Bangalore District Court
The State Of Karnataka vs Mr. K. Gangadhara on 30 May, 2023
1 Spl.C.C. No.193/2021
KABC010055522021
IN THE COURT OF THE XXIII ADDL.CITY CIVIL & SESSIONS
JUDGE AND SPECIAL JUDGE ( P.C. Act) BENGALURU
(C.C.H.No.24)
Dated: This the 30th day of May, 2023
:PRESENT:
LAKSHMINARAYANA BHAT K.
XXIII Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge
and Special Judge ( P.C. Act),
Bengaluru Urban District, Bengaluru City.
Spl. CC. No.193/2021
Complainant The State of Karnataka, represented
by the Deputy Superintendent of
Police, (the then Anti Corruption
Bureau,) presently Karnataka
Lokayukta Police Wing, Bengaluru
Urban, Bengaluru.
(By the Public Prosecutor)
-Versus-
Accused 1 Mr. K. Gangadhara,
S/o.Keshava Murthy,
Aged 50 years,
House No.35, Near Anjaneya Temple,
Kodigehalli, Sahakaranagara post,
Bengaluru.
2 Spl.C.C. No.193/2021
7 Mr. Lakshminarayana
S/o.Anjinappa,
Aged 32 years,
Residing at No.144, Kodigehalli Main
Road,
Maruthi Nagara, Sahakara Nagara
(post), Bengaluru-92
(A-1 By Sri Arun G., Advocate
A-7 by Sri N.B.G., Advocate)
ORDER
The Police Inspector, the then Anti Corruption Bureau, (in short the 'ACB') Bengaluru presently the Karnataka Lokayuktha Police Wing, Bengaluru City Division has filed the charge sheet against the accused No.1 to 7 for the offences punishable under Sections 7A and 12 of The Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (in short the "PC Act").
2. The genesis of the prosecution case as narrated in the charge sheet are that the police received credible information that the Sub-Registrar along with officials working in the office of Sub-Registrar, Tata Nagar, Byatarayanapura, Bengaluru are collecting undue advantage from the general public through private persons. 3 Spl.C.C. No.193/2021 In this background on 25.11.2019 the ACB Police conducted raid on the office of the Sub-Registrar, Byataranayapura. During the search and seizure the prosecution has stated it was revealed the accused were involved in collecting money from the general public in addition to the registration fee and stamp duty towards undue advantage. The arrested accused No.1,4,5 and 7 were produced before the Court and subsequently they were enlarged on bail. After completion of investigation the police filed the charge sheet.
3. After taking cognizance of the offence presence of the accused came to be secured and they were enlarged on bail. After reporting the death as per order dated 5.8.2021 proceedings against the accused No.2 came to be abated. After hearing both parties, in pursuance of order dated 22.4.2022 the accused No.3 to 6 were discharged as provided under Section 227 of the Cr.P.C. The charges were framed against the accused No.1 and 7 and they pleaded not guilty of the offence and claimed trial. 4 Spl.C.C. No.193/2021
4. In order to bring home the guilt of the accused the prosecution has examined Pw.1 to 12 witnesses and produced Ex.P1 to P-25 documents. After conclusion of the prosecution side evidence necessary questions were framed regarding the incriminating circumstances appearing in the evidence against the accused. The accused were examined under Section 313(1)(b) of the Cr.P.C. They did not choose to lead any evidence in their defence.
5. Heard the arguments. After analytical appreciation of the oral and documentary evidence placed on record by the prosecution and defence of the accused, from the facts and circumstances of the case the points that would arise for the determination of this court are :
1. Whether the prosecution beyond reasonable doubts prove the fact that the accused No.1 on 23.11.2019 accepted and obtained Rs.15,000/-5 Spl.C.C. No.193/2021
from Cw.17 and 19 and on 25.11.2019 obtained Rs.15,000/- from Cw.12 and 13 undue advantage for the officers and staff working in the office of the Sub-Registrar, Bengaluru as motive or reward to induce them with corrupt and illegal means and to cause performance of the public duty improperly and dishonestly and thereby guilty of the charge under Section 7A of the PC Act framed against him?
2. Whether the prosecution beyond reasonable doubts prove the fact that on 25.11.2019 the accused No.7 accepted and obtained Rs.10,000/-
undue advantage from Cw.21 - Mr. Vasanth Kumar in order to make payment to the officers and officials working in the office of the Sub-
Registrar, Bengaluru as motive or
reward to induce them by corrupt and
illegal means and to cause
performance of the public duty
improperly and dishonestly and
6 Spl.C.C. No.193/2021
thereby guilty of the charge under
Section 7A of the PC Act framed
against him?
3. What order?
6. The aforesaid points are answered as:
Point No.1 : in the negative;
Point No.2 : in the negative;
Point No.3 : as per the final order
for the following
REASONS
Point No.1 and 2 :
7. Since the above points are interrelated and in order to avoid repetition of reasons and for brevity both these points are taken up together for determination.
