,00,000/, therefore the argument of the accused is against to his schedule hence, calculation of the Investigating Officer has to be considered. The learned counsel for the accused has argued that, in his chiefexamination DW1 has deposed that he has spent an amount of rupees 22 lakhs to 23 lakhs, but PW1 has not explained why he has considered construction cost at Rs.33,00,000/. The evidence of PW.1 reveals that he has taken construction cost at Rs.33,00,000/ on the basis of a report of executive engineer, building division, Bengaluru, which is marked at Ex.P18. At para No.69 of his crossexamination, PW1 has admitted that Ex.P18 includes value of the site and value of the building. Aftet I have 51 SPL.C.C.4 / 2013 gone through the Ex.P18, I came to known that the executive engineer has assessed the site at Rs.32,81,102/ and cost of the construction at Rs.26,08,774/. But it is to be noted that the Investigating Officer has already taken purchased value of these two sites at Rs.6,60,000/ and Rs.6,40,000/ (Sl.Nos.4 and 5 of the above table, which are not been disputed by the accused). Therefore, as argued by Learned counsel for the accused if value of sites mentioned in Ex.P18 is considered along with cost of construction it amounts to duplication.
(ii). At para No.69 of his evidence, PW.1 has admitted that he has asked the valuation of the building as on 27.03.1999 and in his schedule the accused has mentioned the value of site as well as the building. He further admitted the suggestion of the Learned counsel for the accused that he has not mentioned the year of construction of the house. Thus the oral and documentary evidence proved that the amount mentioned 52 SPL.C.C.4 / 2013 by the accused in his schedule is valuation of the building, but not the cost of construction. As the Investigating Officer himself has sought report from the executive engineer regarding cost of construction and received the report, which says that cost of construction is Rs.26,08,774/, Investigating Officer should have considered it. Further, evidence of PW1, DW1 and Ex.P18 clarify that the amount of Rs.33,00,000/ which is mentioned in the schedule is the value of the building on that date, but not the cost of the construction.
Therefore, I have taken cost of the construction of the building at Rs.26,08,774/.
(iii). The Learned counsel for the accused has further argued that construction of the house was made under personal supervision of the accused and he has not taken assistance of any contractor, hence 20% has to be deducted from the cost of the construction. In this regard the Learned counsel for the accused relied on a decision of the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka in Crl.A. No.275/2011. The gist 53 SPL.C.C.4 / 2013 of this decision is that if the construction was under self supervision, 10% deduction is allowed. The Learned counsel for the accused has produced copy of the schedule of rates of building 202324 of PWD. In the case on hand, as per this document 10% overhead charges and 10% contractors profit has to be considered along with material cost, labor cost and other applicable cost. This document has not been disputed by the prosecution. The prosecution has left this matter to the discretion of the court to deduct or not to deduct 20% towards cost of supervision of the construction work. It is the argument of the learned counsel for the accused that the accused has personally supervised the construction without taking assistance of any contractor and in his crossexamination, PW.1 has stated that he has not investigated, whether construction was made under the supervision of a contractor or personal supervision, therefore, 20% has to be deducted from the cost of construction. By accepting 54 SPL.C.C.4 / 2013 argument of the learned counsel for the accused, if 20% is deducted towards cost of supervision, then construction cost comes to Rs.20,87,020/ (Rs.26,08,774 - Rs.5,21,754). DW1 has senied the suggestion of the learned public prosecutor that he was falsely deposing that he himself was supervising the construction of the house. It is pertinent to note that in order to defend his case, the accused has also got examined DW2 who is his brother, but DW1 has not deposed that his brother was supervising the construction work. Except his oral evidence nothing is on record to believe the version of the accused that he was supervising the construction of his building. Admittedly, the building is having ground floor, 1st floor and 2nd floor and accused is not a civil Engineer to supervise it, therefore it is unbelievable that the accused has got constructed said building with his personal supervision. Appart from that the accused was a public servant and he had to attend his job regularly and it is not the case 55 SPL.C.C.4 / 2013 of the accused that his brothers or sisters or his parents or any of his relatives were supervising the construction of the building. When that being the case, case of the accused that he was personally supervising the construction work without the help of any supervisor or contractor cannot be believed. No doubt, as argued by the learned counsel for the accused, at para No.69 of his evidence PW1 has admitted that he has not investigated regarding whether the accused himself was supervising or taken the help of the contractor or supervisor to put up construction. But, the accused is the proper person who is having full knowledge about construction hence, the burden was on the accused to prove that he has got constructed his house under his personal supervision, but he failed to substantiate his contention. Only on his oral statement it cannot be believed that without engaging the contractor or supervisor the accused has constructed the 3 floor building. Hence, I decline to deduct 20% 56 SPL.C.C.4 / 2013 of the amount from the total cost of construction. Therefore, construction cost is considered at Rs.26,08,774/ and same is taken towards the asset of the accused.
31. Sl.No.9: Investment made in Fixed Deposit in the name of accused and his family members:
(i). The third asset, which has been disputed by the accused is the FD amount. As per the case of prosecution, on the instance of the accused, the Bank Locker was opened where Investigating Officer found FD bonds of Rs.20,00,000/, which are in the names of accused, his mother, brothers and sister in law, hence they are considered as asset of the accused. Undisputed fact is that there were 4 FD bonds in the bank locker, one in the name of mother of accused, one each in the names of two brothers of accused and another one in the name of sister law of accused, but in all these 4 FD bonds name of accused is also mentioned along with the names of above mentioned persons, hence, those FD bonds were seized from the locker of Vijaya Bank under a 57 SPL.C.C.4 / 2013 mahazar (Ex.P13). The Learned Public Prosecutor has argued that the F.D receipts/bonds were seized at the instance of accused. He further argued that PW12 in his chiefexamination, has deposed about seizure of F.D receipts from the bank locker of the accused in the presence of the accused, panch witnesses and officer of the bank. He has further argued that though DW2 has deposed in his chiefexamination that those F.D. receipts belong to brothers, mother and sistser in law of accused, the ccused has not examined his brother, mother and sister in law in whose names FD bonds were purchased. He has argued that in his crossexamination, DW 2 has admitted that all the F.D. receipts are in the joint names along with the accused, hence the amount of these FD bonds should be taken towards asset of the accused. The Learned counsel for the accused has argued that in the crossexamination of the DW.2, the learned Public Prosecutor has suggested that DW2, his brothers, his sisterinlaw and his mother 58 SPL.C.C.4 / 2013 were having one share each in the agricultural income, thereby the prosecution has admitted that the members of family of accused were having agricultural income, therefore it can be presumed that the family members have kept their amount in F.D. He further argued that as mother, brothers and sisterin law had no bank lockers, they have kept the FD receipts in the bank locker of the accused. But, the Learned Public Prosecutor has argued that when agricultural income was divided among the family members of accused, there was no necessity for them to keep the F.D receipts in the bank locker of the accused.
(ii). The Learned counsel for the accused has relied on a decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court reported in (2006) 1 Supreme Court Cases 430, which arose between Hombegowda Educational Trust and another v/s State of Karnataka and others, wherein, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that 'when there is joint possession between wife and husband or father and son and if some of the members of the 59 SPL.C.C.4 / 2013 family are involved in amassing illegal wealth, then unless there is categorical evidence to believe, that this can be read in the hands of the husband as the case may be, it cannot be fastened on the husband or the head of the family.' I have gone through the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court and applied the principles of the decision to the case on hand. In the present case, the accused has not disputed seizure of FD bonds / receipts from the Vijaya bank locker which belonged to the accused, therefore the evidence regarding seizure of FD bonds which are in the name of accused is sufficient evidence to establish that the accused has purchased them with his money in the names of his mother, brothers and sisterinlaw. The seizure of FD bonds from the locker of the accused or non examination of mother, brothers and sisterin law of accused to prove that they have purchased the bonds with their own money are clear circumstances to establish that the accused has purchased the FD bonds in the 60 SPL.C.C.4 / 2013 names of his mother, brothers and sisterin law. No doubt, in Ex.P15 ie., the schedule given by the accused, he has stated that amount of FD belongs to his mother, brothers and wife of his brother, the income to invest in FD came from agriculture and rentals. Though the mother, brothers and sisterinlaw of the accused have not been examined either by the prosecution or by the accused, a perusal of FD bonds itself makes it clear that in all FD bonds/receipts, name of accused is found along with his mother, brothers and sisterinlaw.
(iii). As aforesaid, the argument of the learned counsel for the accused is that the prosecution has admitted that mother, brothers and sister in law of the accused were having separate agricultural and rental income, hence it can be presumed that said FD bonds belongs to them. Only on the ground that they were having separate income, it cannot be presumed that the FD bonds found in the locker of the accused were purchased by them. I disbelieved the arguments of the 61 SPL.C.C.4 / 2013 learned counsel for the accused who argued that since mother, brothers and sisterinlaw of the accused had no bank lockers they have kept F.D. bonds/receipts in the bank lockers of the accused. If really entire amount of F.D. belongs to the family members of accused and they have purchased FD bonds out of their own income, there was no necessity for them to purchase them in the joint name of accused. When the F.D. receipts themselves speak that the amount has been deposited in F.D. in the name of accused and his family members, oral evidence of DW1 and DW2 that the entire amount belongs to family members of the accused cannot be taken into consideration. It is further arguments of the learned counsel for the accused that the investigating officer has not examined bank officials to find out truth about purchase of F.D. But bank officials are not proper persons to say that whether F.D. amount was exclusively belongs to the accused or his family members. In the light of above background, I opined that the entire defence 62 SPL.C.C.4 / 2013 taken by the accused in this regard is far from truth. Hence, I accepted the case of the prosecution that the F.D. amount of Rs. 20,00,000/ has to be considered towards asset of the accused.
32. Sl.No.12: Value of household articles found in the house of accused at the time of raid:
(i). The next asset, which has been disputed by the accused is the value of household articles assessed by the investigating officer. The prosecution has claims that the value of household articles is Rs.4,10,000/, which is assessed by the panchas at the time of raid, therefore it should be taken into consideration towards asset of the accused. In the charge sheet the investigating officer has stated that there is much difference between the value of household articles assessed by the panchas and the value given by the accused in his schedule, hence, value of the household articles assessed by the panchas is taken into consideration. In his scheudule (Ex.P15), 63 SPL.C.C.4 / 2013 accused has mentioned value of household articles at Rs.2,66,045/. Learned Public Prosecutor has argued that the accused has admitted panchanama and seizure and as per the evidence of DW1 itself the accused was present at the time of mahazar, he has signed the mahazar after he has gone through it, therefore, the accused cannot dispute the value of household articles. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the accused has argued that Ex.P9 does not reflects value of individual item, prosecution has not examined any panch witnesses and PW9, who has conducted the mahazar has not spoken anything about value of household articles, therefore the valuation assessed by the investigating officer, cannot be taken into consideration.
(ii). Admittedly, DW 1 has not disputed the mahazar, which was conducted in the presence of panch witnesses and same is marked as Ex.P9. Only on the ground that the accused was present at the time of mahazar and he has 64 SPL.C.C.4 / 2013 signed it, it cannot be concluded that the accused has admitted the entire averments of the mahazar including value of the household articles assessed by investigating officer and panch witnesses. The accused might have signed it to show his presence at the time of mahazar. Though the learned public prosecutor has argued that panch witness have valued the household articles, the prosecution has not chosen to examine dpanch witnesses to prove their presence at the time of mahazar and also to prove that valuation of house hold articles mentioned in the mahazar is correct. Learned Public Prosecutor has argued that mahazar witnesses are not experts to fix the value of household articles, hence non examination of mahazar witnesses is not fatal to the case. Infact investigating officer is also not an expert to asses the value of household articles, then how the court can believe the assessment made by the Investigating Officer. Unless the prosecution establish value of particular asset of accused producing evidence, 65 SPL.C.C.4 / 2013 only on the say of Investigating Officer and averments made in mahazar, this court cannot accept it and held that value of house hold articles is Rs.4,10,000/. If the contents of Ex.P9 are corroborated by the evidence of panch witnesses or an expert witness, then contents of this document can be relied upon. Unless the prosecution has proved any particular fact, the accused would not be required to offer any explanation. Admittedly, investigating officer has not taken report of an expert to fix the value of household articles and there is no evidence either oral or documentary to accept the valuation assessed by the investigating officer. Further, though the prosecution has contended that value of house hold articles is Rs.4,10,00000, neither PW1 nor PW9 have deposed anything about how valuation of household articles was fixed at Rs. 4,10,000/. In the absence of valuation report or credible evidence, there is no other way except to accept the valuation mentioned by the accused in his schedule. Hence, I 66 SPL.C.C.4 / 2013 decided to accept the valuation of household articles at Rs. 2,66,045/, which is mentioned in the schedule of the accused.
33. Sl.No.13: Value of Golden Ornaments found in possession of the accused at the time of raid:
(i). The accused has also disputed valuation of the golden articles found in the house of accused at the time of mahazar. In the charge sheet investigating officer has stated that at the time of raid he found golden articles weighing about 1,251.540 grams which were assessed at Rs.3,98,774/. In his scheduleIV, the accused has stated that some of the golden articles are received by his wife from her mother and some of the articles have been gifted/presented in his marriage. Learned public prosecutor has argued that in his chief examination DW1 has admitted seizure of golden articles, though panch witnesses are not examined it is not fatal to the case as the panch witnesses are not expert. He further 67 SPL.C.C.4 / 2013 argued that in his crossexamination DW1 has admitted that no documents were presented before the Investigating Officer for having purchased the golden articles and he has signed the mahazar after reading it, hence the valuation assessed by the Investigating Officer has to be taken into consideration. On the other hand the learned counsel for the accused has argued that golden articles were acquired over a period of time hence, Investigating Officer was required to apply average rate of the gold rate during the chek period. PW9 deposed that at the time of raid he conducted mahazar in the presence of witnesses, at that time golden articles were found, they were weighed and entered in the mahazar.
