Bangalore District Court
State Of Karnataka vs Puttaiah Virakthamath on 9 October, 2018
1 Spl.C.C.No.18/2013
IN THE COURT OF THE LXXVIII ADDL.CITY CIVIL & SESSIONS
JUDGE & SPECIAL JUDGE (P.C.A.), BENGALURU (C.C.H.No.79)
Present: Sri.Ravindra Hegde, M.A., LL.M.,
LXXVIII Addl.City Civil & Sessions Judge
& Special Judge (P.C.A.), Bengaluru.
Dated: This the 9th day of October 2018
Special C.C. No.18/2013
Complainant: State of Karnataka, represented by
Police Inspector, Karnataka Lokayukta,
City Division, Bengaluru.
(By Public Prosecutor)
vs.
Accused: 1. Puttaiah Virakthamath,
S/o. Nagaiah, Aged 34 years,
Driver, Office of the Divisional
Controller, B.M.T.C. East Division,
Bengaluru, Residing at Samsthana
Mutt, Jade, Soraba Taluk,
Shimoga District.
2. Mallikarjunaiah,
S/o.Veeraiah, Aged 62 years,
Divisional Controller,
B.M.T.C. East Division, Bengaluru,
Resident of Itagihal village,
B.M.Sugar Post, Shiraguppa Taluk,
Bellary District.
(A1-By Sri.Raghunath, Advocate
A2-By Sri.P.N. Hegde, Advocate)
Date of commission of offence 08-06-2012
Date of report of occurrence 15-06-2012
Date of arrest of accused 15-06-2012
Date of release of accused on 18-06-2012
bail
2 Spl.C.C.No.18/2013
Date of commencement of 13-01-2017
evidence
Date of closing of evidence 23-08-2018
Name of the complainant Rayagondappa
Offences complained of Under Sections 7, 13(1)(d)
r/w/s 13(2) of Prevention of
Corruption Act
Opinion of the Judge Acquitted
Date of Judgment 09-10-2018
JUDGMENT
The Police Inspector, Karnataka Lokayukta, City Division, Bengaluru, has filed this charge sheet against Accused Nos.1 and 2 for the offences under Sections 7, 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, (in short P.C. Act).
2. The brief facts of the prosecution case is as under:
Accused No.1-Puttaiah Virakthamath is Driver in Divisional Controller's Office, B.M.T.C. East and Accused No.2- Mallikarjunaiah is Divisional Controller(D.C), B.M.T.C. East Division, Bengaluru and are Public Servants. Complainant- Rayagondappa, was Driver-cum-Conductor (Training), in B.M.T.C. Depot No.32.On 13-6-2012 complainant gave complaint to Lokayukta Police against Accused No.1, stating that he is working in B.M.T.C. from 3 years 9 months and his probation is not declared and regarding less amount of Rs.84/- found at the time of discharging his duties, a notice was issued by Divisional Controller (D.C), seeking explanation and 3 Spl.C.C.No.18/2013 though he has given explanation, no action was taken for one week and hence, he tried to meet D.C regarding this notice and also seeking transfer from Depot No.32. D.C told him that he will see later and also told him that, in the next list his probation will be considered. Thereafter, on 08-06-2012 Accused No.1 met complainant outside D.C.Office and told him that he will get his work done with regard to notice issued to him and also his transfer from Depot No.32 and told that, for clearing the notice, he have to pay Rs.10,000/- and for transfer, he have to pay Rs.5,000/-. Complainant asked him to reduce bribe amount and then Accused No.1 asked him to request D.C and informed that D.C has asked him to collect bribe from complainant. As complainant was not interested to give bribe, he recorded conversation with Accused No.1 in the digital voice recorder and then gave complaint on 13-06-2012. On receiving complaint, Lokayukta Police Inspector registered case in Crime No.47/2012 against accused No.1 and submitted F.I.R. to the Court. Investigating Officer secured panchas and made all arrangements to trap accused No.1 and on the same day, trap team went to Office of accused No.1 and as accused No.1 was not found, trap attempt was postponed. Thereafter, on 14-06-2012, again trap team went to office of accused No.1 and as accused No.1 asked complainant to come on the next day with money and transfer application, near Hosur Main New Road, at 8.00 a.m., trap attempt was postponed to 15-06-2012. Thereafter, on 15- 4 Spl.C.C.No.18/2013 06-2012, near Plywood shop in Hosur Main New Road near Bus stand, when accused No.1 received tainted notes of Rs.5,000/- from complainant, he was trapped and amount was recovered and trap procedure was followed. As accused No.1 informed that he has to give the said amount to accused No.2- D.C, accused No.1 was asked to make a phone call to accused No.2 and he asked accused No.1 to come to his house. Then, tainted notes were again given to accused No.1 and he was asked to meet accused No.2 and trap team, along with accused No.1, proceeded to house of accused No.2 in B.T.M.Layout and accused No.1 entered the house and gave tainted notes and also transfer application of complainant and then accused No.2 was also trapped and amount was recovered from the house of accused No.2 and trap procedures were followed. Both Accused were arrested and produced before the Court. Investigating Officer continued the investigation and after completion of investigation and after securing Prosecution Sanction Order, has filed the charge sheet against accused No.1 and 2.
3. Cognizance of offences is taken by this Court. Accused have appeared before Court and are enlarged on bail. Copies of prosecution papers are furnished to Accused along with its enclosures. After hearing both sides regarding framing of charge and having found prima-facie materials, charge is framed against both Accused and read over to them. Accused have pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.
5 Spl.C.C.No.18/20134. In support of the prosecution case, P.Ws.1 to 7 are examined. Exs.P1 to P32 are marked. M.O.1 to M.O.19 are also marked for the Prosecution.
5. After completion of prosecution evidence, statement of Accused, as required under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. is recorded. Accused Nos.1 and 2 have denied incriminating evidence appearing against them. Accused have not opted to lead any evidence. In the cross-examination of Prosecution witnesses, Exs.D1 and D2 are marked for the Prosecution.
6. Heard both counsels and perused the records.
7. Now, Points that arise for my consideration are:-
1) Whether the prosecution proves that there is a valid sanction to prosecute Accused No.1 and 2?