8. Among the prosecution witnesses examined Pw.1 - Mr. Giriraj G.Y. is the Police Inspector and in his evidence he stated regarding the receipt of credible information that the officers and officials working in the office of the Sub- Registrar, Byatarayanapua are involved in demanding and 7 Spl.C.C. No.193/2021 accepting the undue advantage from the general public through mediators. In this connection Pw-1 has submitted Ex.P1 report dated 22.11.2019 to the Superintendent of Police ACB, Bengaluru. As per his evidence the accused were collecting the amount from their clients in excess of the stamp duty and registration fee towards the bribe amount.
9. Pw.2 examined on behalf of the prosecution Mr. B.V. Raju is the witness to Ex.P-10 office search mahazar dated 25.11.2019. In his evidence he has stated that the accused No.7 was present in the office of the Sub-Registrar at the time of search and seizure. During his examination Ex.P4 to 9 documents were marked and as per his evidence those documents have been seized from the possession of the accused No.7. The witness further stated that Cw.3 is other signatory to the Ex.P10 search mahazar as a witness.
10. Pw.3 - Mr. Marri Bujendra in his evidence has stated that on 25.11.2019 he went to the office of the Sub- Registrar, Byatarayanapura for the purpose of registration 8 Spl.C.C. No.193/2021 of agreement of sale. During his examination-in-chief he has stated that he had paid a sum of Rs.15,000/- fee to Cw.15 Mr. Natarajan, advocate. As per his evidence, Cw.11 Mr. Sunil Kumar had executed the agreement of sale marked as per Ex.P11. The witness has partly supported the prosecution case and denied payment of Rs.15,000/- additional amount to the accused No.1 towards undue advantage. He has denied the police during investigation have recorded his statement as per Ex.P12.
11. Pw.4 - Mr. Mahadevulu in his evidence has stated that in connection with registration of Ex.P-13 agreement of sale he went to the office of the Sub-Registrar, Byatarayanapura along with Cw.15. He has denied acquaintance with accused No.1 but not disputed payment of Rs.15,000/- to Cw.15. He has further denied recording of his statement by the police. The learned Public Prosecutor with the leave of the court has cross-examined the witness. During his cross-examination the witness 9 Spl.C.C. No.193/2021 denied the contents of Ex.P14 statement recorded by the police.
12. Pw.5 - Mr.Akash R.S. in his evidence has stated that on 25.11.2019 in connection with registration of Ex.P15 partition deed he went to the office of the Sub-Registrar, Byataranapura, along with Cw.16 to 18 and others. He further deposed entrusting of the work of registration of the document to the accused No.1 and payment of Rs.10,000/-. He specifically denied the fact that payment of Rs.10,000/- to accused No.1 was towards the bribe.
13. Pw.6 - Mr. Balakrishna N.K. in his evidence has stated that on 25.11.2019 along with Cw.5 and the police he went to the office of M/s Guru Raghavendra Enterprises and other firms at Tata Nagrar, Bengaluru. He was present at the time of search and seizure. Ex.P16 is the search mahazar drawn in M/s Raghavendra Enterprises and Pooja Enterprises and seizure of the documents from those offices.
10 Spl.C.C. No.193/2021
14. Pw.7 - Mr. B. Narayan in his evidence has stated that in connection with the purchase of site from his vendor Mr. Chandrashekara he had obtained 3 demand drafts from Bank of Baroda. He further stated that on 25.11.2019 the ACB Police conducted raid on the office of the accused No.1 and seized the demand drafts and during the investigation the police have recorded his statement.
15. Pw.8 - Mr. Syed Murthaja is working as the First Division Assistant in the office of the Sub-Registrar. As per his evidence on 25.11.2019 at about 4.00 p.m., the ACB police conducted raid to the office. In his evidence he has stated regarding the procedures followed while registration of the documents. He further admitted that at the time of raid by the police the accused No.7 was present in their office. He has stated regarding search and seizure of the documents from the possession and he is also the signatory to Ex.P-10 mahazar. During cross- examination the witness has admitted that on the date of 11 Spl.C.C. No.193/2021 raid the accused No.7 came to the office of the Sub- Registrar for the purpose of registration of the document.
16. Pw.9 - Mr. Thammaiah M.K. working as the Additional Superintendent of Police. In his evidence he has stated that after obtaining the search warrant he had secured the presence of witnesses and conducted search in the office of Gururaghavendra Enterprises in the presence of accused No.1 and seized the documents marked as Ex.P-
17. He is the signatory to Ex.P16 search mahazar and it was prepared as per his instruction.
17. Pw.10 - Mr. S. Mohammad Ali is working as the Police Inspector and in his evidence he has stated regarding recording of the statement of witnesses and filing of charge sheet.