In Ex.P9 the investigating officer has mentioned 46 items of golden articles and their value. In his chiefexamination, DW1 has deposed that at the time of raid, goldsmith was present he has mentioned the approximate rate of gold. In his cross examination, PW9 has admitted that while weighing golden 68 SPL.C.C.4 / 2013 articles stone, coral and pearl were not separated from the golden articles and they were valued on the basis of market value on that day. DW 1 in his crossexamination has denied the suggestion of learned Public Prosecutor that he deposed falsely stating that golden articles were not weighed and they were given by his motherinlaw at the time of his marriage. Except this suggestion, nothing is elicited, which helps the prosecution to prove the value of golden articles mentioned in the mahazar. It is to be noted that the accused has not disputed the quantity of the golden articles found in his house. As per the case of prosecution, 1251.540 gms of golden articles are found in the house of the accused. Further, the accused has not contended that said 1251.540 grams of golden articles are not belongs to him. But the contention of the accused is that some of the golden articles were gifted by his motherin law to his wife and some of the golden articles were presented in his marriage. It is also the argument of the 69 SPL.C.C.4 / 2013 learned counsel for the accused that average rate of the gold prevaling during the check period has to be applied, but such exercise not carried out, hence, the chart produced by the accused which shows gold rates for 10 grams from 1964 to 2022 has to be considered. As per scheduleIV, which is submitted by the accused and which is marked as Ex.P15, the accused was having golden articles weighing about 4,450 grams, but as per mahazar investigating officer has found only 1251.540 grams of golden articles. As per the schedule of the accused out of 4450 grams of golden articles, 38 golden articles were given to his wife by her mother, two items were given to him as presentation at the time of his marriage, 13 items were given to him and his wife by his parents and 10 items of golden articles were received during naming cermony of his two daughters. Thus, as per the case of the accused he has not purchased even a gram of gold during the check period. But, the accused has not substantiated his contention that 70 SPL.C.C.4 / 2013 golden articles were gifted by his motherin law, relatives and friends during his marriage and naming ceremony of his daughters. Therefore, the conclusion of investigating officer that the value of golden articles are to be considered as asset of the accused is correct.
(ii). But further arguments of learned counsel for the accused is that as the golden articles were acquired over a period of time, average rate of gold prevailing during the check period has to be taken. Since, no bills or receipts are available to arrive at exact value of golden articles, the contention taken by the learned counel for the acccused is found to be correct. The learned counsel for the accused has relied on a decision of the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka in Crl.A. No.467/2020, judgment dated 14.07.2023 which arose between Sri. E.Kenchegowda v/s State of Karnataka. In this decision the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka has relied on the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court reported in 1999 Crl.L.J. 1026, wherein the Hon'ble Supreme 71 SPL.C.C.4 / 2013 Court held that: '.....In the absence of any evidence as to the period during which the gold was acquired, it appears more reasonable to presume that the gold might have been acquired periodically every now and then...' Further, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has taken the market value prevailing in the relevant years by presuming that the gold might have been acquired proportionally in every year through out the check period. Therefore, in view of the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court and Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka, I decided to take average rate of gold prevailing during the check period. In this regard learned counsel for the accused has produced online copy taken from google, which says average annual price of the gold per 10 gram from the year 1964 to 1999. After I have gone through the google to get the price of gold year wise from 1976 to 1999 and found that the online copy produced by the learned counsel for the accused correct, I have considered it. If avearge gold price from the year 1964 to 1999.
72 SPL.C.C.4 / 2013i.e., check period in this case is considered, it comes to Rs. 278.2375 per gram. Therefore, for 1,251.540 grams, it comes to Rs. 3,48,225/, which should be the value of the golden articles. Hence, I considered an amount of Rs. 3,48,22500 towards asset of the accused.
34. Sl.No.21: Purchase Value of Electronic and Electrical goods found in the house of accused:
(i). The next disputed asset is the value of house hold electronic items. As per the charge sheet, at the time of raid electronic items were found and value of said articles were assessed by the panchas at Rs.93,400/. Learned Public Procecutor has argued that the investigating officer has considered value of electronic items at Rs.93,40000 as fixed by the Panch witnessess at the time of mahazar, if the accused dispute their value, he should have produced receipt for having purchased the electronic items and furnished date of purchase and their value, Panch witnessess and investigating officers have valued 73 SPL.C.C.4 / 2013 electronic items by considering their brand name and value, therefore the value fixed by the Investigating Officer and panch witnesses holds good. On the other hand the learned counsel for the accused has argued that there is no basis for fixing value of electronic items, the procecution has not examined Panch witnessess and PW9 has not spoken about the method adopted to value the electronic items, therefore the value of electronic items mentioned in the schedule given by the accused has to be taken into consideration. In the schdule the accused has mentioned value of the electronic items at Rs.33,40000.
(ii). Admitedly neither the prosecution nor the accused have produced any documentary evidence to prove value of electronic goods. PW9 is the investigating officer who has conducted ride and mahazar as per Ex.P9, but he has not stated how he has arrived at a conclusion that the value electronic items is Rs.93,40000. As argued by the learned counsel for the accused, the prosecution has failed to examine Panch witnessess to prove mahazar and valuation of 74 SPL.C.C.4 / 2013 electronic items. Further, there is no evidence on record that on the basis of which the investing officer or panch witnesses have arrived the value of electronic items at Rs.93,40000. Admittedly the investing officer has also not got assessed the electronic items by an expert. The learned public prosecutor has argued that if the accused chosen to dispute the value, he should have produced receipt for having purchased the electronic items and furnished date of purchase and their value. But it cannot be expected from the accused to produce bills or receipts of those items as they might have been purchased over a period of time. Thus, the prosecution has failed to prove that the value of electronic goods found in the possession of the accused was Rs.93,40000 at the time of raid. Therefore, in the absence of evidence regarding valuation of electronic items and without having any other way, I have considered value of electronic items at Rs.33,400 00 as per the scheduled given by the accused, because he is the proper person to say about their valuation who purchased them. Therefore, 75 SPL.C.C.4 / 2013 I hold that value of electronic items found in the house of accused is Rs.33,40000.
35. At the cost of repetition, again I mention here that the accused has disputed only 6 Assets out of 21 Assets. After analysing the evidence on record, this court has considered the value of said 6 assets as follows:
Sl. Description of Valuation as Valuation as Valuation No. the asset per per the accused arrived at by the Investigating court Officer 1 Purchase Rs.75,00000 Nil Rs.75,00000 value of a site at Malleswaram 6 Cost of Rs.33,00,00000 Rs.20,87,02000 Rs.26,08,77400 construction of house No.291 9 Investment in Rs.20,00,00000 Nil Rs.20,00,00000 FD 12 Value of Rs.4,10,00000 Rs.2,66,04500 Rs.2,66,04500 Household articles 13 Value of Rs.3,98,77400 Rs.2,95,51700 Rs.3,48,22500 Golden articles 21 Value of Rs.93,40000 Rs.33,40000 Rs.33,40000 Electronic items Total Rs.62,77,17400 Rs.26,81,98200 Rs.53,31,44400 76 SPL.C.C.4 / 2013
36. Thus, on the basis of the evidence on record, this court has considered the valuation of disputed 6 itmes at Rs.53,31,44400. Now, it is time to calculate the total value of assets, which are considered by the Investigating Officer and not disputed by the accused. If value of remaining 15 undisputed items are added by leaving the above mentioned 6 disputed items, it comes to Rs.50,57,36900. Thus the total value of assets of the accused comes to Rs.1,03,88,81300 (Rs.53,31,44400 + Rs.50,57,36900).
EXPENDITURE INCURRED BY THE ACCUSED DURING CHECK PERIOD
37. Coming to the assessment of expenditure of the accused in the check period, the investigating officer has considered the expenditure of the accused under 31 heads at Rs.33,26,28200, which is as under:
Value of Sl. expenditure as No. Description of expenditure per the Investigating Officer
1. Stamp duty & Registration Rs. 10,52000 charges towards purchase of a site situated in Malleswaram
2. Stamp duty and Registration Rs. 9,82500 charges towards purchase of a site 77 SPL.C.C.4 / 2013 situated at Haleguddadahalli
3. Stamp duty and Registration Rs. 96,32000 charges towards purchase of a site situated at Mahalaxmipuram
4. Stamp duty and Registration Rs. 94,11000 charges towards purchase of another site situated at Mahalaxmipuram
5. Maintenance charges towards Tata Rs. 33,60000 Sumo vehicle
6. Maintenance charges towards Rs. 13,47600 Maruti zen car
7. Repayment of loan obtained to Rs. 6,57,96600 purchase Maruti car
8. Maintenance charges towards Rs. 1,38,00000 Maruti Van
9. Maintenance charges towards Rs. 11,80000 Ambassador Car
10. Maintenance charges towards Rs. 35,00000 Scooter
11. Payment made towards Rs. 2,51,65500 premium of LIC policies
12. Repayment of loan obtain to Rs. 4,05,39200 purchase Tata Sumo car
13. Payment made towards Rs. 25,61300 membership of Sun Valley Club
14. Deposits made towards Electric Rs. 2,31500 connections to houses at Laxminarayanapura and Malleswaram 78 SPL.C.C.4 / 2013 15 Deposits made towards Rs. 40,79700 electrical connection for house at Mahalaxmipuram
16. Educational expenses of children Rs. 41,54000
17. House tax paid for the houses at Rs. 4,91500 Padarayanapura and Guttahalli
18. BWSSB charges of house at Rs. 2,85300 Mahalaxmipuram.
19. House rent from May1998 to Rs. 11,70000 January1999
20. Income Tax paid by wife Rs. 10,82,97700
21. Tax paid by wife to BBMP Rs. 54,95000
22. Travelling Expenses Rs. 60,16100
23. Per capita monthly expenditure Rs. 1,36,90000
24. Payment made towards mobile Rs. 26,90000 phone
25. House Tax paid towards house Rs. 7,05300 at Padarayanapura and Guttahalli
26. Payment towards pager Rs. 11,50000
27. Expenses incurred towards house Rs. 19,45000 warming ceremony
28. Payment made towards credit card Rs. 20,00000
29. Payment made towards bank locker Rs. 1,00000 charges
30. Payment made towards phone Rs. 16,00000
31. Payment made to maid servant Rs. 2,00000 Total Rs.33,26,28800 79 SPL.C.C.4 / 2013
38. Out of these 31 heads of expenditure, the accused has disputed only 8 heads which are mentioned at Sl.Nos. 1, 8, 11, 15, 17, 22, 25 and 31 and he has not disputed remaining 23 heads of expenditure, hence only disputed 8 heads of expenditure have been taken up for discussion.
39. Sl.No.1: Stamp duty and registration charges paid towards purchase of a site at Malleswaram:
(i). The first head of expenditure, which has been disputed by the accused is the stamp duty and registration charges said to be paid towards purchase of a site which is situated at Malleshwaram, Bengaluru. As per the case of prosecution, the accused has paid Rs.10,52000 towards stamp duty and registration charges for registration of a site into his name. But contention of the accused is that, the entire consideration amount, stamp duty and registration charges are paid by the ather of the accused.
80 SPL.C.C.4 / 2013(ii). The learned Public Prosecutor has argued that as per the schedule submitted by the accused itself (scheduleIII in Ex.P15, Page
21), the sale agreement was between the accused and Smt. Bhagyalakshmamma, therefore it cannot be said that, father of the accused has paid stamp duty and registration charges. Learned counsel for the accused has argued that as father of the accused has paid entire consideration amount, the stamp duty and registration charges cannot be considered towards expenses of the accused. Admittedly, the agreement of sale was between the accused and the seller and site has been registered in the name of the accused. As discussed above under the heads of assets, this Court has already concluded that the contents of sale deed (ExP17) clearly proved that the accused has paid entire consideration amount of Rs.75,00000. Therefore it can be safely concluded that stamp duty and registration charges have also been paid by the accused. When the accused himself got registered the 81 SPL.C.C.4 / 2013 site in to his name, contention of the accused that stamp duty and registration charges was paid by his father is far from truth. Further, when the sale agreement was between the seller and the accused and the accused has got registered the site in his name, only on the ground that father of the accused has represented the accused in a suit for specific performence of agreement, it cannot be said that father of the accused has paid stamp duty and registration charges. There is no any amount of evidence on record to show that father of accused has paid stamp duty and registration charges. Hence, stamp duty and registration charges of Rs.10,52000 has been taken towards expenses of the accused.
40. Sl.No.8: Maintanence charges of a vehicleMaruti Van bearing Registration No. KA04M9187:
(i). In his arguments learned counsel for the accused has argued that the report at Ex.P22 82 SPL.C.C.4 / 2013 indicates that the expert has calculated a sum of Rs.4,00000 towards tyre and tube and Rs.4,00000 towards batteries, but it is not the case of prosecution that accused has changed tyre, tube and battery at any point of time. He further argued that, the expert aslo does not speak about changes made in tyre, tube and battery, in the absense of evidence an amount of Rs.8,00000 needs tobe deducted from the expenditure. The learned Public Prosecutor has argued that PW5 has narrated the circumstances of filling petrol, chnge of tyre and tubes etc., therefore the expenses towards maintenance of the scooter mentioned in Ex.P22 is just and proper.