2) Whether the Prosecution proves beyond all reasonable doubt that, Accused No.1 being public servant, working as Driver in Divisional Controller's Office, B.M.T.C. East, Bengaluru, has, on 08-6-2012 met the complainant in front of the office and demanded for himself or for D.C., bribe of Rs.5,000/- for transferring complainant from Depot No.32 and Rs.10,000/- for clearing the notice issued and on 14-06-2012, when complainant met him in his office between 4.00 p.m. to 4.30 p.m., again demanded bribe amount and asked him to bring amount and transfer application at
8.00 a.m. near Hosur Main New Road Bus stand on the next day and on 15-06-2012, between 7.05 a.m. to 8.35 a.m., near Hosur Main New Road Bus Stand, near Sri Lakshmi 6 Spl.C.C.No.18/2013 venkateshwara Glass and Plywood Shop, accused No.1 again demanded and accepted illegal gratification of Rs.5,000/- as a motive or reward to do official act or to do any official favour to complainant and thereby committed an offence punishable under Section 7 of Prevention of Corruption Act?
3) Whether the prosecution further proves beyond all reasonable doubt that Accused No.1 being public servant, working as Driver in Divisional Controller's Office, B.M.T.C. East, Bengaluru, has, on 15-06-2012 between 7.05 a.m. to 8.35 a.m. in Hosur Main New Road, Near Bus stand and Sri Lakshmi venkateshwara Glass and Plywood Shop, by corrupt or illegal means or by abusing his position as public servant, has obtained pecuniary advantage of Rs.5,000/- from complainant without public interest and thereby committed offence of criminal misconduct under Section 13(1)(d) of P.C. Act, punishable under Section 13(2) of P.C. Act?
4) Whether the Prosecution proves beyond all reasonable doubt that, Accused No.2 being public servant, working as Divisional Controller in B.M.T.C. East Division, Bengaluru, has, through Accused No.1, demanded bribe amount of Rs.10,000/- for clearing the notice and Rs.5,000/- for getting him transfered and on 15-06-2012, between 10.15 a.m. to 11.00 a.m., in his house No.M.F.-10/4, B.T.M. 2 nd Stage, Bengaluru, has received the illegal gratification amount of Rs.5,000/- tainted notes from accused No.1, as given to him by complainant, as a motive or reward to do official act or to do any official favour to complainant and thereby committed an 7 Spl.C.C.No.18/2013 offence punishable under Section 7 of Prevention of Corruption Act?
5) Whether the prosecution further proves beyond all reasonable doubt that Accused No.2 being public servant working as Divisional Controller in B.M.T.C. East, Bengaluru, has, on 15-06-2012 between 10.15 a.m. to 11.00 a.m. has, by corrupt or illegal means or by abusing his position as public servant, has obtained pecuniary advantage of Rs.5,000/- from accused No.1 as being received by him from complainant on his behalf, without public interest and thereby committed offence of criminal misconduct misconduct under Section 13(1)(d) of P.C. Act, punishable under Section 13(2) of P.C. Act?
6) What Order?
8. My findings on the above Points are:
Point No.1 - In the Affirmative, Point No.2 - In the Negative, Point No.3 - In the Negative, Point No.4 - In the Negative, Point No.5 - In the Negative, Point No.6 - As per Final Order, for the following:
REASONS
9. Point No.1 : This Point is relating to validity of sanction to prosecute both accused No.1 and 2. Accused No.1 is working as Driver and Accused No.2 is working as Divisional Controller in B.M.T.C., East Division and both are public servants. Since accused No.1 and 2 are charged for the offences under Section 7, 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of 8 Spl.C.C.No.18/2013 P.C.Act, previous sanction to prosecute accused as per Section 19 is mandatory. To prove the sanction given to prosecute accused No.1 and 2 and its validity, Prosecution has examined the Officers who have issued Prosecution Sanction Order. P.W.4-Dr.K.Ramamurthy, who was the Divisional Controller, B.M.T.C. South Division, during relevant period, is the Prosecution Sanctioning Officer of accused No.1. P.W.2- Manjunath Prasad, Managing Director of K.S.R.T.C. during the relevant period, is the Prosecution Sanctioning Officer in respect of accused No.2. Both these witnesses in their evidence have stated about issuing Prosecution Sanction Order against accused No.1 and 2 respectively. They have stated that they have received requests from A.D.G.P., Karnataka Lokayukta, seeking Prosecution Sanction Order against accused, along with copies of investigation records and the Final Report and they have gone through the investigation records and found prima-facie case to issue Prosecution Sanction Order against accused Nos.1 and 2 and have accordingly issued the Prosecution Sanction Order. Prosecution Sanction Order issued against accused No.2 is marked as Ex.P13 and Prosecution Sanction Order issued against accused No.1 is marked as Ex.P5. In the cross- examination of P.W.4 has denied that he is not the Sanctioning Authority to accused No.2 and denied that Divisional Controller do not have power to dismiss the driver from service. He has stated that accused No.1 was working in 9 Spl.C.C.No.18/2013 South Division, but was on deputation to East Division and his lien was in South Division and therefore, he was proper Authority. P.W.2, in his cross-examination has denied that on going through the records, he came to know that accused No.2 has not committed offence and has denied that he has mechanically issued Prosecution Sanction Order as per Ex.P5.
10. On looking to Exs.P13 and P5 and evidence of P.W.2 and 4, authority of P.W.2 to issue Prosecution Sanction Order against Accused No.2 is not much disputed. With regard to accused No.1, though accused No.1 was working in East Division, he was on deputation from South Division and therefore, it is stated that P.W.4 is proper Sanctioning Authority. Documents and evidence before the court show that, along with requisition, investigation records were placed before P.Ws.2 and 4 and they have gone through the same and applied their mind and found prima-facie materials to accord sanction and accordingly, accorded respective Prosecution Sanction Orders. There are no materials to show that sanction accorded by P.W.4 against accused No.1 and by P.W.2 against accused No.2 are not valid. Moreover, on the basis of same documents, which had been produced before the Sanctioning Authority, this Court found prima-facie case and took cognizance and registered the case and has framed Charge. Therefore, Prosecution Sanction Order issued as per Ex.P13 and Ex.P5 are valid. Accordingly, Point No.1 is answered in the Affirmative.
10 Spl.C.C.No.18/201311. Point Nos.2 and 3: Since both these Points are inter-linked with each other, they are taken together for discussion to avoid repetition.
12. To prove the charge against Accused for offences under Sections 7, 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act, prosecution has examined seven witnesses as P.Ws.1 to P7. P.W.1-Rayagondappa is the complainant. P.W.3-R.Murthy and P.W.5-Venkataramanaiah are panch witnesses in this case. P.W.6-A.C.J.Bethal is stated to have identified voice of accused No.2 in the recordings and gave report as per Ex.P17. P.W.4-K.Ramamurthy Is the Prosecution Sanctioning Officer of accused No.1 and N.Manjunath Prasad-P.W.2 is the Prosecution Sanctioning Officer of accused No.2. P.W.7-Puttaswamy.H.P. is the Investigating Officer in this case.