18. Pw.11 - Mr. Ravi P. working as the ACP, Vijayanagara Sub-division, Bengaluru and in his evidence stated that on 25.11.2019 on the basis of Ex.P-1 report of Pw.1 he has registered Ex.P-18 FIR against the accused. He 12 Spl.C.C. No.193/2021 further stated that on the same day he had obtained search warrant, secured the presence of witnesses and conducting of the search in the office of the Sub-Registrar, Byatarayanapura, Bengaluru, seizure of cash found with Pw.8 and Cw.31. He stated that the accused No.7 was present in the office of the Sub-Registrar and seizure of Ex.P7 and Ex.P9 documents drawing of Ex.P10 mahazar. He further stated he had secured Ex.P16 from Pw.9 and Ex.P24 from Cw.38 and recording of the statement of witnesses.
19. During cross-examination Pw.11 has admitted that he had considered the accused No.7 as an agent hence arrested him. The witness has not disputed the fact that in Ex.P10 mahazar there is no reference regarding the alleged bribe amount said to have been obtained by the accused No.7 from any witnesses. He further admitted during the investigation it is not revealed the amount said to have been received by the accused No.7 for the payment of the bribe amount.
13 Spl.C.C. No.193/2021
20. Pw.12 - Mr. Manjunatha R. is working as the Second Division Assistant in the office of the Sub-Registrar, Byatarayanapura, Bengaluru. During his examination he has admitted acquaintance of the accused No.1 and denied the acquaintance of the accused No.7. During cross- examination by the learned Public Prosecutor the witness has specifically denied he had given statement to the police marked as per Ex.P25.
21. Among the documents produced by the prosecution Ex.P10 is office search mahazar dated 25.11.2019 prepared in the office of the Sub-Registrar, Byatarayanapura, Bengaluru. Ex.P16 is the office search mahazar drawn on the same day in the office of M/s Gururaghavendra Enterprises, and other office premises. The accused No.1 is the owner of M/s Gururaghavendra Enterprises is not disputed. As per the prosecution case, during the search in the office of the accused No.1, several cheques, demand drafts and bankers cheques drawn in favour of the Sub- Registrar, Gandhi Nagar Branch were found. The argument 14 Spl.C.C. No.193/2021 of the accused No.1 is that he is working as the document writer and therefore mere seizure of the cheques and demand drafts drawn in favour of Sub-Registrar or availability of the original registered documents in his office are not sufficient to attract the ingredients of the charge against him for the offence under Section 7A of the PC Act.
22. Pw.3 to 5 examined on behalf of the prosecution during their examination-in-chief have not made any specific allegations regarding the demand and acceptance of undue advantage by the accused No.1 for the purpose of registration of any document. There is also no evidence to show that the accused No.1 has demanded or made attempts to obtain the undue advantage amount on behalf of any public servants for the purpose of registration of the documents. The witnesses examined on behalf of the prosecution have specifically denied the payment of any excess amount of Rs.15,000/- as the bribe to the accused No.1. During cross-examination Pw.3 and 4 witnesses have 15 Spl.C.C. No.193/2021 denied recording of their statement by the police during investigation as per Ex.P12 and 14 under Section 161 of the Cr.P.C. Though Pw.5 has stated that he had paid registration charge, stamp duty and other service charges and payment of Rs.10,000/- to the accused No.1, but there is no evidence to the effect that the amount collected by the accused No.1 was towards the bribe amount.
23. In the charge sheet the only witness who has made incriminating statement against the accused No.7 is Cw.21. To secure his presence the summons and warrants were issued but the process returned with report that on account of paralysis stroke and ill-health the witness is unable to appear before the Court. Hence the prayer of the learned Public Prosecutor was rejected and the witness came to be dropped.
24. The accused are charged for the offence punishable under Section 7A of the PC Act. As per Section 7A of the said Act, whoever accepts or obtains or attempts to obtain 16 Spl.C.C. No.193/2021 from another person for himself or for any other person any undue advantage as a motive or reward to induce a public servant, by corrupt or illegal means or by exercise of his personal influence to perform or to cause performance of a public duty improperly or dishonestly or to forbear or to cause to forbear such public duty by such public servant or by another public servant, shall be deemed to have committed the offence.
25. After analytical reading of the aforesaid provision, even if the public servant is not involved in the commission of the offence, framing of the charge exclusively against the private individual is sustainable. The only material to be considered is the mens-rea of the accused. Therefore, it is not necessary for the prosecution to prove the existence of conspiracy between the accused and any public servant. The mere receipt of money by the accused as motive or reward to induce any public servant falls under this definition. The intention of the accused at the time of accepting or obtaining the amount is the only 17 Spl.C.C. No.193/2021 relevant material factor required to be considered to bring the case within the ambit of section 7A of the PC Act. But in the case on hand the prosecution has failed to place even prima-facie evidence to prove the aforesaid charge framed against the accused.