(ii). As per Chief examination of PW5, he has given a report about Maruti van bearing Registration No.KA04M9187 as per Ex.P22. The contents of Ex.P22 state that, the accused has spent Rs.1,18,46400 towards petrol and Rs.19,53600 towards services, repair charges and change of tyre, tube and batteries and other expenses. Interestingly the accused has 83 SPL.C.C.4 / 2013 not choosen to cross examine PW5, thereby the accused has admitted the contents of Ex.P22, therefore at this stage the accused cannot dispute the contents of Ex.P22 though PW5 has not deposed anything about petrol charges, services charges, repair charges and change of tyre, tube and batteries and other expenses. Further, report regarding petrol, change of tyre, tube and its maintenance would be given by considering age of the vehicle and distance driven etc., therefore, expert need not mention date, month and year of change of battery, tyre and tube of the vehicle. Thus, viewed from any angle, there is no reason to discard the report given by PW5, which is marked at Ex.P22. Hence, I accept contents of Ex.P22 with regard to maintenance charges of the vehicle bearing registration no. KA04M9187. Accordingly, Rs.1,38,00000 is considered towards expenses of the accused.
41. Sl.No.11: Premium paid towards LIC policies by the accused: 84 SPL.C.C.4 / 2013
(i). The accused has also disputed premium paid towards LIC policies. As per the final report the accused has paid Rs.2,51,65500 towards LIC premium. Learned Counsel for the accused has argued that Policy No. 612108790 is standing in the name of one Venkatesh who is not the family member of the accused and there is no LIC Policy bearing No. 612108795, therefore an amount of Rs.65,74100 needs to be deducted from the expenditure said to be made towards premium. Learned Public Prosecutor has argued that the branch manager of LIC has issued letters, which are in Ex.P26, which contains details of LIC Policies and their premiums, therefore same has to be considered and taken a sum of Rs.2,51,65500 towards expenses of the accused.
(ii). The materials on record show that the prosecution has not exmined any witness in this regard. Out of 6 LIC policies, the accused is disputing only two LIC Policies bearing 85 SPL.C.C.4 / 2013 Nos.612108795 and 612108790. A perusal of entire documents in Ex.P26 makes it clear that the Branch Manager has not mentioned LIC Policy No. 612108795 in any of the letters issued by him. Further, the document in Ex.P 26 i.e., status report of Policy No.612108790 states that, this Policy belongs to one Sri K. Venkatesh. It is not the case of the prosecution that said Venkatesh belongs to the family of accused. Thus the Policy No.612108790 not belongs to the accused or any members of his family. Further, no such Policy No. 612108795 found in the letter issued by the Branch Manager of LIC.
(iii). As per the case of prosecution, accused has paid premium of Rs.2,51,65500 for 6 LIC policies. In Ex.P37 (Final report) also investigating officer has mentioned numbers of 6 LIC policies and the premium amount said to be paid by the accused. As per the final report, premium amount paid towards LIC policy number 612108795 is Rs.62,72400 and premium paid towards LIC policy number 86 SPL.C.C.4 / 2013 612108790 is Rs.2,76300. But as afforsaid, policy No. 612108795 and policy No.612108790 are not existing in the name of the accused. Therefore, as rightly argued by learned counsel for the accused, an amount of Rs.65,74100 (Rs.62,72400 + Rs.2,76300) has to be deducted from total premium amount of Rs.2,51,65500. If we do so, then the total LIC Premium paid by the accused comes to Rs.1,85,91400, which has to be taken towards expenses of the accused under the head premium paid for LIC policies.
42. Sl.No.15: Deposit made towards electrical connections for the houses of the accused:
(i). Next disputed expense of the accused is at Sl.No.15 of the above mentioned table i.e., deposited amount towards electricity connections to the houses of accused, which are situated at Mahalakshmipuram and Malleshwaram. As per the final report, the accused has deposited Rs.231500 to take seven 87 SPL.C.C.4 / 2013 electricity connections to his houses situated at Lakshminarayanapura and Malleshwaram, Rs.228000 towards five electricity connections to his buildings situated at Mahalakshmipuram and he has also paid Rs.34,28700 towards consumption of electricity, hence an amount of Rs.40,79700 has to be taken towards expenses of the accused.
(ii). Learned Public Prosecutor has argued that the deposited amount and electricity consumption cost comes to Rs.38,88200, but the investigating officer has wrongly calculated as Rs.40,79700 by oversight. Learned counsel for the accused has also argued in the same line. I have gone through the final report and Ex.P28 (Page No.1 to 9) and came to know that if the amount deposited and power consumption charges are calculated, it comes to Rs.38,88200. But by mistake investigating officer has mentioned the total amount as Rs.40,79700, hence an amount of Rs.38,88200 is to be considered towards expenses of 88 SPL.C.C.4 / 2013 electricity connection and electricity consumption charges.
43. Sl.No.17: House Tax paid for the houses at Padarayanapura and Guttahalli:
(i). The accused has also objected to consider an amount of Rs.1,65300, which is said to be paid towards land revenue to the property situated at Padarayanapura. Learned counsel for the accused has argued that said property belongs to one Prakash, hence an amount of Rs.165300 should not be considered towards expenses of the accused. There are eleven documents in Ex.P30, a document at Page No.9 which is issued by the revenue officer states that the property No.6, situated at 6th cross, Padarayanapura, Ward No.43 belongs to one Prakash. No doubt the accused has not disputed that said Prakash is his brother, but there is no basis to consider the revenue paid to the property of brother of the accused towards expenses of the accused. No witnessess of prosecution have explained why an amount of 89 SPL.C.C.4 / 2013 Rs.165300, which was paid towards property of brother of accused is considered towards expenses of the accused.
(ii). Coming to the revenue paid to the property of Guttahalli, the document at page no.8 of Ex.P30 says that the accused has paid Rs.326200 towards revenue for the period 1994 to 2003. This document is not disputed by the accused, hence an amount of Rs.326200, which was paid towards revenue of the property situated at Guttahalli has to be considered as expenses of the accused. Therefore, out of Rs.491500, which has been considered by Investigating Officer, an amount of Rs.326200 has to be taken in to consideration towards expenses of the accused.
44. Sl.No.22: Expenses incurred towards travelling to Delhi, Agra and Jaipur:
(i). As per the case of prosecution, at the time of raid investigating officer has collected some documents for having paid towards trip to Delhi, Agra and Jaipur, these documents proved that 90 SPL.C.C.4 / 2013 the accused has paid Rs.60,15100 towards flight tickets, boarding and lodging, hence this amount is taken towards expenses of the accused. Learned Public Prosecutor has argued that item Nos.16 to 24 at page No.6 of Ex.P9 coupled with the evidence of PW1 proved that the accused has spent Rs.60,15100 towards flight tickets, boarding and lodging. Learned counsel for the accused has argued that PW1 has not spoken anything about travelling expenses and prosecution has not got marked any document in this regard, thus the prosecution has failed to prove that the accused has spent a sum of Rs.60,15100 towards travelling expenses.
(ii). Bearing in mind the rival contentions, if materials on record are perused, except marking of mahazar as per Ex.P9, PW1 has not deposed anything about the expenses made by the accused towards travelling expenses. But it must be noted that in the schedule (schedule No.IX, Page4 of Ex.P15), which is submitted by the accused to the investigating officer, the accused has admitted that he has spent total amount of 91 SPL.C.C.4 / 2013 Rs.60,15100 for his family trip. When the accused himself has admitted a fact, the prosecution need not prove it. Therefore, I have considered an amount of Rs.60,15100 towards expenses of the accused.
45. Sl.No.25: House tax paid towards houses situated at Guttahalli and Padarayanpura.
(i). The accused has also disputed land revenue of Rs.705300 said to be paid by him towards the properties situated at Guttahalli and Padarayanpura as mentioned in at Sl.No.25 of the above mentioned table. The Learned counsel for the accused has argued that investigating officer has already considered the revenue paid towards the properties of Guttahalli and Padarayanpura at Rs.326200 and Rs.165300 based on the report at Page No.8 of Ex.P30, but once again he has considered the tax as expenses in Page No 28 of the report on the ground that the accused has declared the same in his schedule. In this regard, I have gone through the 92 SPL.C.C.4 / 2013 final report and the documents in Ex.P30. The Investigating Officer has already considered the land revenue paid towards property of Padarayanpura at Sl.No.17 at page No.71 of the charge sheet and this Court while discussing about land revenue paid to the properties situated at Guttahalli and Padarayanpura, has already held that an amount of Rs.165300 should be deducted from total revenue as the property is standing in the name of his brother accused. Regarding revenue to the property of Guttahalli this Court has already considered Rs.326200 towards expenses of the accused, therefore this aspect should not be considered once again. Hence, an amount of Rs.705300 should not be considered towards expenses of the accused as mentioned at Sl.No.25 of the above mentioned table.
46. Sl.No.31: Payment made by the accused to maid servant:
(i). The accused has also disputed expenses of Rs.2,000/ towards payment said to be made to 93 SPL.C.C.4 / 2013 maid servant. The learned Public Prosecutor has argued that in his schedule the accused has admitted this expenses. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the accused has argued that the amount has already been included under the head 'percapita monthly expenditure', therefore, taking the payment maid servant will become duplication, hence, said Rs.2,000/ is liable to be deducted.
(ii). Considering the arguments of both sides, I have gone through the documentary and oral evidence on record. PW.1 has not deposed anything about the expenses made towards maid servant, but he got marked schedule submitted by the accused as Ex.P15. At page No.8 of the scheduleIX of Ex.P15, the accused has specifically mentioned that from May 1998 to February 1999, he paid total amount of Rs.2000/ to maid servant. Further, in the said schedule under the head 'Percapita monthly expenditure' the accused has not shown the expenses of Rs.2,000/ paid to the maid servant. A perusal of schedule of the accused, makes it clear that the 94 SPL.C.C.4 / 2013 Investigating Officer has taken total monthly percapita expenses at Rs.1,36,900/ and he has not included payment made to the maid servant under the head 'percapita monthly expenses'. When the accused has mentioned expenses under the head 'percapita monthly expenses and expenses made towards payment to the maid servant separately in his schedule, the argument of the learned counsel for the accused that, it has already been included in Per Capita monthly expenditure cannot be taken into consideration. Hence, treating the schedule as admission of the accused, I considered Rs.2,000/ towards expenses of the accused.
47. At the cost of repetition, again I state that out of 31 heads of expenses, the accused has disputed only 8 heads. After analysing the evidence on record, this court has considered the value of said 8 expenses as follows:
Sl. Description of Expenses as Expenses as Expenses No. expenses per the per the considered investigatin accused by the g officer Court 1 Stamp duty and Registration charges Rs.10,25000 Nil Rs.10,52000 towards purchase of a site at Malleswaram 95 SPL.C.C.4 / 2013 8 Maintenance of Rs.1,38,00000 Rs.1,30,00000 Rs.1,38,00000 Maruti Van 11 Payments towards Rs.2,51,65500 Rs.1,85,91400 Rs.1,85,91400 LIC 6 policies 15 Rs.Deposits towards Rs.40,79700 Rs.38,88200 Rs.38,88200 Electrical connection 17 House tax paid for the Rs.491500 Rs.326300 Rs.326300 house at Padarayanapura 22 Travelling Expenses Rs.60,15100 Nil Rs.60,15100 25 House Tax paid Rs.705300 Nil Nil towards houses sistuated at Padarayanapura and Guttahalli 31 Payment made to Rs.200000 Nil Rs.200000 maid servant Total Rs.5,14,82100 Rs.3,58,05900 Rs.3,78,57900
48. Thus, on the basis of the evidence on record, this court has considered the expenses of 8 disputed itmes at Rs.3,78,57900. The total amount of expenses pertaining to remaining 23 undisputed items is Rs.28,11,18700. Thus the total Expenses of the accused comes to Rs.31,89,7660000 (Rs.3,78,57900 + Rs.28,11,18700).96 SPL.C.C.4 / 2013
INCOME OF THE ACCUSED
49. Coming to the income of the accused, the investigating Officer has taken total income of the accused at Rs.72,93,658/, but as per the case of the accused his total income is Rs.1,38,06,554/. Investigating Officer has taken the income of the accused under 11 heads, which are as follows: Sl. Description of income Income as per No. investigating officer
1. Salary income Rs.7,53,95600
2. Income from LIC moneyback policies RS.40,00000
3. Loan obtained from Ashok Lyland Rs.3,60,00000 Financial Institution
4. Loan obtained from Integrated Financial Rs.3,67,00000 Institution
5. Sale proceed from site at Malleswaram Rs.22,00,00000
6. Sale proceed from sale of industrial shed Rs.13,00,00000 at Padarayanapura
7. Agricultural income Rs.7,84,62500
8. Sale proceed from ancestral Rs.1,64,28500 property
9. Rental income from Rajmahal Rs.2,67,45100 Guttahalli, Gayatrinagar and Lakshminarayanapura
10. Advance sale consideration for sale of Rs.8,00,00000 house at Guttahalli
11. Rental income from industrial shed at Rs.2,56,34100 Padarayanapura to the wife of accused Total: Rs.72,93,65800 97 SPL.C.C.4 / 2013
50. Out of these 11 heads, the accused has disputed only 4 heads of income i.e, the income mentioned by the Investigating Officer at Sl.No.1, 7, 8 and 9. As per the case of accused Rs.35,85,16500 to be added to the income considered by the Investigating Officer. It is also the case of the accused that investigating officer has not considered income of the accused earned under the Heads, 'credit card', 'Bank interest', 'LIC Bonus' and 'refund of sale consideration', which totally amounts to Rs.29,27,691/. Therefore, I would like to take only the disputed income and the income said to be left out by the Investigating Officer.