13. On behalf of Prosecution, documents at Exs.P1 to P32 are marked. Complaint is marked as Ex.P1 and F.I.R. is marked as Ex.P18. Pre-Trap Mahazar dated 13-06-2012 is marked as Ex.P7. Sheet containing number of notes is marked as Ex.P6. The Return Mahazar dated 13-06-2012 is marked as Ex.P2. Another Return Mahazar dated 14-06-2012 is marked as Ex.P11. Further Pre-Trap Mahazar prepared on 15-06-2012 is marked as Ex.P3 and the Trap-Mahazar is marked as Ex.P4. Exs.P8 and P9 are transcription of the recordings made on 08- 06-2012 by the complainant. Ex.P10 is the transcription of the 11 Spl.C.C.No.18/2013 recordings made in the voice recorder on 14-06-2012 when complainant met accused No.1. Ex.P12 is the transcription of recordings in voice recorder on the day of trap on 15-06-2012. The Prosecution Sanction Orders of both accused Nos.1 and 2 are marked as Exs.P13 and P5 respectively. Service details of accused No.1 is marked as Ex.P14. Rough Sketches prepared by the Investigating Officer and sketchs prepared by the Engineer are all marked as Exs.P19, P20, P25 and P26. Service details of accused No.2 is marked as Ex.P27. Chemical Examination Report is marked as Ex.P28 and call details are marked as Ex.P29. Written Explanation given by accused No.1 is marked as Ex.P23 and that of accused No.2 is marked as Ex.P24. Transfer Application given by complainant on 15-06- 2012 is marked as Ex.P22 and copy of Disciplinary Proceedings against complainant, which was seized in this case in the course of investigation, is marked as Ex.P21. Arrest Intimation of accused Nos.1 and 2 are marked as Exs.P30, P31 and P32. For the Prosecution, M.O.1 to M.O.19 are also marked. M.O.2 is the tainted notes of Rs.5,000/-, which was seized in this case. M.O.3 is the metal seal. M.O.1 is the pant of accused No.1. M.O.4 to 14 are bottles containing solution taken at different stage of proceedings. M.O.15 to 19 are the C.Ds.
14. For accused, in the cross-examination of P.W.1, copy of his evidence given in Departmental Proceedings is confronted and marked as Ex.D1. In the cross-examination of 12 Spl.C.C.No.18/2013 P.W.3, copy of evidence given by P.W.3 in Departmental Proceedings against accused No.2 is marked by confronting as Ex.D1 and later re-numbered as Ex.D2.
15. The Prosecution case stems from complaint given by P.W.1 to Lokayukta Police, alleging demand of bribe by accused No.1, for clearing the notice given by Divisional Controller against him and also for getting his transfer from Depot. No.32. As per complaint, P.W.1 approached Divisional Controller, who has promised to attend his work later. Then accused No.1 who is driver of Divisional Controller has contacted P.W.1 on 08-06-2012 and demanded Rs.10,000/- for clearing the notice for having found Rs.84/- less with him while doing official duty and Rs.5,000/- for getting him transferred from Depot No.32. P.W.1 recorded this conversation with accused No.1 on 08-06-2012 in Voice recorder and along with recording, he gave complaint as per Ex.P1. After registration of the case, P.W.1 secured P.Ws.3 and 5 as panch witnesses and P.W.1 was introduced to them and they have ascertained the veracity of complaint. P.W.1 produced Rs.5,000/- in denomination of 1,000x1 and 500x8 and number of notes were noted down as per Ex.P6 and phenolphthalein powder was smeared on the notes and thereafter, P.W.3 has verified the notes again and kept tainted notes in right side pant pocket of complainant. Thereafter, sodium carbonate solution was prepared and hands of P.W.3 were washed in solution and the solution which turned to pink 13 Spl.C.C.No.18/2013 colour, was seized in bottle. Voice recorder produced by complainant was played before panch witnesses and recorded conversation was transmitted to C.D. as per M.O.15 and two parts of conversations were transcribed as per Exs.P8 and P9 and signatures of panch witnesses were taken. P.W.1 was given instructions to meet accused No.1 in his office and to enquire about work and to give tainted notes, only in case of demand and then to give signal, either by giving missed call to P.W.7 or by wiping head. Button camera and voice recorder were also given to P.W.1 with direction to switch on the same while meeting accused and panch witnesses were also asked to follow P.W.1 and to observe the happenings and to report later. Pre-Trap Mahazar was prepared as per Ex.P7.
16. On the same day, i.e., on 13-06-2012 the trap team went to office of accused and P.W.1 went to office to meet accused and as accused No.1 had left office at 3.00 p.m. he came back and trap attempt was postponed to next day and tainted notes were kept in safe custody and voice recorder and button camera were kept with I.O. and return mahazar was prepared as per Ex.P2 and panch witnesses and complainant were asked to come on the next day. On 14-06- 2012, again Trap Team gathered in Lokayukta office and tainted notes were kept in pant pocket of P.W.1 and instructions were reminded and at 11.00 a.m. Trap Team went towards office of accused and after parking vehicle at a distance, P.W.1 and P.W.5 were sent to meet accused No.1 and 14 Spl.C.C.No.18/2013 P.W.1 was given digital voice recorder. P.W.1 entered Office of accused No.1 and met him. Accused No.1 asked P.W.1 to come at 8.00 a.m. near bus stand in Hosur Main New Road on next day, along with demanded amount and also transfer application. This conversation was found recorded in voice recorder. Then trap team came back to Lokayukta office and another return mahazar was prepared as per Ex.P11 and signatures were taken. Recordings in voice recorder were played and transmitted to C.D. as per M.O.17 and transcribed as per Ex.P10. Investigating officer asked trap team members to come in the early morning on 15-06-02012.