26. From the aforesaid witnesses examined by the prosecution except the evidence of the investigating officers and police officials, Pw.1, 9 and 11 none of the other independent witnesses have supported the prosecution case. There is absolutely no iota of evidence to attract the ingredients of the offence punishable under Section 7A of the PC Act against the accused No.1 and 7. The prosecution has miserably failed to prove the charge against the accused. Therefore, point No.1 and 2 are answered in the 'negative.' Point No.3 :-
27. In view of the aforesaid findings on point No.1 and 2, the accused No.1 and 7 deserves to be acquitted for 18 Spl.C.C. No.193/2021 the charges framed against them. Accordingly, proceed to pass the following:
ORDER Acting under Section 248 (1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1973, the accused No.1 and 7 are acquitted for the offence punishable under Section 7A of The Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.
The bail bond and surety bond executed by the accused No.1 and 7 and their surety are hereby stand discharged.
(Dictated to the judgment-writer, transcribed by him, corrected, signed and then pronounced by me in the open Court on this the 30th day of May, 2023.) sd/- 30.5.2023 (LAKSHMINARAYANA BHAT K) XXIII Addl.City Civil & Sessions Judge & Special Judge Bengaluru.
ANNEXURE List of witnesses examined on behalf of the prosecution:
PW 1 : Giriraj G.Y.
PW 2 : B.V. Raju
PW 3 : Marri Bhujendra
19 Spl.C.C. No.193/2021
PW 4 : Mahadevulu
PW 5 : Akash R.S.
PW 6 : Balakrishna N.K.
PW 7 : B. Narayan
PW 8 : Syed Murthuja
PW 9 : Thammaiah M.K.
PW 10 : S.Mohammad Ali
PW 11 : Ravi P.
PW 12 : Manjunatha R.
List of documents marked on behalf of prosecution:
Ex P1 : Complaint dt.22.11.2019
Ex P1(a) : Signature of PW 1
Ex P1 : Attendance Certificate dtd.26.11.2019
given by Dy.S.P., ACB, Bengaluru
Ex P3 : Official memorandum dt.25.11.2019
Ex P4 : Unregistered gift deed dtd.25.11.2019
Ex P5 & : Affidavits / Certificates
P6 :
Ex P7 to : DD No.825594, 825595 and 825596
P9 : dt.25.11.2019 of Karnataka Bank Limited
Ex P10 : Office search mahazar dtd.25.11.2019
Ex P10(a) : Signature of PW 2
20 Spl.C.C. No.193/2021
Ex P10(b) : Signature of PW 8
Ex P10(c) : Signature of PW 11
Ex P11 : Copy of sale deed dtd.25.11.2019 in the name of Pw.3 Ex P12 : Relevant portion of 161 Cr.P.C. statement of Pw3 Ex P13 : Copy of sale deed dtd.25.11.2019 in the name of Pw.4 Ex P14 : Relevant portion of 161 Cr.P.C. statement of Pw4 Ex P15 : Copy of partition deed dtd.25.11.2019 in the name of Shylaja P. Ex P16 : Office search mahazar of accused No.1 dtd.25.11.2019 Ex P16(a) : Signature of PW 6 Ex P16(b) : Signature of PW 7 Ex P17 : Xerox copy of long note book seized from office premises of accused No.1 Ex P18 : F.I.R.
Ex P19 : Memo dt.25.11.2019 of SP, ACB, Bengaluru. Ex P20 : 3 search warrants dtd.25.11.2019 by the Court Ex P21 & Request letter dtd.25.11.2019 requesting to P22: depute 2 officials to act as witnesses Ex P23 : Attendance report / letter dt.25.11.2019 Ex P24 : Office search mahazar dtd.25.11.2019 conducted at K.N.R. Enterprises 21 Spl.C.C. No.193/2021 Ex P25 : Relevant portion of 161 Cr.P.C. statement of Pw12 List of material objects marked on behalf of the prosecution:
- Nil -
List of witnesses examined on behalf of defence side:
- Nil -
List of document marked on behalf of defence side
- Nil -
sd/- 30.5.2023 XXIII Addl.City Civil & Sessions Judge & Special Judge (PCA), Bengaluru.22 Spl.C.C. No.193/2021
Judgment pronounced in the open Court vide separate Judgment. The operative portion of the Judgment reads as under:
ORDER Acting under Section 248 (1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1973, the accused No.1 and 7 are acquitted for the offence punishable under Section 7A of The Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.
The bail bond and surety bond executed by the accused No.1 and 7 and their surety are hereby stand discharged.
(LAKSHMINARAYANA BHAT K.), XXIII Addl.City Civil & Sessions Judge & Special Judge (PCA), Bengaluru.