51. Sl.No.1: Income from Salary of the accused:
(i). The investigating officer has taken salary income of the accused at Rs.7,53,956/, but as per the case of the accused, his salary income is Rs.18,41,981/. The learned Public Prosecutor has relied on Ex.P32 and argued that the Investigating Officer has taken into consideration the statement showing details of salary and rightly considered salary income at 98 SPL.C.C.4 / 2013 Rs.7,53,95600, but the salary income given by the accused is exorbitant and not supported by any document. The learned counsel for the accused has argued that, the report received by the Investigating Officer indicates that, the accused has in all received a sum of Rs.18,41,981 00, said report contains salary of the accused during the check period, travelling allowances, earned leave encashment, difference of pay etc., this fact is revealed from a letter of the Investigating Officer dated 26042002, but the Investigating Officer has not produced the wage report obtained at the first instance. He further argued that, Investigating Officer has produced second report regarding wages with the charge sheet, as per the second report, the accused has received salary of Rs.7,53,95655, but enclosure to the second report has not been produced along with the charge sheet, therefore the amount mentioned in the first report which reflected in the letter dated 26042007 needs to be taken into consideration.
99 SPL.C.C.4 / 2013(ii). A perusal of the schedule (Ex.P15), makes it clear that the accused has stated before the Investigating Officer that, his total income during the check period is Rs.26,98,929/. In his examination in chief, DW.1 has deposed that he has informed the Investigating Officer that, his salary income is Rs.26,98,92900 and for 2 nd time he has given salary income including allowances. But except statement in the schedule nothing is on record to show that during the check period the accused has drawn salary of Rs.26,98,92900 as contended by the accused.
(iii). The prosecution has got marked the statement showing details of salary as per Ex.P32, which is issued by the accounts officer of K.P.T.C.L., which says that from May 1976 to March 1999 the accused has drawn net salary of Rs.7,53,95655. Ex.P32 includes the documents from page Nos.1 to 10 in file No.22. The documents in Ex.P32 ie., the letter dated 26112002, which was written by the investigating officer himself to the Executive Engineer, K.P.T.C.L., shows that for the 1st letter 100 SPL.C.C.4 / 2013 written by the investigating officer, the Executive Engineer, K.P.T.C.L., has given details of salary of the accused stating that, the accused has drawn salary of Rs.18,41,98100. This document further says that, the investigating officer has once again written a letter to the Executive Engineer, K.P.T.C.L., to clarify about the salary of the accused, after this the accounts officer has given a statement of salary along with a letter dated 21052002 and as per this statement the accused has drawn salary of Rs.7,53,95655. But as argued by the learned counsel for the accused, there is no explanation by the investigating officer / PW.1 why he has not considered the first report given by Executive Engineer of K.P.T.C.L., which says that net salary of accused is Rs.18,41,98100. Even in his chief examination PW.1 has not stated anything about first report given by Executive Engineer, K.P.T.C.L., except marking of Ex.P32. PW1 has not even taken pain to depose what was the salary income of the accused and why he has not considered the first report which says that net salary income of the 101 SPL.C.C.4 / 2013 accused during check period is Rs.18,41,98100. Further, in a letter dated 21052002 (page No.5 in Ex.P32), the Accounts Officer, K.P.T.C.L., has mentioned that, he has answered details in the Office letter dated 21052002, which were sought at para No.2 of the letter written by the Investigating Officer. A perusal of para No.2 of the letter dated 26042002, reveals that the Investigating Officer has stated that, as per the schedule of the accused, he has drawn salary of Rs.26,98,929/ but the letter of K.P.T.C.L., stated that he has drawn salary of Rs.18,41,981/, there is a difference of Rs.8,56,947.90/. But the letter of clarification written by the Accounts Officer, K.P.T.C.L., has not been produced along with the final report. Apart from this, in his cross examination, PW1 has stated that, he has received details of salary of accused, in that details travelling allowances, DA, EL encashment were given, as per that report accused has drawn salary of Rs.18,41,98100. PW.1 further admitted that, he has sought explanation regarding difference in the salary, in that letter DA, 102 SPL.C.C.4 / 2013 travelling allowance, EL encashment were not mentioned. Thus, PW1 himself has admitted that as per the first letter given by Executive Engineer, K.P.T.C.L., the accused has drawn salary of Rs.18,41,98100. But PW1 has not given explanation why he has not considered that first letter. The prosecution has also not chosen to examine the accounts officer of K.P.T.C.L., who has issued statement of salary of accused for the second time, to prove that accused has drawn salary of Rs.7,53,95655 only during the check period.
(iv). There is no explanation from the side of the prosecution why first report (first salary details of the accused) is not considered and why said first report has not been produced along with the charge sheet. Thus, above oral and documentary evidence show that, only for the reason that if first report of accounts officer was accepted, income of the accused comes on higher side, the investigating officer has taken second report which says that, income of the accused is Rs.7,53,95600 only. At the cost of repetition 103 SPL.C.C.4 / 2013 again I would like to mention here that except marking of Ex.P32, none of the prosecution witnesses have deposed anything about salary of the accused. There is no acceptable evidence in support of case of the prosecution with regard to salary income of the accused, except marking of Ex.P32. It is to be noted that mere marking of a document cannot be said to be the proof of said document. The document has to be proved in accordance with law and same has to be appreciated in order to ascertain the correctness of the document with other materials available on record. The Investigating Officer has drawn his opinion on salary income of accused on the basis of evidenc collected by him, but it has not been proved before the court to its satisfaction. Further, I constrained to say that if this court has accepted the details of salary of the accused as mentioned in Ex.P32, it would mean that salary income of the accused is considered solely upon the police report submitted by the Investigating Officer, which is the outcome of investigation. In this regard the learned counsel 104 SPL.C.C.4 / 2013 has relied on decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court reported in (1997) 6 Supreme Court Cases
171. In this decision, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that 'the trial court is required to base its conclusion solely on the evidence adduced during the trial and it cannot rely on the investigation or the result thereof.' After I have gone through this decision I have applied the principles of the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court to the case on hand. Therefore, opinion of the investigating officer in the final report is required to base the conclusion on the evidence adduced during trial and the documents produced along with charge sheet to come to a definite conclusion. Therefore, in view of the documentary evidence on record which says that as per the contents of first report of the Executive Engineer of K.P.T.C.L., net salary income of the accused during the check period is Rs.18,41,981 00, I accepted the arguments of the learned counsel for the accused and I hold that salary income of the accused during the check period is Rs.18,41,98100 as mentioned in a letter dated 105 SPL.C.C.4 / 2013 26042002, which was written by the investigating officer and which has been marked as Ex.P32.
52. Sl.No.7: Agricultural income earned by the accused during the check period:
(i). The Investigating Officer while preparing final report has calculated the income of the accused under 6 heads and arrived total agricultural income of the accused at Rs.4,67,20000. The accused has disputed the income in respect of the income mentioned in the charge sheet and also contended that the Investigating Officer has not considered the agricultuiral income of various properties of the accused. The learned counsel for the accused has argued that the investigating Officer has not sought the report of an expert on income of the properties bearing survey numbers 9, 10, 14/1, 71, 43, 47/2, 52/2 and 53 of Lakkappanahalli village, Sy.No.14/4 of Muddenahalli village and 172/1 and 171/3 of Manni village, hence, same has to be considered towards income of the 106 SPL.C.C.4 / 2013 accused. The learned Public Prosecutor has argued that, income from agricultural lands is considered on the basis of RTC extracts. He further argued that, in the year 1961 accused was adopted by one Puttaiah, hence he lost his right over the properties of his natural father, therefore income of the properties which belongs to his natural father cannot be considered. As per the details given in the schedule which is submitted by the accused and as per the argument of the learned counsel for the accused, he is having 26 agricultural properties and total agricultural incom earned during the check period is Rs.29,48,70000. The details of properties and the income said to be earned by the accused as per the investigation of the Investigating Officer are as follows: Sl.No. Survey Numbers of Income considered by the properties the Investigating Officer
1. Sy.No.36 Rs.1,50,00000
2. Sy.No.67/2 Rs.1,69,10000
3. Sy.No.71 Rs.39,00000 107 SPL.C.C.4 / 2013
4. Sy.No.1/1 Rs.7805000
5. Sy.No.1/4 Rs.21,45000
6. Sy.No.11/1 Rs.9,60000 Total Rs.4,67,20000
53. Though the Investigating Officer has mentioned total agricultureal income in his table in the charge sheet as Rs.4,67,20000, but by considering the report of revenue officials he has considered total agricultural income of the accused at Rs.7,48,62500. But, the accused has calculated the agricultural income earned from various properties as follows:
Sl.No. Survey Numbers of the Income as per properties calculation of the accused
1. Sy.No.9 Rs.3,55,10000
2. Sy.No.10 Rs.1,17,40000
3. Sy.No.14/1 Rs.3,66,90000
4. Sy.No.14/2 Rs.65,20000
5. Sy.No.17/1 Rs.17,65000
6. Sy.No.38 Rs.2,91,50000 108 SPL.C.C.4 / 2013
7. Sy.No.53 Rs.2,08,70000
8. Sy.No.71 Rs.39,00000
9. Sy.No.11/1 Rs.80,00000
10. Sy.No.67/2 Rs.1,69,10000
11. Sy.No.236/2 Rs.69,40000
12. Sy.No.14/4 Rs.1,96,10000
13. Sy.No.21/1 Rs.15,17500
14. Sy.No.20 Rs.54,62500
15. Sy.No.60 Rs.82,75000
16. Sy.No.41/3 Rs.5,55000
17. Sy.No.36 Rs.1,50,37500
18. Sy.No.11 Rs.26,05000
19. Sy.No.1/4 Rs.21,45000
20. Sy.No.171/3 Rs.375000
21. Sy.No.73 Rs.54,87500
22. Sy.No.58/1 Rs.15,37500
23. Sy.No.172/1 Rs.16,50000 109 SPL.C.C.4 / 2013
24. Sy.No.1/1 Rs.78,05000
25. Sy.No.143/2 Rs.1,42,00000
26. Sy.No.17/2 Rs.6,12500 Total Rs.29,48,70000
54. As per the table given above, the Investigating Officer has considered only 6 properties which are mentioned at Sl.Nos. 8, 9, 10, 17, 19 and 24 to calculate the agricultural income. But the accused contended that he has got 26 properties and earned agricultural income of Rs.29,48,70000 during the check period.
55. It is settled principle of law that known source of income must have reference to sources known to the prosecution and it could not be contended that known source of income meant sources known to the accused. Now, the questions that arise for consideration of this court are that why the Investigating Officer has not considered income of remaining 20 agricultural properties which are mentioned in the schedule submitted by the accused, why he has taken only 6 properties to calculate agricultural income, how and on 110 SPL.C.C.4 / 2013 what basis the accused is claiming that his total agricultural income from 26 properties is Rs.29,48,700 00, whether the prosecution has proved that total agricultural income of the accused is only Rs.7,48,62500 and whether the accused has made out grounds to consider remaining 20 properties and proved that his total agricultural income is Rs.29,48,70000. In order to arrive at a conclusion regarding agricultural income of the accused, it is necessary to discuss the income of the agricultural properties one by one. As aforesaid, the Investigating Officer has considered only 6 properties out of 26 properties mentioned by the accused in his schedule, but Investigating Officer himself has produced RTC extracts of all 26 properties. Further, a perusal of some documents such as sale deed and RTC extracts show that either the accused or his family members were cultivating some of the properties and some of the documents show that these documents nothing do with the accused. Therefore, I have taken up the properties for discussion suvery number wise for discussion and for proper understanding.
(a). Sy.No.9:The final report says that on visiting to this property, Investigating Officer 111 SPL.C.C.4 / 2013 came to know that only 2 acres was under
cultivation in this survey number, one Govindappa and his brother Kempaiah were cultivating this property and they told that there was an agreement of sale of the year 1982 to purchase Sy.No.9, 14/1, 14/2, since from 1982 they were cultivating it and not giving income of this property to the accused, Investigating Officer has also recorded the statement of these witnesses and same is vidoegraphed. But the prosecution has not examined those witness and not produced that video said to be recorded the statement of witness. The accused/DW1 has got marked khata extract as per Ex.P9, but as per the contents of this document khata of Sy.Nos.9, 10, 14/1, 14/2, 17/1, 43, 52/2 and 53 are in the name of one Puttaiah S/o Mudlaiah, but not in the name of accused or his ancestors. But it must be noted that the accused has got marked Certified Copy of the judgment in O.S. No.169/1989. A reading of this document made me to know that Legal Heirs of one Kempanna had filed suit for specific performance of 112 SPL.C.C.4 / 2013 agreement against the adoptive father of accused by name Puttaiah S/o Channappa and said suit was in respect of Sy.Nos. 9, 14/1 and 14/2 and said suit was dismissed. On the other hand in his crossexamination, DW1 has admitted that khata of Sy.No.9 and 10 is in the name of Puttaiah S/o Mudlaiah, Doddanarasimhaiah and Chikkanarasimhaiah. But DW1 has stated that names of these persons is wrongly mentioned in the RTC. It is to be noted that this court cannot decide ownership of the accused or his possession over the properties. A perusal of RTC extracts pertaining to Sy.No.9 show that at no point of time, khata of this property was in the name of accused or his natural father or adoptive father or any members of his family. Thus, though the document in Ex.D12 says that adoptive father had executed an agreement of sale in respect of Sy.No. 9, the RTC extracts and the revenu documents which depicts possession and cultivation, but as aforesaid, none of the family members were holding khata of this property.113 SPL.C.C.4 / 2013
In his schedule submitted to the Investigating Officer, the accused has stated that he has earned sum of Rs.3,55,10000 from this property during the check period. But, there is no evidence on record to show that the accused was getting income from this property during the check period. Apart from that though DW1 has produced the Certified Copy of the judgment which says that the adoptive father had executed an agreement of sale to somebody in respect of Sy.No.9, the accused has not produced even a single evidence to show that he has earned Rs.3,55,10000 from this property. Therefore, there is no need to differ with the opinion of the Investigating Officer who has not considered the income of this property.