17. It is further case of the Prosecution that on 15-06- 2012, again Trap Team gathered in Lokayukta office and Pre- Trap procedures were followed again and Pre-Trap Mahazar, as per Ex.P3, was prepared and signatures were taken and they proceeded towards Hosur Main New Road and reached there at about 7.05 a.m. Near Bus stand, in Hosur New Main Road, P.W.1 waited for accused No.1 and also made a phone call to accused No.1 and he told P.W.1 that he will come there. Other members of Trap Team scattered themselves nearby and waited for signal from P.W.1. At about 8.30 AM, accused No.1 came near Bus stand and started talking with P.W.1 and then they both went near Sri Lakshmi Venkateshwara Glass and Plywood shop nearby and accused No.1 asked where is application and amount. Then, P.W.1 gave transfer application and Rs.5,000/- tainted notes to accused No.1 and he informed 15 Spl.C.C.No.18/2013 that, he will give it to his officer. Immediately, P.W.1 gave signal to Trap Team and they came and caught hold of accused No.1 and hands of accused No.1 were washed in solution and tainted notes, which were found in right side pant pocket of accused No.1, were taken out and kept in a cover. Accused No.1 was arrested. Accused No.1 informed that, he have to give that amount and transfer application to accused No.2. Then on instructions of I.O., Accused No.1 made a phone call to Accused No.2 and he asked accused No.1 to come to house and not to talk in phone. Then it was decided to trap accused No.2 by using accused No.1. Accordingly, tainted notes were again kept in pant pocket of accused No.1 and voice recorder was given to him and he was instructed to meet accused No.2 and to give the tainted notes and they all proceeded towards house of Accused No.2 in BTM layout. Accused No.1 went inside house of Accused No.2 and then came out and informed that he has given the amount to accused No.2, along with transfer application. Thereafter, Trap Team entered the house and trap procedures were followed. Hands of accused No.2 were washed in the solution and the solution turned to pink colour and was seized. Accused No.2 informed that he has kept amount and transfer application in cupboard in Bed room and took Trap Team to cupboard and then tainted notes were recovered from cupboard and thereafter, they went to B.M.T.C. office, wherein file pertaining to work of complainant was seized as per Ex.P21 and transfer 16 Spl.C.C.No.18/2013 application was also seized as per Ex.P22. Accused No.1 and 2 have given Written Explanation as per Exs.P23 and P24, which was not acceptable. Accused No.2 was arrested in his house, by following procedure and accused were produced before the Court. Trap Mahazar was prepared as per Ex.P4 and signatures of panch witnesses were taken and copy of mahazar is also furnished to accused No.1 and 2. Investigating Officer continued investigation and as offence is found to have been committed by both accused, he has prepared final report and obtained Prosecution Sanction Order against accused No.1 and 2, as per Exs.P13 and P5, respectively and then filed the charge sheet.
18. There are two parts in this case. Complaint was given against accused No.1 and FIR was lodged against him. In the first part, accused No.1 was trapped on 15-6-2012 in Hosur Main New Road. In the second part, as accused No.1 informed that he have to give that amount and transfer application to accused No.2, second trap was planned and then accused No.2 was trapped by using accused No.1. Charge sheet has been filed against both accused. First part in which accused No.1 is said to have been trapped is relevant for consideration at this stage, as these Points are related to commission of offence by accused No.1 under Prevention of Corruption Act.
19. Complainant -P.W.1 and panch witnesses, P.W.3 and 17 Spl.C.C.No.18/2013 5 have supported the Prosecution case and have stated the happenings as found in prosecution case with minor deviation here and there. Following of pre-trap procedure in Lokayukta office and attempts made to trap accused No.1 on 13-06- 2012, 14-06-2012 and then trap of accused No.1 in the morning of 15-06-2012, in Hosur Main new Road, near bus stand and Plywood shop are all stated by these witnesses. Complainant meeting accused No.1 on 14-06-2012 is stated by both P.Ws.1 and 3. However, P.W.5 has stated that he was informed by P.W.1 that accused No.1 was not in office and when P.W.1 called Accused No.1, he asked P.W.1 to come with money and transfer application on 15-06-2012. Except minor contradictions, all the three witnesses have reiterated the prosecution case in their chief evidence. They have clearly stated about trap of accused No.1 near Plywood shop and Bus stand, in Hosur Main New Road and stated that P.W.1 and accused No.1 talked for sometime and then went towards Plywood shop and there, complainant gave tainted notes to Accused No.1 and then gave signal and Trap Team surrounded them and hand wash of accused No.1 was done and tainted notes, which were in front right side pant pocket of accused No.1, was taken out and was kept in a cover.
20. In his cross-examination, P.W.1 has admitted about several notices issued against him and also departmental enquiry conducted against him and also admitted his evidence given in departmental enquiry as per Ex.D1. He has 18 Spl.C.C.No.18/2013 stated that he did not obtain the acknowledgement for giving transfer application earlier. He has admitted that on 14-06- 2012 he was possessing tainted currency notes, but accused No.1 has not made any demand and he told him to come to Hosur Road on the next day. P.W.1 has denied that he met accused No.1 and told him that on the next day he will come along with application and requested him to get him transfered, by requesting accused No.2. He has admitted that on 15-06-2012 he gave transfer application in the hands of accused No.1 for giving it to accused No.2 and has stated that amount which was given to accused No.1 was kept in an envelope. In his cross-examination for accused No.1, P.W.1 has admitted that he was not having any difficulty to give transfer application directly to accused No.2 and has stated that accused No.1 had asked money on behalf of accused No.2. He has denied that as accused No.2 did not entertain transfer application, he tried to approach accused No.1 and has denied that, as he was not getting transfer, he tried to trap accused No.1 and gave false complaint. He has denied that accused No.1 has not demanded any money from him. He has denied that as his probation was not declared and enquiries were pending, he decided to trap accused No.2 through his driver- accused No.1 and gave false complaint.
21. In his cross examination, P.W.3 has stated that complainant had not produced any document in Lokayukta office to show that his work is pending with accused No.1. He 19 Spl.C.C.No.18/2013 has admitted that on 14-06-2012 complainant alone had gone inside the office and he had not accompanied him and he has not observed whether accused No.1 was present. He has stated that on 15-06-2012 as complainant has told that accused No.1 has asked him to come to Hosur Main New Road, they all went to Hosur Main New Road and there were several persons at the Bus stand. He has stated that when complainant went to meet accused No.1, he was not with complainant, but they all were observing complainant and admitted that after complainant giving signal, they surrounded accused No.1 and apprehended him. He has admitted that trap Mahazar was prepared in Lokayukta Office. P.W.5 in his cross-examination has admitted that accused No.1 is a car driver of accused No.2 and is not an officer. He has admitted that on 13-06-2012 and 14-06-2012 he had not gone inside the chamber of Accused No.2 and stated that accused No.1 asking complainant to come to Hosur main New Road, was recorded in digital voice recorder. He has denied that Lokayukta Police Inspector asked accused No.1 to pick-out cover from right side pant pocket and thereafter, his hands were washed. P.W.5 has admitted that, after arresting accused No.1, he was taken to house of accused No.2. P.W.8- Investigating Officer, in his cross-examination, has stated that accused No.1 was arrested at 9.00 a.m. and has stated that public witnesses present in Hosur Main new Road were not secured and admitted that after arresting accused No.1 he 20 Spl.C.C.No.18/2013 was used to trap accused No.2. He has denied that after taking accused No.1 into custody, he has taken his written explanation, as per Ex.P3.