(b). Sy.No.10: In the charge sheet the Investigating Officer has submitted that RTC was in the names of Puttaiah S/o Mudlaiah and Doddanarasimhaiah, one Channigappa was cultivating that property and witness told him that no income of this property was giving to accused. As aforesaid, the prosecution has not 114 SPL.C.C.4 / 2013 got examined the witness who stated that income of this property was not giving to accused. The learned counsel for the accused has argued that the prosecution has not got examined the witnesses who told the Investigating Officer that the accused was not cultivating that property, thus the prosecution has failed to prove its contention hence, the income mentioned in the schedule has to be taken into consideration. Bearing in mind the contention of the learned counsel for the accused, I have gone through the documents on record and I came to know that the as per the RTC extracts (RTC extracts are in EX.P35) during the check period and afterwards khata of this property was in the names of above mentioned Puttaiah S/o Mudlaiah and Doddanarasimhaiah and one Siddaramaiah was cultivating this property. There is no evidence that the accused or any members of his family were cultivating it and getting income. In his schedule submitted to the Investigating Officer the accused has stated that he got income of 115 SPL.C.C.4 / 2013 Rs.1,17,40000 from this property during the check period. As aforesaid, khata extract which has been produced by the accused and got marked by him as Ex.D9, this property is in the name of Puttaiah S/o Mudlaiah. In his cross examination DW1 has admitted that names of Doddanarasimhaiah and Chikkanarasimhaiah were found in RTC extracts. But he further stated that they were doing coolie work in that property. If really they are doing coolie work in that property, their names would not have been entered in the RTC extracts, but if they were cultivating and having possession of that property, then only khata of that property would be entered into their names. The learned public prosecutor has suggested DW1 that after 1971 paddy and horse gram was growing in that property. For this suggestion DW1 stated that it might be. If really he or his father were the khatedar, cultivating this property and getting income from this property, definitely the accused would have known about the crops growing in that property. Thus, there is no evidence on 116 SPL.C.C.4 / 2013 record to show that the accused was getting income of this property. Hence, I decline to consider income said to be accrued from this property towards income of the accused.
(c). Sy.No.14/1: The Investigating Officer has not considered the income of this property, the reason given in the charge sheet is that; khata of this property was in the name of Puttaiah S/o Mudlaiah and one Siddaramaiah was cultivating it, one Govindaiah who was present in that property who told him that the income of that property was not giving to accused or his family hence income of this property is not considered.
As per the contents of schedule of the accused, he has got income of Rs.3,66,90000 during the check period. But, except his statement in his schedule, nothing is on record to show that he was cultivating it and growing crops in this property. In his crossexamination, DW1 has stated that above said Siddaramaiah was doing coolie. But DW1 is not definite which crop was growing in this property. If really he was cultivating it or cultivating through coolie or 117 SPL.C.C.4 / 2013 leased it out, at least he should have known crops cultivating in the property. Thus there is no probable evidence to show that the accused was getting income from this property.
(d). Sy.No.14/2: The Investigating Officer has also not considered income of this property stating that RTC of this property was in the name of one Puttaiah S/o Mudlaiah, one Govindaiah was cultivating this property and said Puttaiah has told that Govindaiah was cultivating the property and income of that property was not giving to accused or his family. In his crossexamination DW1 has admitted that in RTC extracts of this property it was mentioned that one Siddaramaiah was cultivating it. But DW1 further states that said Siddaramaiah was doing coolie. If said Siddaramaiah was doing coolie, how his name entered as khatedar of this property has not been explained. Further, he has not stated what action taken by him to remove name of Siddaramaiah from RTC extract if really his name was wrongly entered. Thus, there is no 118 SPL.C.C.4 / 2013 evidence to show that Sy.No.14/2 belongs to him and he was getting income of this property.
(e). Sy.No.17/1: In the charge sheet the Investigating Officer has given reasons for not considering income of Sy.No.17/1. According to the Investigating Officer this property was in the name of Puttaiah S/o Mudlaiah since from 1978 and the government has acquired it and formed Janatha sites. But, as per the contention of the accused this propery belonging to him and he earned income of Rs.17,65000 by cultivating this property during the check period. In his crossexamination DW1 has admitted that one Siddaramaiah was growing Ragi and Horse Gram. He further stated that said Siddaramaiah was doing coolie in that property. A perusal of RTC of Sy.No. 17/1 shows that this property was in the names of Puttaiah S/o Mudlaiah and one Lakshmamma. There is no evidence on record to say that this property was in the name of the accused or in the name of any members of the family of the accused at any point of time. When the accused was not 119 SPL.C.C.4 / 2013 enjoying and cultivating this property, unless the accused produced reliable evidence, income of this property cannot be taken into consideration.
(f). Sy.No.17/2:Coming to Sy.No.17/2, the Investigating Officer has not given any reason for not considering the income said to be accrued in this property. But, in view of the statement of accused in his schedule, it is the duty of this court to know whether the accused got income from this property during the check period or not. As per the schedule of accused, he earned income of Rs.6,12500 from this property by cultivating it during the check period. It is his case that total income accrued from Sy.No. 17/2 was Rs.24,50000, but as the income was divided among him and his 3 brothers, he is entitled only for 1/4th share thereby he got Rs.6,12500 from Sy.No. 17/2. What I came to know after looking into the RTC extracts of this property is that from 1968 to 2000 this property was in the name of natural father of the accused by name Puttaswamy and only in the year 20002001, 120 SPL.C.C.4 / 2013 khata of this property has been entered into the names of legal heirs of Puttaswamy including the accused. The argument of the learned public prosecutor is that as the accused was adopted by Puttaiah S/o Channappa, he has looses his rights over the properties of natural father. No doubt, after he was adopted by Puttaiah, he looses his rights over the properties of his natural father Puttaswamy, but a perusal of the documents on record such as agreements, sale deed and RTC extracts, name of accused found along with the sons and daughters of natural father of accused. What we know from this is that though he was adopted by Puttaiah, his natural father was considering him as his son. When there are documents to show that though the accused was adopted by Puttaiah, he involved in the affairs of family of his natural father such as sale, purchase and cultivation of properties, this court being criminal court need not go into deep to decide the rights of the accused over the properties of his natural father. Further, the RTC extracts of Sy.No. 17/2 is in 121 SPL.C.C.4 / 2013 joint names of legal heirs of Puttaswamy including the accused, therefore definitely the accused is entitled for 1/4th of the income accured from this property. But, it is pertinent to note that except making statement in his schedule, the accused has not produced any amount of evidence to prove that during the check period his family has got total income of Rs.24,50000 and he being one of the members of the family entitled for 1/4th share and got income of Rs.6125 from Sy.No. 17/2. Even in his chiefexamination DW1 has not uttered a single word about this property. The accused might have got share in this property, but to consider income he had to prove that he and his family members have earned Rs.24,50000 from this property and he got 1/4th of the total income. In the absence of evidence about income from this property, court cannot blindly accept the say of the accused that he got Rs. 6,12500.
(g). Sy.No. 38: As per the investigating officer, katha of this property is in the name of one Dharmabhushan, villagers have told him 122 SPL.C.C.4 / 2013 that one Sanjeevamma was cultivating this property and income accrued in this property was not giving to accused. But, the Investigating Officer has not produced the statement of the witnesses said to be recorded by him and the prosecution has also not chosen to examine those witnesses. Though the accused has contended that he got income of Rs.2,91,500 00 from the property bearing Sy.No. 38, he has not given any amount of evidence in this regard. I have gone through the RTC extracts pertaining to Sy.No. 38, the contents of these documents state that one Dharmabhushan has been in possession and one Sanjeevamma was cultivating this property since from 1968. There is no evidence on record to show that the accused was cultivating it and taking income of this property during the check period.
(h). Sy.No.53: The prosecution has contended that as this property is in the name of Puttaiah S/o Mudlaiah, from 1968 to 1978 one Siddaramaiah was cultivating and then Puttaiah was cultivating it, afterwards this 123 SPL.C.C.4 / 2013 property came to the name of one Lakshmamma and she was cultivating it from 1997 to 1999, income of this property is not taken into consideration. As discussed above, the accused has got marked khata extract as per Ex.D9, but what I know from looking into the khata extract and RTC extracts is that one Puttaiah S/o Mudlaiah was cultivating this property from 1973 to 1986, afterwards khata of this property was changed into the name of one Lakshmamma who was cultivating it. Admittedly, above mentioned Puttaiah S/o Mudlaiah is not father of the accused, as per the contents of Ex.D8 name of natural father of the accused is Puttaswamy S/o Sampangaiah and as per the contents of Ex.D6 name of adoptive father of accused is Puttaiah S/o Channappa. Thus, there is no document on record to show that the accused was cultivating it and getting income from this property.
(i). Sy.No. 236/2: As per the contents of charge sheet, katha of this property is in the name of Puttaiah S/o Sampangaiah during 1968 to 1999 124 SPL.C.C.4 / 2013 and he was cultivating this property, khata of this property changed into the name of the accused in the year 2000. In his cross examination DW1 has denied sugession of the learned Public Prosecutor that he was not getting any income from this property. When the property was in the name of father of accused and he was cultivating it, there is no reason not to consider the income of this property. No doubt, khata of this property was in the name of his father and in the year 2000 it came to the name of the accused. Further, in his schedule the accused has submitted before the Investigating Officer that he has got income of Rs.69,40000 during the check period. But there is no evidence in this regard to show that he has earned Rs.69,40000 during the check period. Mere statement of accused in his schedule without evidence on record is not sufficient to hold that the accused has earned an amount of Rs.69,40000 from this agriculture property.
(j). Sy.No. 14/4: In his entire chief examination, DW1 has not deposed anything 125 SPL.C.C.4 / 2013 about this property. As opined by the investigating officer in the charge sheet, from 1968 to 1979 one Suggaiah was in possession and from 1980 to 1982, one Gangaiah was in possession and one Puttaiah was cultvating this property from 1993 to 2001. I have gone through all the RTC extracts produced by the prosecution and came to know that from 1968 to 1983 one Suggaiah was in possession and one Kambaiah was cultivating Sy.No. 14/4. The RTC extracts have also reveal that from 1984 onwards khata of this property was in the name of one Puttaiah S/o Bhairamma. But, there is no explanation from the side of the accused whether this Puttaiah S/o Bhairamma is father of the accused or not. As per the schedule of the accused, he has got income of Rs.1,96,10000 during the chieck period. But, nothing is there in the chief examination of DW1 / accused about income of this property. As stated above, mere statement in the schedule is not sufficeint to hold that the accused was getting income from this proerty during the check period.
126 SPL.C.C.4 / 2013(k). Sy.No. 21/1: As per the schedule of the accused, he has earned Rs.15,17500 from this property during the check period. The Investigating officer has not considered income of this property towards income of the accused for the reason that during 1968 to 1999 RTC of this property was in the name of one Champakamaladevi and afterwards one Ramakrishnaiah was cultivating this property. In his crossexamination DW1 has stated that said Champakamaladevi was his sister and one Huchchahanumaiah was doing coolie in that property. What I understood from perusal of RTC extract of Sy.No.21/1 is that one Champakamaladevi was in possession and cultivating this property. A careful perusal of RTC extracts made me to know that name of the accused is not found in any of the RTC extracts of this survey number. Though said Champakamaladevi was his sister, income of his sister cannot be considered as income of the accused. Thus there is no evidence that the 127 SPL.C.C.4 / 2013 accused was getting income of Rs15,17500 from this proerty.
(l).Sy.Nos., 20, 60 and 11: In his schedule the accused has stated that he has got income of Rs.54,62500 from Sy.No.20, Rs.82,75000 from Sy.No.60 and Rs.26,05000 from Sy.No.11. The investigating officer has not considered income of these properties for the reason that no documents of this properties are in the name of accused. A perusal of entire documents on record, I came to know that khata of Sy.No. 20 was in the name of one Champakamaladevi and others, but not in the name of accused. But the RTC extracts of Sy.Nos 60 and 11 show that khata of these two properties was in the name of father of accused. As aforesaid, the accused has not produced any amount of evidence to prove that he has got income of Rs.54,62500 from Sy.No.20, Rs.82,750 00 from Sy.No. 60 and Rs.26,05000 from Sy.No.11.
(m). Sy.Nos. 172/1, 143/2 and 171/3:
Admittedly, the investigating officer has not 128 SPL.C.C.4 / 2013 considered income of these properties. The RTC extracts of these properties show that katha of these properties was in the name of natural father of accsued by name of Puttaswamy and only during 20002001, katha of this properties entered into the name of accused. As per schedule of the accused, he earned Rs.1,42,00000 from Sy.No.143/1, Rs.16,50000 from Sy.No.172/1 (1/4th share) and Rs.3,75000 from 172/3 (1/4th share). In his crossexamination, DW1 has denied suggestion of learned public prosecutor that he has given false statement in his schedule stating that he was getting income from these proerties. As aforesaid, Khata of these properties are in the name of father of accused, but accused failed to establish that during check period he got income of Rs.1,42,00000 from Sy.No.143/1, Rs.16,50000 from Sy.No.172/1 and Rs.3,75000 from 172/3. Further, in his chief examination also the accused has not deposed that he got income of Rs.1,42,00000 from Sy.No.143/1, Rs.16,50000 from Sy.No.172/1 and Rs.3,75000 from 172/3.129 SPL.C.C.4 / 2013
(n). Sy.Nos. 73 and 58/1: The accused has also contended that he was getting agricultural income from the properties bearing Sy.Nos. 73, 58/1. As per the statement made in his schedule, he got income of Rs.54,87500 from Sy.No.73 and Rs.15,37500 from Sy.No.58/1. But in the charge sheet the invesigating officer has not given any reason for not considering income of these properties towards income of the accused. But if the accused has contended that he is also having income apart from the income considered by the Investigating Officer, he has to prove it before the court though not beyond reasonable doubt, but probabilize that he has got income from these properties by producing evidence. There is nothing in his chief examination about income from these properties during the check period. A perusal of RTC extracts of Sy.No. 58/1 show that at any point of time the accused was not cultivating this property and not even a single evidence is produced by the accused to show existence of Sy.No.73. Therefore, in the absence of evidence 130 SPL.C.C.4 / 2013 on record regarding income from Sy.Nos.58/1 and 73, it cannot be held that the accused was getting income from these properties during the check period.
(o). Sy.No. 41/3: The investigating officer has not considered income of this property for the reason that as per the documents, this property was in the name of Puttaiah S/o Mudlaiah and this property has been acquired by the Government. In his schedule the accused has stated that total income earned from this property was Rs.22,200/ out of this income the accused got Rs.5,55000 towards his 1/4th share.
Except this statement, DW1 not even attempted to say anything about this property and income in his chiefexamination. Though the accused has not deposed anything about this property, learned public prosecutor has suggested DW1 that from 1968 to 1972 this property was cultivating by one Siddaramaiah, then one Narasimhaiah and Thimmaiah were cultivaing, from 1992 to 1993 one Ramanjaneya was cultivaing this property. However these 131 SPL.C.C.4 / 2013 suggestion of learned public prosecutor have been denied by the accused and stated that said Siddaramaiah, Narasimhaiah, Thimmaiah and Ramanjaneya were working as coolie in that property. But a reading of RTC extracts pertaining to Sy.No.41/3 makes it clear that from 1968 to 198283, khata of this property was in the name of natural father of accused and then it was in joint names of natural father of accused and one Ramanjaneya and then in the names of Ramanjaneya and Thimmaiah. Anyway, these RTC extracts show that during the check period father of the accused was cultivating this property. But the accused has not attempted to convince the court that from this property he has got income of Rs.555000. After I gone through the RTC extracts of this property, I got to know that Puttaswamaiah was the khatedar of this property from 1968 to 1990, but one Siddaramaiah and then one Narasimhaiah were cultivating it. But, the accused has not produced any amount of evidence to show that during the 132 SPL.C.C.4 / 2013 check period his family earned Rs.22,20000 from this agriculture property.
56. Thus, from the discussions made under serial numbers (a) to (o) above, I came to know that there is no evidence on record to show that the accused or his family members were cultivating Sy.Nos. 9, 10, 14/1, 14/2, 17/1, 38, 53, 14/4, 21/1, 20 and getting income during the check period. The above discussions also made it clear that though name of the accused and names of family members of the accused are mentioned in RTC extracts pertaining to Sy.No. 17/2, 236/2, 60, 11, 172/1, 171/3, 143/2, 41/3 and 17/2 as cultivators and khatedars, the accused has not produced any amount of evidence to show that he has earned income from these properties as narrated in his schedule during the check period. If the accused contended that he is having income during the check period apart from the income considered by the Investigating Officer, he has to prove it, because his source of income known to him only and it cannot be expected from the Investigating Officer to know all sources of income. Therefore, when the accused stated in his schedule that he is having income from different sources other than the sources considered 133 SPL.C.C.4 / 2013 by the Investigating Officer, the burden would be on him to offer satisfactory explantion as to how he cause by wealth and his explanation must be worthy of acceptance. But the accused can discharge his burden by establishing his case by preponderance of probabilities. In the case on hand, the prosecution has considered the source of income known to it, as the accused is contending that he is having more source of agricultural income and specifically mentioned in the schedule that he received specified income from specified property, he had to establish it to the satisfaction of the court by producing reliable evidence. Mere statement in the schedule is not sufficient to prove that apart from the income considered by the Investigating Officer he has also got additional income from other agricultural sources. Only on the basis of schedule prepared by himself and only on the ground that the Investigating Officer has not considered income of some of the agricultural properties, court cannot conclude that all the averments made in the schedule are true and acceptable. The accused has neither tried through independent witnesses nor placed any documents to show to the court that during the check 134 SPL.C.C.4 / 2013 period he was getting income from the above mentioned agricultural properties as stated in his schedule. The accused has also not adduced evidence regarding getting income from the above mentioned surve numbers except marking some documents. In the absence of sufficient materials regarding income of the accused from the agricultural properties, court cannot hold that he got the agricultural income during the check period as submitted in the schedule only on presumption. Therefore, in the absence of evidence either oral or documentary, I am of the firm opinion that contention of the accused that he got agriculture and horticulture income of Rs.29,48,70000 cannot be considered. But, as the Investigating Officer has considered agricultural income of Rs.7,48,62500 said to be earned from the properties bearing Sy.Nos.36, 67/2, 71, 1/1, 1/4 and 11/1 on the basis of report of revenue officials, I accepted the case of the prosecution that the total agriculture and horticulture income of the accused during the check period was Rs.7,48,62500.
57. Sl.No.8: Income from sale proceeds of ancestral property: 135 SPL.C.C.4 / 2013
(i). Next disputed income is sale proceeds of the property bearing Sy.No.327, which is an ancestral property. In the Charge sheet the Investigating Officer has stated that this property was purchased by Adoptive father of the accused, afterwards this property was transferred to natural father of the accused without any consideration, but said property was sold by the accused, his mother, sisters and brothers viz., wife and children of Puttaswamaiah for Rs.11,50,000/, hence an amount of Rs.1,64,285/, which is 1/7th of total consideration amount has been considered towards income of the accused. The learned Public Prosecutor has argued that, since 7 family members have sold the property, the Investigating Officer has considered 1/7th of sale proceeds to the income of accused, hence consideration of the income by the Investigating Officer is correct. On the other hand, the learned counsel for accused has argued that the natural father of the accused has got transferred this property from adoptive father of accused 136 SPL.C.C.4 / 2013 without consideration, after death of natural father of accused, accused and other members of his family have succeeded to it and they have agreed to sell it for Rs.11,50,000/. He further argued that, since the property was originally belonged to adoptive father of accused who has executed a Will in favour of the accused, all family members have decided that the sale consideration shall goes to the accused and if the Investigating Officer has made an inquiry about the account statement of accused, he was getting notice of credit of entire consideration amount to the account of accused, but the Investigating Officer without investigation has wrongly taken only 1/7th of sale proceeds to the income of the accused without enquiring about the account of the accused.
(ii). At para No.25 of his Chief Examination, DW.1 has deposed that Sy.No.327 belonged to his adoptive father, which was sold to his natural father, his adoptive father has executed a Will in his favour, after death of his natural father said property was sold for Rs.11,50,000/, 137 SPL.C.C.4 / 2013 he has received an amount of Rs.50,000/ in cash and remaining amount through a cheque and a DD and these cheque and DD were given in his name, as his adoptive father has executed a Will in his favour, his brothers have decided to give him entire sale consideration amount and he has received it. In his crossexamination DW.1 has admitted that, the property in Sy.No.327 was not exclusively in his name, if all the 07 members had no share in that property there was no necessity to sign the agreement by his mother, sisters and brothers. But DW1 has further stated that, as the purchaser requested for signature of family members he got signatures of his family members to the agreement. Further, DW.1 has denied suggestion of the Learned Public Prosecutor that he has only 1/7th share in the sale consideration amount.
(iii). Bearing in mind, the rival contentions of both sides, I have gone through the documents pertaining to Sy.No.327 and oral evidence. If the Investigating Officer has failed to inspect or 138 SPL.C.C.4 / 2013 inquire about the account statement of the accused to know about credit of sale proceed, the accused should have produced his statement of account along with his schedule, but he has not produced his statement of account. In the charge sheet though the Investigating Officer has stated that as 7 members including the accused have sold this property, he has considered only 1/7th of sale proceeds towards income of the Accused, PW.1 has not uttered even a single sentence in this regard. The agreement of sale, which is produced before the court is a zerox copy and same has been marked as Ex.P36. The sale deed said to be executed by accused and his family members is not on recdord. Further, Ex.P36 is silent about date of its execution. But as per the averments made in Ex.P36, accused, his mother, brothers and sisters have executed this document agreeing to sell Sy.No.327 to one G.S.Ravishankar and others. There is no document on record to show that adoptive father of the accused by name Puttaiah has sold this property to natural father 139 SPL.C.C.4 / 2013 of the accused by name Puttaswamaiah without taking consideration as contended by the prosecution as well as the accused. But, it must be noted that, the accused has also got marked certified copy of the Will dated 15091978 as per Ex.D5, which has not at all disputed by the prosecution. What I came to know from this document is that, adoptive father of the accused by name Puttaiah has bequeathed Sy.No.327 in favour of the accused. It is to be noted that admittedly accused is the adopted son of Puttaiah, said puttaiah has executed a Will bequeathing Sy.No.327 in favour of the accused and said Puttaiah has died on 18061986. Even if, it is believed that, adoptive father of the accused has sold the said property in favour of natural father of the accused, same cannot be considered because admittedly, said transaction was without consideration. Apart from this, Ex.D5 says that the accused has succeeded to the property in survey number 327 from his adoptive father through a Will. Further, DW2 in his chief Examination has deposed that, 140 SPL.C.C.4 / 2013 Sy.No.327 was belonged to his brother i.e., accused, same has been sold for Rs.11,50,000/ and this amount was given to the accused. Even in his crossexamination, though DW.2 has admitted that in Ex.P36 (copy of sale agreement) it is mentioned that, family members were having right over the property, he has denied the suggestion of the Learned Public Prosecutor that all the signatories were having share in sale consideration amount of Rs.11,50,000/. Further, DW.2 has voluntarily stated that, as per the Will his brother has got right over the property. The above mentioned oral and documentary evidence make it clear that, adoptive father of the accused has bequeathed Sy.No.327 in favour of the accused. Though mother, sisters and brothers of the accused have signed Ex.P36, the accused has given satisfactory explanation that as the purchaser demanded for signatures of family members, his mother, sisters and brothers have signed the documents. In view of sale of this property by adoptive father of accused to the natural father 141 SPL.C.C.4 / 2013 of the accused without taking consideration, the demand for signatures of all the family members by the purchaser cannot be ruled out. Therefore, I have considered entire sale consideration amount of Rs.11,50,000/ towards income of the accused.
58. Sl.No.9: Rental income from the houses situated at Gutalli, Gayathri Nagar & Lakshminarayanapura:
(i). The accused has disputed quantum of rental income considered by the Investigating Officer. As per the case of the accused, he has earned rent income of Rs.3,07,094/ during the check period. As per the charge sheet, this property is having old house, which is divided into two portions and one Sanjeevalu was residing in that house as a tenant and he was paying Rs.3,000/ per month. But the learned counsel for the accused has argued that, in his schedule submitted to the Investigating Officer, the accused has specifically stated that he has received rent of Rs.3,07,094/, but the 142 SPL.C.C.4 / 2013 prosecution without examining the witnesses and producing documents has contended that the accused has got rental income only of Rs.1,50,000/ which is wrong.
(ii). In his Chief examination, DW.1 has deposed that the Investigating Officer has visited his house and this information was got by him through his parents. As per the statements made in the Charge sheet, after visiting the said house by the Investigating Officer he came to know that there are only two portions in the said house as against the schedule of the accused which says that there are 6 portions and after inspecting the house, the Investigating Officer has considered the rental income at Rs.1,50,000/. But the learned counsel for the accused has argued that without producing the statement of the alleged witnesses and without drawing Mahazar the Investigating Officer has stated in the Charge sheet that he has visited the house, which cannot be believed.
143 SPL.C.C.4 / 2013(iii). It is to be noted that in his chief examination itself DW.1 has deposed that he came to know from his tenants that the Investigating Officer has visited his house. The prosecution has assessed rental income of his house at Rs.1,50,000/, if the accused is contending that it is more than that, he has to produce the documents to prove the same. Only on the ground that in his schedule the accused has mentioned the rental income at Rs.3,07,094/, in the absence of evidence it cannot be believed that all the statements made in his schedule are true. Further, in his crossexamination DW.1 has stated that he could not remember who were his tenants in that house and what was the rent amount received by him on yearwise. He further stated that, he has declared his rental income in his income tax returns. But, no such documents have been produced by the accused to prove that he has declared his rental income in his income tax returns.
144 SPL.C.C.4 / 2013(iv). As aforesaid the Investigating Officer has taken rental income at Rs.1,50,000/ after visiting the house and assessing it. It should be noted that, Investigating Officer has specifically mentioned in the Charge sheet that the said house was old one, there were only two portions and the area in which the house of accused is situated was not a famous area. Thus the Investigating Officer has considered the rental income on the basis of area where the house is situated, its age and also by considering that said house is having only two portion. If the accused contended that he has earned more income than the prosecution has mentioned, the accused has to produce the evidence in this regard. If really the accused had received rent of Rs.3,07,09400, he should have proved it, mere denial of case of prosecution, is not sufficient to accept the contention of accused that he has received the rent of Rs.3,07,09400 during the check period. The learned counsel for the accused has further argued that the reasons given by the 145 SPL.C.C.4 / 2013 Investigating Officer in the charge sheet is not supported by any documents. But it is pertinent to note that though the accused has contended that he has received rental income of Rs.3,07,094/ he has also failed to produce evidence in this regard. The accused was in a better position to produce the evidence of rental income as he being a owner of the house is having knowledge and is in possession of the documents. By considering all these facts, I hold that the Investigating Officer has rightly considered rental income at Rs.1,50,000/. But it must be noted that, as argued by the learned counsel for the accused though the Investigating Officer has stated in the charge sheet that one Sanjeevalu who was a tenant told him that, he has paid Rs.30,000/ as an advance amount, the Investigating Officer has not considered it. When he has considered the statement of the tenant regarding quantum of rent paying by him to the accused, the Investigating Officer should have considered his statement regarding advance amount.