22. According to Prosecution, P.W.1 had approached Divisional Controller for closing the notice given to him and also for transfer from Depot No.32. Thereafter, accused No.1, who was driver of Divisional Controller, has met him and demanded bribe amount to get his done through Divisional Controller. The total amount demanded by accused No.1 as per Ex.P1-complaint is Rs.10,000/- for closure of the notice and Rs.5,000/- for transfer. Though no documents were produced by P.W.1, while giving complaint, evidence of P.W.1 and his cross-examination clearly show that several notices were issued against P.W.1 for misappropriation, negligence in duty or for some lapses on his part in discharge of duty. P.W.1 was also interested in getting transfer from Depot No.32. The documents seized during investigation show several notices given to complainant for several lapses in his duty. According to P.W.1 and also Ex.P1-complaint, accused No.1, who is driver of accused No.2, had demanded bribe amount from complainant to get him transferred from Depot No.32 and also to close the notice given to him. Though, P.W.1 has stated about reply given to notice given to him and also about giving transfer application to Divisional Controller, in the file seized from the Office, no such reply or transfer application is forthcoming. Along with complaint, no documents were 21 Spl.C.C.No.18/2013 produced by complainant. Ex.P22, is Transfer Application which is given on 15-06-2012, i.e., the date of trap. Therefore, there are no materials to hold that P.W.1 had given transfer application earlier and in respect of the same, accused No.1 approached him and demanded bribe. Similarly, even in respect of notice issued to P.W.1 by Divisional Controller, no reply is found to have been given by Accused No.1. When reply itself is not given to notice issued, possibility of P.W.1 approaching Accused No.1 for closing the notice is very less. Though Prosecution case is further developed, by considering explanation of accused No.1 that, on the say of accused No.2, accused No.1 had demanded bribe and received the same on the date of trap, fact remains that, complaint was given against accused No.1 on his demand of bribe from complainant. When transfer application itself was not given in office and reply to notice was also not given, Accused No.1 promising to get the alleged work done through Accused No.2 cannot be believed. On the date of complaint, no application for transfer was pending and Accused No.1 was only driver. Hence with regard to transfer of P.W.1 from Depot No.32, no work was pending with accused No.1 as on date of complaint. For the offence under section 7 of P.C.Act, bribe must be as a motive or reward to do official work or favour. When no official work of complainant was pending and Accused No.1 had no capacity to do any official favour to complainant, question of accused No.1 approaching 22 Spl.C.C.No.18/2013 P.W.1 and demanding bribe does not rise. It is not stated in the complaint that Accused No.1 demanded bribe on behalf of Accused No.2.
23. For the offences under Section 7 and 13(1)(d) of Prevention of Corruption Act, demand of illegal gratification by accused is must and only on proof of demand, acceptance and recovery of amount becomes relevant. According to Prosecution, before giving complaint, accused No.1 made demand for illegal gratification of Rs.5,000/- for transfer and Rs.10,000/- for closing the notice on 08-06-2012. On 14.06.2012, when complainant went to office of Divisional Controller, to trap Accused No.1, he is said to have asked complainant to bring amount and the transfer application on 15-06-2012 near Bus stand of Hosur Main New Road. P.W.3 and 5 have stated that thay had not accompanied P.W.1 on 14-06-2012,. Hence they have not seen P.W.1 meeting accused No.1 on that day. As per Prosecution case, on 15-06- 2012 in Hosur Main New Road, near Plywood shop, accused No.1 demanded and then received tainted notes. P.W.3 or 5 or Investigation Officer P.W.7 appears to have not heard any such specific demand by Accused No.1 before receiving tainted notes on 15-06-2012.
24. To prove the alleged demand of bribe, Prosecution is relying on recordings made by P.W.1 in voice recorder on 08- 06-2012, which is transmitted during pre-trap proceedings, to 23 Spl.C.C.No.18/2013 C.D., as per M.O.15 and transcribed as per Exs.P8 and P9. Even on 14-06-2012, conversation with accused No.1 is stated to have been recorded in voice recorder and then transmitted to C.D. as per M.O.17 and transcribed as per Ex.P10. Even on 15-06-2012, conversation between P.W.1 and accused No.1 and then, accused No.1 and accused No.2, are stated to have been recorded in voice recorder and transmitted to C.D., as per M.O.18 and transcribed as per Ex.P12. These recordings are stated to have been played before P.W.6 and he has submitted report as per Ex.P17. However, report of P.W.6 is regarding identification of voice of accused No.2 and not that of accused No.1. Evidence of P.W.6 do not help the prosecution to prove the voice of accused No.1 in these recordings. Hence, voice of Accused No.1 in these recordings are not identified by any Expert or by any person acquainted with his voice. As admitted by P.W.7, no Certificate under Section 65B of Indian Evidence Act is obtained in respect of these C.Ds. and transcriptions. Call details are also secured as per Ex.P29 by P.W.7 in the course of investigation. In respect of these call details also, certificate under Section 65B of Indian Evidence Act is not produced.
25. In a decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court reported in 2014 AIR SCW 5695 (Anvar P.V -Vs- P.K.Basheer and others), has clearly held that, when secondary evidence of electronic records are produced before the Court, they cannot be admitted in evidence, unless 24 Spl.C.C.No.18/2013 secondary evidence is accompanied by certificate under Section 65-B of Indian Evidence Act. Admittedly, the original device, in which these recordings are stated to have been made, are not seized and produced before the Court. The C.Ds. and transcriptions are secondary evidence of electronic records. In the absence of certificate u/s 65B of Indian Evidence Act, as held in this decision, these C.Ds. and transcriptions are not admissible in evidence.
26. Even in respect of call details- Ex.P29, in a decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Crl. Appeal No.2539/2014 (Harpal Singh vs. State of Punjab), dated 21-11-2016, in para No.11, it is held as under:
"... ... As apparently the prosecution has relied upon the secondary evidence in the form of printed copy of the call details, even assuming that the mandate of Section 65(2) had been complied with, in absence of certificate under Section 65B(4), the same has to be held inadmissible in evidence."