146 SPL.C.C.4 / 2013Therefore, I have taken rental income of the property which is situated at Guttahalli at Rs.1,80,000/ which includes advance amount of Rs.30,00000.
(v). What remaining is the rental income from the property situated at Lakshminarayanapura and Gayathri Nagar. The Investigating Officer has considered rental income of Rs.54,91000 from the house situated at Lakshminarayanapura and Rs.62,54100 from the house of Gayatrinagar on the basis of statements of witnesses and tenants. In his schedule also the accused has mentioned that he has received rental income of Rs.54,91000 from the house situated at Lakshminarayanapura and Rs.62,54100 from the house of Gayatrinagar. Thus there is no dispute about the rental income of the houses of Lakshminarayanapura and Gayatrinagar considered by the Investigating Officer. Therefore, I hold that total rental income of the accused is Rs.2,97,45100.
147 SPL.C.C.4 / 201359. At the cost of repetition, again I state that out of 11 heads of income, the accused has disputed only 4 heads. After analyzing the evidence on record and discussion made above, this court has considered the disputed 4 income as follows:
Sl. Income as Income as per Income
No. Description per the accused considered by
of income investigating the Court
officer
1 Salary of the
accused Rs.7,53,95600 Rs.18,41,98100 Rs.18,41,98100
7 Agricultural Rs.7,84,62500 Rs.13,23,42500 Rs.7,84,62500
income
8 Sale
proceeds Rs.1,64,28500 Rs.11,50,00000 Rs.11,50,00000
from
ancestral
property
9 Rental
income out of Rs.2,67,45100 Rs.4,54,60100 Rs.2,97,45100.
properties in
Guttahalli,
Lakshminar
ayanapura
and
Gayathrinag
ar
Rs.11,85,69200 Rs.34,46,58200 Rs.40,74,05700 Total
60. Thus, on the basis of the evidence on record, this court has considered the income of 4 disputed itmes at Rs.40,74,05700. The total amount of income 148 SPL.C.C.4 / 2013 pertaining to remaining 7 undisputed items is Rs.53,23,34100. Thus the total Income of the accused under 11 heads comes to Rs.93,97,39800 (Rs.53,23,34100 + Rs.40,74,05700).
LEFT OUT INCOME
61. The learned counsel for the accused has contended that the Investigating Officer has left out some income under 7 heads, which have to be considered as income of the accused. The learned counsel for the accused has argued that the Investigating Officer has left out the income which accrued under usage of credit card, bank interest from account No.4203 and 13263, income of bonus given on LIC Policies and refund of sale consideration amount which totally amounts to Rs.29,27,691/. As per the contention of accused, the 7 heads of income to be considered by this court are as follows:
Sl. Description of left out income Income as per No. the case of accused 1 Usage of credit card Rs.20,00000 149 SPL.C.C.4 / 2013
2. Bank interest from A/C Nos.4203 Rs.12,06200
3. Bank interest from A/C Nos.13263 Rs.16,55400
3. Bonus on LIC policy No.610602496 Rs.53,20000
4. Bonus on LIC policy No.610601624 Rs.53,20000
5. Bonus on LIC policy No.611834238 Rs.72,67500
6. Refund of sale consideration paid by Rs.27,00,00000 father of accusedPuttaswamy Total Rs.29,27,69100
(i). It is the argument of the learned counsel for the accused that the Investigating Officer has considered the declaration made by the accused in his schedule that he has used his credit card once and an amount of Rs.20,000/ was drawn and same has been repaid to Vijaya Bank, Investigating Officer has taken said sum as expenditure, but as the accused has repaid it, usage of the amount of credit card has to be considered as income. It is to be noted that, the Investigating Officer has taken Expenditure of Rs.20,000/ under the Head expenses towards the credit card. As rightly argued by the learned counsel for the 150 SPL.C.C.4 / 2013 accused, usage of credit card is on credit basis and it has to be repaid to the concerned bank. At Para No.56 of his cross examination, PW.1 has admitted that if the amount is drawn through credit card, it has to be considered as expenditure and said amount has to be repaid to the bank hence said amount has to be considered as loan and to be considered under the head 'income'. If the amount under a credit card is used to purchase something, the property purchased becomes an asset, but as the amount came from credit card said amount should be taken under the head 'income' and repayment has to be considered under the head 'expenditure'. Therefore, when repayment is considered as expenditure, usage of the amount of Rs.20,000/ on the credit card has to be considered as income.
Therefore, I consider an amount of
Rs.20,000/ towards the income of the
accused.
151 SPL.C.C.4 / 2013
(ii). It is further contention of the accused that, the Investigating Officer has not considered interest accrued on the account of the accused. He further argued that, the accused has received interest amount of Rs.12,06249 from the account No.4203 and Rs.16,55405 from account No.13263. At para Nos.62 and 63 of his crossexamination, PW.1 has admitted the suggestions of the learned counsel for the accused that, he has gone through the statement of accounts of accused and his wife and the amount mentioned in the account has been considered as income of the accused. He further admitted that, an interest amount of Rs.12,06249 was credited to the account of accused and interest amount of Rs.16,554.05/ was credited to the account of wife of accused, in this regard he has obtained documents but not considered the said interest amount towards income of the accused. Account statements of accused and 152 SPL.C.C.4 / 2013 wife of accused has not been produced along with the final report. The accused has also not produced the said statements of account.
The learned counsel for the accused has specifically suggested PW1 that the total amount which was in the account of accused and his wife has been considered towards assets of the accused. Total balance amount in the bank account shall includes interest accrued on the amount in the account and total amount would be calculated including the amount credited, amount debited and interest accrued. When the Investigating Officer has taken bank balance as an assset of the accused, he has to consider the interest accrued on it as income. Therefore, in view of the admission of the Investigating Officer that interest amount of Rs.12,06249 was credited to the account of accused and Rs.16,554.05/ was credited to the account of wife of accused, an amount of Rs.28,616.54 is considered as income of the accused.
153 SPL.C.C.4 / 2013(iii). The learned counsel for the accused has further argued that, the Investigating Officer has not considered bonus accrued on LIC policies. He further argued that, a sum of Rs.53,200/ has been declared as bonus on policy No.610602496, Rs.53,200/ on policy No.610601624 and Rs.72,675/ on policy No.611834238. Regarding bonus on LIC policies, the Investigating Officer at para No.65 of his crossexamination has admitted that he has gone through the LIC policies which are in the name of accused, the policy premium has been considered as expenses of the accused but the bonus accrued on these policies have not been considered towards income of the accused. As discussed above under the Head Expenditure of the accused, this court has held that accused has paid premium to his LIC policies. Further, in his crossexamination, PW.1 has admitted that as per the documents obtained by him, an amount of Rs.53,200/ was declared as bonus 154 SPL.C.C.4 / 2013 on policy No.610602496, an amount of Rs.53,200/ was declared as bonus on policy No.610601624 and Rs.72,675/ was declared as bonus on policy number 611834238. PW.1 has also admitted that, he has not given any reason for not considering bonus amount towards income of the accused.
Interestingly, though the accused has submitted about credit of interest amount and LIC bonus, he has also not produced statements of accounts for the reason best known to him. At the cost of repetition, again I mention here that as per the argument of the learned counsel for the accused, the bonus amount of Rs.53,20000, Rs.53,20000 and Rs.72,67500 was given to the accused on LIC policy Nos.610602496, 610601624 and 611834238 respectively. In the light of argument of the learned counsel for the accused and admissions of PW1, I have carefully gone through the documents produced by the prosecution. The 155 SPL.C.C.4 / 2013 prosecution has got marked letters of Investigating Officer, letters given by different Branch Managers of LIC and status report of LIC policies, which are at page No.1 to 14 of Ex.P26. A careful perusal of the status reports of LIC policy Nos. 610602496, 610601624 and 611834238 (page Nos.11 to 13 of Ex.P26) makes it clear that bonus amount of Rs.53,20000, Rs.53,20000 and Rs.72,67500 was declared on the above mentioned LIC policies. Therefore, I am of the opinion that bonus amount accrued on LIC policies has to be considered towards income of the accused. Hence, total bonus amount of Rs.1,79,075/ has been taken as income of the accused.
(iv). Further contention of the accused is that, his father Puttaswamaiah had entered into an agreement of sale agreeing to purchase a property from Lakshmaiaha for total sale consideration of Rs.30 lakhs, he 156 SPL.C.C.4 / 2013 had paid advance sale consideration of Rs.27,00,00000 on different dates, but on 14081996 said Puttaswamaiah has died and children of Puttaswamaiah have cancelled the agreement and recovered advance consideration amount paid by their father. He further contended that copy of the said agreement was seized by the Investigating Officer, details of cancellation has been found on backside of the said agreement, in this regard, Investigating Officer has inquired one witness by name Venkatesh S/o Lakshmaiah, but he has not produced the said agreement along with the charge sheet and not cited said Venkatesh as a witness. As per the contents of Ex.P9, the Investigating Officer has seized copy of an agreement under a Panchanama and seizure of that agreement of sale has been mentioned at Sl.No.33 in page No.7 of Ex.P9. But as argued by the learned counsel for the accused, the Investigating 157 SPL.C.C.4 / 2013 Officer has not produced the said agreement of sale along with the charge sheet. It is to be noted that, the accused has produced copy of the agreement of sale dated 10051986 along with his schedule, which shows that natural father of the accused by name Puttaswamaiah had entered into an agreement of sale agreeing to purchase a property bearing No.79/1B of Billavanakote village from one Lakshmaiah for Rs.30,00,00000 and paid a sum of Rs.27,00,00000 as an advance amount. This document also says that the said agreement was cancelled by the accused and other children of Puttaswamaiah after the death of Puttaswamaiaha. In his cross examination, DW.1 has spoken about this transaction and DW.2 has also deposed about it. At para No.57 of his cross examination, PW.1 has admitted that the accused has mentioned about agreement in his schedule. PW1 has further admitted the 158 SPL.C.C.4 / 2013 suggestion of the learned counsel for the accused that seizure of said agreement has been mentioned in Ex.P9. But PW1 has stated that he could not remember why said agreement has not been produced along with the charge sheet. But PW.1 has denied the suggestion of learned counsel for the accused that repayment of advance amount of Rs.27,00,000/ had to be taken towards income of the accused. As discussed above, though the Investigating Officer has seized copy of agreement of sale at the time of Mahazar, he has not produced the said document for the reason best known to him. Further, copy of the agreement, which has been attached to the schedule shows that father of accused has entered into an agreement to purchase a property for Rs.30,00,00000, he has paid an amount of Rs.27,00,00000 as an advance amount. The recitals written on back side of this document state that after the death of 159 SPL.C.C.4 / 2013 Puttaswamaiah said agreement was cancelled by the accused and his 2 brothers and they have received back advance amount of Rs.27,00,00000. Thus, the oral and documentary evidence on record proved that Puttaswamaiah had paid advance amount of Rs.27,00,000/ agreeing to purchase a property, after his death the accused and other children of Puttaswamaiah have cancelled the agreement and received back advance amount of Rs.27,00,000/ from the seller.
(v). The learned counsel for the accused has also argued that, in his evidence DW.2 has deposed that family members have consented for accused to give entire advance amount to the accused in the background of construction of a house, nothing worth contrary to the claim of the accused has been elicited from DW2, hence an entire amount of Rs.27,00,00000 has to be considered 160 SPL.C.C.4 / 2013 towards income of the accused. Though the accused has taken this contention, there is no corroborative evidence to believe that, entire advance amount of Rs.27,00,00000 has been given to the accused by his brothers. Further, there is no evidence on record regarding construction of an house by the accused when the agreement of sale was cancelled. DW2 is the brother of accused and hence it need not mention here that he is an interesed witness, therefore unless the evidence of DW1 and DW2 is corroborated by indepdnent witness, say of the accused that his brothers have given him entire advance amount of Rs.27,00,00000 cannot be believed. Admittedly, father of the accused has paid advance amount to the seller and said agreement dated 10.05.1996 was cancelled by the accused and his 2 brothers, therefore, naturally said advance amount should have been divided amongst 3 brothers including the accused. Therefore, I consider 161 SPL.C.C.4 / 2013 an amount of Rs.9,00,00000 towards income of the accused.
62. Thus, on the basis of the evidence on record, this court has opined that the Investigating Officer has left out some of the income of the accused. After considering the oral and documentary evidence on record, this court came to know that the Investigating Officer has not considered the those income which amounts to Rs. 11,27,69100. Therefore, this court has taken into consideration of income of Rs.11,27,69100 under various heads as follows: Sl. Description of left out Income as per Income as per No. income the accused the case of accused 1 Usage of credit card Rs.20,00000 Rs.20,00000
2. Bank interest from A/C Rs.12,06200 Rs.12,06200 Nos.4203
3. Bank interest from A/C Rs.16,55400 Rs.16,55400 Nos.13263
3. Bonus on LIC policy Rs.53,20000 Rs.53,20000 No.610602496
4. Bonus on LIC policy Rs.53,20000 Rs.53,20000 No.610601624
5. Bonus on LIC policy Rs.72,67500 Rs.72,67500 No.611834238
6. Refund of sale consideration Rs.27,00,00000 Rs.9,00,00000 paid by father of accused Puttaswamy Total Rs.29,27,69100 Rs.11,27,69100 162 SPL.C.C.4 / 2013
63. As discussed under the head of income, total income of the accused during the check period is Rs.93,97,39800 and total left out income is Rs.11,27,69100, if these two income are added it comes to Rs.1,05,25,08900. Thus total income of the accused during the check period is Rs.1,05,25,08900.
64. After analyzing the oral and documentary evidence on record and calculation made by this court, this court concluded that total value of assets of the accused during the check period is Rs.1,03,88,81300, total expenditure of the accused during the check perios is Rs.31,89,76600 and total income of the accused during the check period is Rs.1,05,25,08900. As stated above, For the purpose of ascertaining as to what is the percentage of disproportionate assets, the accepted formula is that assets and expenditure shall be added, then lawful income has to be deducted from total value of assets and expenditure. If the value of assets and expenditure is added, it comes to Rs.1,35,78,57900 (Rs.1,03,88,81300 + Rs.31,89,79900). If decided income of the accused is substracted from this amount, we get disproportionate income. If we do so, the disproportionate 163 SPL.C.C.4 / 2013 income would be Rs.30,53,49000 (Rs.1,35,78,579 Rs.1,05,25089) ie., 22.48% (Rs.305349000 / Rs.1,35,78,57900 X 100 =22.48%) to his known source of income.
65. As per the case of prosecution, the accused was found in possession of the property of worth Rs.73,75,544/, which is accounted for 101% disproportionate to his known source of income, for which the accused could not satisfactorily account, thereby the accused has committed the offence punishable under Section 13 (1) (e) r/w Section 13 (2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. But after trial before the court and appreciation of evidence this court has cocluded that total valuye of asset of the accused including expenditure during the check period is Rs.1,35,78,57900, his total income is Rs.1,05,25,08900 thus, the accused has amassed disproportionate asset of Rs.30,53,49000 ie., 22.48% more to his known source of income. The allegation of the prosecution is that the accused has amassed disproportionate asset of Rs.73,67,16700 which is 101% more to his known source of income, but as aforesaid after trial it is concluded that the accused has amassed disproportionate asset of Rs.30,53,49000 ie., 164 SPL.C.C.4 / 2013 22.48% more to his known source of income. Hence, Point No.4 is answered partly in the affirmative.
66. POINT NO.5: Now, the question is whether the accused is liable for conviction or entitled for acquittal. The learned counsel for the accused has also disputed validity of source report and submitted that it is not in accordance with law. In this regard he has relied on a decision of the Hon'ble High Court in W.P. No.7911/2022. In that Writ Petition, the the Hon'ble High Court has held that '....In cases where a public servant is charged with offences punishable under Section 13 of the Act to become punishable under Section 13(2) of the Act, as they deal with amassing wealth disproportionate to known source of income, every ingredient that is required to be assed in the source report must be present. The check period, the period of service of the accused Government Servant and source of income should be assessed albeit, by a preliminary inquiry to arrive at a prima facie conclusion that the officer is liable to be proceeded against for criminal misconduct.' A perusal of the source information report which is marked as Ex.P1, I came to know that date of joining service by the accused, date of 165 SPL.C.C.4 / 2013 inquiry and sources of income have been mentioned in the source report. In this report he has also mentioned amount disproportionate to known source of income found at that preliminary stage has also been mentioned. Therefore, argument of the learned counsel that the source information report is defect holds no water. As per the case of prosecution the accused is having disporportionate asset of Rs.73,67,16700 ie., 101% to his known source income, but though it was not able to prove it, the prosecution has proved that the accused is having disproportionate income at 22.48% to his known source of income. I have already mentioned the arguments of the learned counsel for the accused on point of law. As discussed under Point No.4, the accused is found guilty of having disproportionate income to the tune of Rs Rs.30,53,49000 ie., 22.48% disproportionate to his known sources of income. But, as discussed under Point No.2 above, PW.1, PW.8, PW.9 and PW.11 who were at the rank of below superintendent of Police and who were the investigating officer of this case were not authorized by the Superintendent of Policefor investigation as contemplated under Section 17 of the Prevention of Corruption Act. There is no explanation for non 166 SPL.C.C.4 / 2013 compliance with the requirements of section 17 of the Prevention of Corruption Act. Authorization under Section 17 is a prerequisite to conduct investigation, but there is no compliance of statutory requirements laid down in second proviso to the Section 17 of the Prevention of Corruption Act. Further, in a decision reported in ILR 2001 KAR 2843 (H.S. Gotla v/s State), which has been relied on by the learned counsel for the accused, the Hon'ble High Court has quashed the proceedings for non compliance of Section 17 of the Prevention of Corruption Act. In a decision reported in AIR 1992 SUPREME COURT 604 (State Of Haryana And Ors vs Ch.
Bhajan Lal And Ors), the Hon'ble Apex Court emphasized that the investigation by the designated police officer is the rule, while the investigation by an officer of a lower rank is an exception. Moreover, the requirement to disclose the reasons for granting permission for such an exception is a significant legal obligation. This disclosure ensures transparency and accountability in the investigative process, reinforcing the integrity of the legal framework governing corruption investigations. In the present case absolutely there is no authorization by the Superintendent of Police to the 167 SPL.C.C.4 / 2013 investigating officer who were below the rank of superintendent of police. Further, when there is no authorization, question of giving reason by the Superintendent of Police to authorize the Inspector rank of police for investigation for the offences under section 13(1)(e) of the Prevention of Corruption Act. In a decision reported in 2000 (3) Kar.L.J. 432A, which arose between S. Bangarappa v/s State by Central Bureau of Investigation, the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka has held that: Section 17 of the Prevention of Corruption Act is mandatory in nature, no officer below the rank of Deputy Superintendent of Police shall investigate the case, in case if the Superintendent of Police has not carried on the investigation there must be some order authorizing the other person to go on with the investigation in the case on hand, if no authorization it is the patent lacuna. In a decision reported in 2002 (2) Kar.L.J. 80 (State of Karnataka v/s B. Narayana Reddy), the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka has held that Section 17 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, is mandatory and not directory and the investigation conducted in violation thereof bears the stamp of illegality. In a decision reported in 2010 (2) Kar.L.J. 1B 168 SPL.C.C.4 / 2013 (Babappa v/s State by Lakayukta Police, Gulbarga), the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka has held that Section 17 bars any other police officers of the rank mentioned therein from investigating the matter and proviso 2 to Section 17 requires an order of a police officer not below the rank of Superintendent of Police in the matter of investigation of an offence referred to under Section 13(1)(e). It is further held that omission on part of prosecution to produce order, adverse presumption can be drawn that investigation was carried out without such order, and hence investigation is illegal.
67. Apart from the above lapses mentioned above, as discussed under Point No.3, K.E.B., vigilence cell had no authority to register the case and for investigation as it was not a police station at the time of registration of the fcase and investigation. As per the notification of Government of Karnataka, dated 24.02.2003 bearing No.HD 02 POP 2002, the KEB vigilence cell was authorized to register the case and for investigate the case relating to the offences under the the Prevention of Corruption Act only from 24.02.2003. But, the present case was registered on 27.03.1999 and investigation was completed before 24.02.2003. Thus, the K.E.B., vigilence 169 SPL.C.C.4 / 2013 has conducted investigation of this case without having power of police and authorization. Therefore, for the reasons given and discussion made above, the accused is entitled for acquittal. Accordingly, I proceed to pass the following:
ORDER Acting under Section 235(1) of Criminal Procedure Code, the accused is acquitted for the offence punishable under Section 13(1)(e) r/w Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and he is set at liberty.
The bail bond of the accused and that of his surety executed in pursuance of the order dated 01.04.2013 stands canceled.
(Dictated to the Stenographer directly on computer, corrected, signed by me and then pronounced in the Open Court on this the 28 th day of October, 2024).
(NANDEESHA.R.P), LXXVIII Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge & Special Judge (PCA), Bengaluru.170 SPL.C.C.4 / 2013
ANNEXURE List of witnesses examined for the prosecution:
P.W.1 Sri.M.D.Basavannavar
P.W.2 K.Prakash
P.W.3 N.G.Thawani
P.W.4 S.Mukundan
P.W.5 N.S.Nanjundaiah Shetty
P.W.6 Kareem Baig
P.W.7 Surendranath
P.W.8 Jaya Prakash Gowda
P.W.9 K.Rajgopal
P.W.10 - R.Sridhara
P.W.11- Ajjappa
PW.12 - B.R.Jalade
List of documents exhibited for the prosecution:
Ex.P1 Letter written to
Superintendent of Police,
dt:27031999.
Ex.P.1(a) Signature.
Ex.P2 FIR
Ex.P.2(a) Signature.
Ex.P.38 Warrant to search
Ex.P9 House seizure
Panchanama
171 SPL.C.C.4 / 2013
Ex.P10 Panchanama
Ex.P.11 House seizure
Panchanama
Ex.P.12 Seizure Panchanama
Ex.P.13 Panchanama
Ex.P14 Permission ltr to handover FD
certificates Dated 22041999.
Ex.P.15 Letter dt 06032002 written
by Champakadamaswamy.
Ex.P.16 Letter dated 290502 addressed to
Superintendent of Police
(Vigilance).
Ex.P17 Letter addressed to Dy.SOP
dt: 030602.
Ex.P.18 Letter addressed to Dy.SOP,
dt:030502.
Ex.P18(a) Valuation of residential building
report.
Ex.P18(b) Signature.
Ex.P.19 Details of Motors registered under
Motors Registration Act.
Ex.P.19(a) Signature of Regional Transport
Officer.
Ex.P20 Letter of Integrated Finance
Co. Ltd., dt: 21052002.
Ex.P.21 Letter dated 11062002 addressed
to Regional Transport Office.
Ex.P21(a) Signature of PW.6
Ex.P.21(bc) 'B' Register Extracts
172 SPL.C.C.4 / 2013
Ex.P.22 'A' Register Extract
(Rules 63 of KMV Rules)
Ex.P22(a,b) Signatures
Ex.P.23 Letter dt:100602
Ex.P.23(a,b) Signature of PW.5
Ex.P.24 Acknowledgment dt: 290402.
Ex.P.25 NSC certificates
Ex.P.26 Letter addressed to Bank Manager
dt: 270402.
Ex.P.27 Membership details of Sunvalley
Club dt:240502.
Ex.P.28 Letter dt:280602 addressed to
Dy.SOP (Vigilance)
Ex.P.29 Letter dt:240202 issued by Cluny
Convent High School in respect of fee details of daughters of Champakadamaswamy.
Ex.P.30 Letter dt:300302 addressed to Revenue Officer.
Ex.P.31 Letter dt:290502 addressed by B'luru Water Supply & Sewerage Board to Dy.SOP (Vigilance),B'luru.
Ex.P.32 Letter dt: 260402 addressed to Executive Engineer(Vigilance).
Ex.P.33 Certified copy of registered Will dated 24081998, Registration No.2112 / 9899.
Ex.P.34 Written statement dated
12072002.
173 SPL.C.C.4 / 2013
Ex.P.35 Letter from Police Vigilance Office
dt:07062002 addressed to
Tahsildar, Nelamangala Town.
Ex.P.36 Certified copy of sale agreement.
Ex.P.37 Final report.
Ex.P.38 Proceedings of KPTCL office dated
8th October 2012.
Ex.P.39 Minutes of 82nd Board Directors
Meeting held on 23rd June 2012.
Ex.P.40 Memo of Karnataka Electricity
Board 28th April 1999.
Ex.P.41 Memo of Karnataka Electricity
Board 28th April 1999.
Evidence Adduced On Behalf Of The Defence:
D.W.1 K.P.Champakadamaswamy.
D.W.2 K.P.Ramesh.
Documents marked on behalf of the defence:
Ex.D.1 Auction sale certificate
Ex.D.2 Certified copy of order dated
12061997 in W.P.No.469 of 1967.
Ex.D.3 Certified copy of the absolute sale
deed 6091959.
Ex.D.4 Certified copy of Adoption deed
dt.24061977
Ex.D.5 Certified copy of Will
Ex.D.6 Death certificate of Puttaiah
174 SPL.C.C.4 / 2013
Ex.D.7 Certified copy of Judgment in
O.S.NO.7991/80 and
O.S.NO.7992/80.
Ex.D.8 Death certificate of
K.S.Puttaswamy.
Ex.D.9 Form No.24 - Katha Ledger
Extract (198586)
Ex.D.10 Notification dt :25022003 issued
by KEB Vigilance.
Ex.D.11 Letter dated 30012023.
Ex.D.12 Certified copy of Judgment in
O.S.NO.169/1989 dated 30012004.
Ex.D.13 Lease Deed dated 01061998. Ex.D.14 Original Labour Agreement.
Ex.D.15 Certified copy of I.A.
Ex.D.16 Certified copy of Affidavit in L.R.F
L.R.P.16/7980
Ex.D.17 Copy of LRF.No.16/ 197576
dt:03122002.
Ex.D.18 RTC (19781983)
Ex.D.19 Certified copy of Judgment in
OS.NO.350/1959.
Ex.D.20 Certified copy of Decree in
O.S.NO.350/1959
Ex.D.21 Certified copy of village map
Lakkappanahalli.
175 SPL.C.C.4 / 2013
Ex.D.22 Certified copy of orders in
Misc.No.126/2015
Ex.D.23 Certified copy of orders in
Misc.No.41/2021.
Ex.D.24 xerox copy of sale deed dated
05082019
Ex.D.25 xerox copy of sale deed dated
17082019.
Ex.D.26 xerox copy of sale deed dated
18112021.
Ex.D.27 xerox copy of sale deed dated
18112021.
Ex.D.28 Acknowledgement issued by Income
Tax Returns Office.
Ex.D.29 Certificate under Section 65B of
Indian Evidence Act.
(NANDEESHA.R.P),
LXXVIII Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge & Special Judge (PCA), Bengaluru.176 SPL.C.C.4 / 2013