27. In the absence of these records, evidence of P.W.1 is the only evidence available to prove alleged demand by accused No.1 on 08-06-2012, 14-06-2012 and on 15-06-2012. P.W.1 in his chief evidence has stated about demand made by accused. In his cross-examination he has admitted several actions taken against him for his lapses in service. When no work was pending with Accused No.1 and he was only driver of Accused No.2 and had no capacity to do any favour to 25 Spl.C.C.No.18/2013 P.W.1, demand of bribe by accused No.1 cannot be established on the only evidence of P.W.1, without any corroboration. P.W.3 or 5 have not stated about any demand of bribe by Accused No.1 on 14-06-2012 or 15-06-2012. It is suggested in the cross examination of P.W.1, that he had requested Accused No.1 to help him by requesting Accused No.2 for transfer of P.W.1 and to give transfer application to Accused No.2. Since both accused No.1 and P.W.1 are working in same department as drivers, possibility of such request cannot be ruled out. Moreover, on the day of trap, Ex.P.22 transfer application was given by P.W.1 to Accused No.1 at the spot. Hence, circumstantial evidence of Accused No.1 meeting P.W.1 in Hosur Main New Road, will not be sufficient to presume that Accused No.1 met him there in furtherance of his demand of bribe. Therefore, Prosecution has failed to prove that accused No.1 had demanded bribe amount from complainant to get him transferred from Depot. No.32 and also to close and clear the notice issued to him by Divisional Controller.
28. Coming to the acceptance and recovery of tainted notes from accused No.1, all the witnesses have stated that on 14-06-2012 accused No.1 asked complainant to come at 8.00 a.m. in Hosur Main New Road on 15-06-2012 along with money and also transfer application. Except P.W.1, none of the witnesses have stated that they have heard the Accused No.1 asking complaint to come with money and transfer application on next day. As admitted by P.W.1, on 14-06-2012 26 Spl.C.C.No.18/2013 tainted notes were with him when he met Accused No.1. Tainted notes are not given to Accused No.1 on that day as he is said to have asked P.W.1 to write transfer application. If accused No.1 had really demanded bribe, he would have received the same on 14-06-2012, when P.W.1 met him and would not have postponed the receipt of amount. On 15-06- 2012, P.W.3 or 5 have not seen the Complainant giving tainted notes to Accused No.1. P.W.1 has stated that he had given transfer application in the hands of Accused No.1 in cover. If that is so, there is possibility of Accused no.1 receiving transfer application to give it to Accused No.2 without knowing about tainted notes which were with transfer application. Therefore, all these events, circumstances and evidence of P.Ws.1, 3, 5 and 7 would raise serious doubt about accused No.1 receiving tainted notes from P.W.1 as illegal gratification along with transfer application in furtherance of his alleged demand. Therefore, the first part of the Prosecution case about demand of illegal gratification by accused No.1 and acceptance of tainted notes by accused No.1 and its recovery from him, are not established in the present case.
29. Learned counsel for Accused No.1 has drawn my attention to a decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court, reported in 2014 Crl.L.J. 2433 (B.Jayaraj vs. State of A.P.) wherein, Hon'ble Supreme Court has held in para 7 as under:
27 Spl.C.C.No.18/2013" 7. In so far as the offence under Section 7 is concerned, it is a settled position in law that demand of illegal gratification in sine qua non to constitute the said offence and mere recovery of currency notes cannot constitute the offence under Section 7 unless it is proved beyond all reasonable doubt that the accused voluntarily accepted the money knowing it to be a bribe. ... ... ... "
It is also held in this decision in para 8 as under:
" ... ... ... Mere possession and recovery of the currency notes from the accused without proof of demand will not bring home the offence under Section
7. The above also will be conclusive insofar as the offence under Section 13(1)(d)(i)(ii) is concerned as in the absence of any proof of demand for illegal gratification, the use of corrupt or illegal means or abuse of position as a public servant to obtain any valuable thing or pecuniary advantage cannot be held to be established."
In the present case, demand of bribe by accused No.1 and its acceptance are not satisfactorily established, as discussed above.
30. Similarly, in another decision reported in AIR 2014 SC 3798 (Satvir Singh v. State of Delhi thru. CBI) another decision in Mukut Bihari and anr., is refereed in para 11 wherein it is held that:
"11. ... ... ... The complainant is an interested and partisan witness concerned with the success of the trap and his evidence must be tested in the same way as that of any other interested witness and in a proper case the court may look for independent corroboration before convicting the accused person."
In the present case evidence of P.W.1 is not corroborated 28 Spl.C.C.No.18/2013 by evidence of P.W.3 and 5 regarding demand and acceptance.
31. When demand and acceptance of bribe amount by accused No.1 are not proved, even presumption under Section 20 of the Prevention of Corruption Act cannot be drawn against accused No.1. Even otherwise, as discussed above P.W.1 had not given transfer application and even reply to notice issued. Hence no work of complainant was pending in Divisional Controller's Office and Accused No.1 had no capacity to do any official favour to P.W.1. Hence even if there is any presumption, such presumption stands rebutted. For all these reasons, Prosecution has failed to prove demand and acceptance of bribe amount by accused No.1. Commission of any offence under Section 7 of Prevention of Corruption Act by accused No.1 is not proved in this case. Similarly, accused No.1 accepting pecuniary advantage of Rs.5,000/- without any public interest by illegal means and by abusing his position as public servant is also not established. Hence any act of criminal misconduct on the part of Accused No.1 is not established. Accordingly commission of offence u/s 13(1)(d) r/w Section 13(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act by accused No.1 is not established. Accordingly, Point Nos.2 and 3 are answered in the Negative.
32. Point Nos. 3 and 4 : Since both these Points are inter-linked with each other, they are taken together for 29 Spl.C.C.No.18/2013 discussion to avoid repetition.
33. As per the Prosecution case, after trap of accused No.1, on questioning, accused No.1 informed that he has received the amount on behalf of accused No.2 and he have to give transfer application and amount to accused No.2 and then, Trap Team planed to trap accused No.2 by using accused No.1. It is the Prosecution case that, accused No.1 was made to contact accused No. 2 and to inform about receipt of amount and application and when accused No.1 contacted accused No.2 by phone, accused No.2 is stated to have asked him to come to his house and not to talk in the phone. To establish the phone call made by accused No.1 to accused No.2, though call details are secured and produced as per Ex.P29, as discussed in Point Nos.2 and 3, these call details are not admissible in evidence. As per the Prosecution case, when Trap Team went to house of accused No.2 in B.T.M. Layout, accused No.1 was alone sent along with transfer application of complainant and tainted notes kept in his pant pocket and he alone entered the house and after few minutes, he came out and informed that he has given tainted notes and also transfer application to accused No.2. As per prosecution case, thereafter, Trap Team entered house and followed trap procedure and on the say of accused No.2, tainted notes and application were seized from cupboard where it was kept and hand wash of accused No.2 was also made and he was also arrested. After investigation, charge 30 Spl.C.C.No.18/2013 sheet is filed even against accused No.2. The witnesses- P.Ws.1, 3, 5 and 7 have stated about trap of accused No.2. P.W.6 has stated about identifying the voice of accused No.2 in the recordings, played before him.
34. Ex.P1-Complaint is against accused No.1. Though it is stated in Ex.P.1 that, complainant has met the Divisional Controller, name of accused No.2 or that he demanding bribe is not mentioned. Demand of bribe amount is sine-quo-non for the offences under Section 7 and 13(1)(d) of Prevention of Corruption Act, as held in the decision reported in 2014 Crl.L.J. 2433 (B.Jayaraj vs. State of A.P.) referred above. In the entire complaint and in the evidence of P.W.1, there is no reference to any demand of bribe made by accused No.2 directly. Though P.W.6 has stated that, he has identified voice of Accused No.2 in the recordings played before him, C.D., which was produced by complainant at the time of giving complaint, as per M.O.15 and its transcription at Exs.P8 and P9, does not contain voice of accused No.2. Similarly, conversation stated to have been recorded on 14-06-2012, is between complainant and accused No.1 and produced as per M.O.17 and transcription is at Ex.P10. Even there, there is no voice of accused No.2. On 15-06-2012, when accused No.1 made phone call to accused No.2, accused No.2 is said to have talked to him and told him to come to house and this has been recorded and at the time of trap of accused No.2, his conversation is said to have been recorded. As per the 31 Spl.C.C.No.18/2013 prosecution case, these recordings are in C.D. at M.O.18 and transcription at Ex.P12. Therefore, which voice of accused No.2 is identified by P.W.6, itself is not clear from the trap mahazar and also the evidence of P.W.6. Even in Ex.P12 there is no any demand of bribe amount by accused No.2. Apart from all this, these CDs and transcriptions are not admissible in evidence.
35. On looking to the entire case, till accused No.1 was trapped and amount was seized from him, there is no reference to accused No.2. After trap of accused No.1, he has told that, he have to give this amount and transfer application to accused No.2. Then, Investigating Officer planned to trap accused No.2 and then gave amount to accused No.1 with instruction to give it to accused No.2. There is absolutely no evidence before the Court to show that accused No.2 had asked accused No.1 to collect the amount and give it to him. It is stated in trap mahazar-Ex.P4 that, after taking the amount from accused No.1, amount was kept in the cover. Transfer application was also with the accused No.1 and along with amount, transfer application is also stated to have been given to accused No.2 at the time of his trap. Therefore, it appears that the amount was in the cover when it is said to have been given to accused No.2, along with transfer application. Ex.P.4 do not say that tainted notes which were kept in cover after recovering from Accused No.1, were taken out of cover and then directly kept in pant pocket 32 Spl.C.C.No.18/2013 of accused No.1. There is no clear evidence stating that tainted notes and transfer application given to accused No.2 by accused No.1 were not in the cover. If it was in the cover, there is no evidence to say that accused No.2 was informed by accused No.1 that amount is in cover and Accused No.2, with full knowledge about amount in the cover has received the same. What transpired between accused No.1 and 2 inside the house of accused No.2 is not known to any other members of the Trap Team.
36. Admittedly, accused No.1 was arrested at 9.00 a.m. on 15-06-2012 in Hosur Main New Road. Ex.P30 and P32, intimation of arrest, clearly show that on 15-06-2012 at 9.00 a.m., accused No.1 was arrested. Trap Team, along with accused No.1, went to house of accused No.2 at 10.15 a.m. Therefore, after arrest of accused No.1, as found in Exs.P30 and P32, accused No.1 was used to trap accused No.2. When accused No.1 was sent to house of accused No.2 with transfer application and tainted notes, no shadow witness or complainant were with him. Accused No.1 entered the house of accused No.2 and after few minutes he came out and then stated that he has given transfer application and amount. Since accused No.1 himself had demanded and accepted the bribe amount, his statement after he being arrested, is not sufficient to prove the guilt of accused No.2. In the house of accused No.2, amount is said to have been kept in cupboard and from there it was seized. As admitted by P.W.7, though, 33 Spl.C.C.No.18/2013 generally, in trap cases, they swipe the place where tainted notes were found, with cotton to confirm that tainted notes were recovered from that place, in this case, that place was not swiped. Since accused No.1 was already arrested at 9.00 a.m. and he was sent to meet accused No.2, without corroboration by any other witnesses, acceptance of bribe amount by accused No.2 does not get established.
37. In a decision of Hon'ble High Court reported in 2016 Crl.L.J. 3066 (R.Srinivasan and anr. vs. State by Police Inspector, Lokayukta), in para 72, it is held as under:
"72. As such, 2nd accused who was accused of having allegedly demanded and received bribe of Rs. 30,000/-, cannot be asked to be a witness to pay the same to accused No.1, that too, at the instance of the IO who had already taken the 2nd accused into his custody. This procedure adopted by the IO in the present case is virtually unknown to law and established procedure. Even drawing up a comprehensive mahazar in respect of alleged receipt of bribe money by accused Nos.1 and 2 at two different places is also unknown to law."
As held in this decision, using accused No.1, who was already arrested at 9.00 a.m. to trap accused No.2, is not acceptable and is unknown to law. Therefore, trap of accused No.2 through accused No.1, as contended by Prosecution is not established in this case.
38. Whether accused No.1 has given tainted notes and transfer application to accused No.2 inside his house or whether accused No.1 himself has kept those notes and 34 Spl.C.C.No.18/2013 transfer application in the house of accused No.2, would not be established in the absence of any evidence. As person who gave amount to accused No.2 is also accused and he is not a witness in this case, there is no evidence to establish demand and acceptance of bribe by Accused No.2. Looking from any angle, accused No.2 demanding bribe amount from complainant or directing accused No.1 to demand bribe from complainant to attend his work of transfer and closing of the notice and accused No.2 accepting tainted notes as illegal gratification from complainant through Accused No.1, is not established in this case. Though the witnesses have stated about hand wash of accused No.2 turning to pink colour and about seizure of tainted notes and transfer application from cupboard of the house of accused No.2 in the bed room, that itself does not prove guilt of accused No.2, without proof of demand and acceptance. As held in B.Jayaraj case referred above, mere possession and recovery of currency notes from accused, without proof of demand, will not bring home the offences under Section 7. In the absence of proof of demand for illegal gratification, use of corrupt or illegal means by abusing of position as a public servant to obtain any pecuniary advantage, cannot be held to be established as required under Section 13(1)(d) of Prevention of Corruption Act. In this case, as against accused No.2, demand of bribe amount is not established. Even acceptance of tainted notes by accused No.2 from accused No.1, is not established. Even 35 Spl.C.C.No.18/2013 very procedure followed to trap accused No.2 through another accused, who was in custody of Investigating Officer, is not acceptable as held in the decision referred above. For all these reasons, Prosecution has failed to prove the commission of alleged offence by accused No.2. Accordingly, Point Nos.4 and 5 are answered in the Negative.
39. Point No.6:- For the discussion on above Points, following Order is passed:
ORDER Accused No.1 and 2 are found not guilty. Acting under Section 235(1) of Cr.P.C. Accused No. 1 and 2 are acquitted from the charges levelled against them for the offences under Sections 7, 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.The bail bond executed by Accused No.1 and 2
and their surety stands canceled.
M.O.2-Cash of Rs.5,000/- is ordered to be confiscated to the State Government, after expiry of appeal period.
M.O.3-Metal Seal is ordered to be returned to Karnataka Lokayukta Police, after expiry of appeal period.
M.Os.1 and 4 to 19 are ordered to be destroyed, after expiry of appeal period, as are worthless.
(Dictated to the Judgment Writer, transcribed by her, corrected, signed by me and then pronounced in the Open Court on this the 9 th Day of October, 2018).
(Ravindra Hegde), LXXVIII Addl.City Civil & Sessions Judge (PCA), Bengaluru.36 Spl.C.C.No.18/2013
ANNEXURE List of witnesses examined for the prosecution:
P.W.1 - Rayagondappa P.W.2 - Manjunath Prasad P.W.3 - R.Murthy P.W.4 - Dr.K.Ramamurthy P.W.5 - Venkataramanaiah P.W.6 - Arun Chidanand John Bethal P.W.7 - Puttaswamy.H.P. List of documents exhibited for the prosecution:
Ex.P1 - Complaint P1(a) - Signature of P.W.1 P1(b) - Signature of P.W.7 Ex.P2 - Returned back Mahazar P2(a) - Signature of P.W.1 P2(b) - Signature of P.W.3 P2(c) - Signature of P.W.5 P2(d) - Signature of P.W.7 Ex.P3 - Pre-trap Mahazar dtd.15-06-2012 P3(a) - Signature of P.W.1 P3(b) - Signature of P.W.3 P3(c) - Signature of P.W.5 P3(d) - Signature of P.W.7 Ex.P4 - Trap Mahazar dtd.15-0-2012 P4(a) - Signature of P.W.1 P4(b) - Signature of P.W.3 P4(c) - Signature of P.W.5 P4(d) - Signature of P.W.7 Ex.P5 - Prosecution Sanction Order P5(a) - Signature of P.W.2 Ex.P6 - Sheet containing note numbers P6(a) - Signature of P.W.3 P6(b) - Signature of P.W.5 P6(c) - Signature of P.W.7 Ex.P7 - Pre-trap panchanama P7(a) - Signature of P.W.3 37 Spl.C.C.No.18/2013 P7(b) - Signature of P.W.5 P7(c) - Signature of P.W.7 Exs.P8 & P9 - Transcribed notes P8(a) & P9(a) - Signatures of P.W.3 P8(b) & P9(b) - Signatures of P.W.5 P8(c) & P9(c) - Signatures of P.W.7 Ex.P10 - Transcribed sheet P10(a) - Signature of P.W.3 P10(b) - Signature of P.W.7 Ex.P11 - Failure of trap Panchanama P11(a) - Signature of P.W.3 P11(b) - Signature of P.W.5 P11(c) - Signature of P.W.7 Ex.P12 - Transcripted sheet P12(a) - Signature of P.W.3 P12(b) - Signature of P.W.5 Ex.P13 - Prosecution Sanction Order P13(a) - Signature of P.W.4 Ex.P14 - Service Particulars of accused No.1 P14(a) - Signature of P.W.4 Ex.P15 - Acknowledgment of seal P15(a) - Signature of P.W.5 Ex.P16 - Sample seal of metal seal P16(a) Signature of P.W.5 Ex.P17 - Report given by P.W.6 P17(a) - Signature of P.W.6 Ex.P18 - FIR P18(a) - Signature of P.W.7 Ex.P19 - Rough Sketch of the spot Ex.P20 - Rough sketch when A.1 was caught Ex.P21 - File pertaining to work of complainant Ex.P22 - Transfer Application of complainant Ex.P23 - Written Explanation given by Accused No.1 Ex.P24 - Written Explanation given by accused No.2 Ex.P25 - Spot sketch where A.1 was trapped Ex.P26 - Spot sketch where A.2 was trapped Ex.P27 - Service details of A.2 Ex.P28 - Chemical Examination Report Ex.P29 - Call Details of mobile number of A.1 38 Spl.C.C.No.18/2013 P29(a) - Signature of P.W.7 Ex.P30 - Page No.50(E) of Charge Sheet P30(a) - Signature of P.W.7 Ex.P31-Arrest information at page 50D of charge sheet P31(a) - Signature of P.W.7 Ex.P32 - Arrest intimation of Accused No.1 P32(a) - Signature of P.W.7 Evidence adduced on behalf of the defence:
Nil Documents marked on behalf of the defence: Ex.D1 - Certified copy of Deposition of P.W.1 in Departmental Proceedings Ex.D2 - certified copy of Evidence given by P.W.3 in Departmental Proceedings against A.2 Material Objects marked by Prosecution: M.O.1 - Pant M.O.2 - Cash of Rs.5,000/- in denomination of Rs.1000 x 1 and 500 x 8 M.O.3 - Metal Seal M.O.4 to 14 - Bottles containing solutions labelled as Article Nos.1, 2, 3, 7 to 14. M.O.15 to 19 - C.Ds. in the cover M.O.15(a) to 19(a) - Covers (Ravindra Hegde), LXXVIII Addl.City Civil & Sessions Judge (PCA), Bengaluru.
***