Karnataka High Court
State Of Karnataka By Mahalakshmi ... vs Saroja Bai @ Lakshmi Bai (Absconding ... on 30 July, 2010
Author: N.Ananda
Bench: N.Ananda
EN THE HIGH COURT 015 KAR§\IATAI<A AT BANGALORE
DATED THIS THE sow DAY OF JULY 20
BEFORE __ AA A
THE HON'BLE MR..msTICE A A
CRIMINAL APPEAL A' A A A
BETWEEN: A AA A A
State of Karnataka by
Mahalakshmi PoIice"S_fcati0"£iAA *
(By Sr: HCGP)
._--..5"'AD=
V. Sé1;r.)j::TAAB.ai @ Lakshmi Bai
A '{absA(:ei1d_ii;g, case against A.1
~. -._wAés AAsp1it#up, separate case
A is regis1ered~pending).
2. B..SAAiNinnala
AA ._W/0 Srikanth, 40 years
" -_ _,-No.1 12:113. LPK Road
Doddaballapur.
...R.ESPONDENTS
(By Sn' Hemachand-ra R.Ra1', Adv.)
A 1 'spiitfian
-- 3 -- .
and 7, a sum of Rs.35,000/-- from CWs.3 to 6, of
Rs.16,000/-- from CWs.8 and 9, a sum o{5"Rs;i'c:;ooVo_j/~rJ
from cw.1o and a sum of Rs.7,00D'./st'"fi?om'
totaily to the tune of Rs.88,00i0/--:.-at"AccusedNVo:s}"1.j::AVarid
2 failed to secure jobs totV--(:3::\«'Js.1'At'oV:__1Aiaromised by?'
them. The accused,..vwhen***d.e_ma;nded aforesaid
witnesses, issued t"I4r'1'rc_e' 2 and 8.
which were; presented for '
encashrrieri§_:_<.. V ' committed offences
punishable 420 and 406 of IPC."
As taclreadyf "-stated, after charge was framed,
E
..... .. e
d was separated and accused No.2 was
accused aijsconded and the case against accused
V
._ No.2 pleaded guilty. P.Ws.1 to 14 were
and documents as per Exs.P--1 to P--8 were
* marked for the prosecution. Accused No.2 was
examined as DW--1 and her husband was examined as
DW--2 and she has marked document as per Ex.D-1.
c;'\_.F. "W"§"V-Ga' '
3. The learned trial Judge, on of
evidence and hearing the learned Counsel for parties'
has held that prosecution ii.
accused No.2, with dishonest'intentionhhad
CWs.1 to 11 to secure j0bs1""t:€:i.:._V"them Court
at Tumkurfi and Hxfrom them
and therebypggcomlnittedg ~AA.'.j'4jI;#:inishable under
Sections the State has
filed this ' t
In separation of case against
accused We are concerned with the judgment of
of accused No.2, for the aforestated offences.
it :_v'1T't;ereto're_, ~Av.t'v"ti"1'e following points would arise for
deterrnirratiion:
it Whether the prosecution has proved that
accused No.2 along with accused No.1
(abscondi.ng] had received a sum of
Rs.88,000/-- from CWs.1 to 11, as detailed in
'IV- " '''"'4''>'
_.5_m
the charge, by inducing a
accused No.2 along with
secure appo1ntments::to'VC_iFv's. 1 to "in: t it
Court at Tumkur and'-.on..A.fai1urTe.to
their promlse, with
accused drawn in
favour of vii-'.j&V_3!,tt__'.'-=\x71thout having
sufficient bank, thereby
€.acc:used"NojjfifV-c.om:nitte'd offences punishabie
'-- and 406 of IPC?
2) 2"whetherA'the:."~~'t'impugned judgment calls for
interfere_n_ce?
A it " _ yvhat order?
~~ Before adverting to the Ora} evidence of CWs.1
to it is necessary to examine the documentary
evidence relied upon by the prosecution. It is the case
of the prosecution that accused Nos.1 and 2 had
returned cheques marked as Exs.P--3 to P--5y drawn in
*
, 6 W favour of cw_1 (pw-1 Ashwath), Gowramma), CW~--8 (PW--10 Velliyamma)
6. On examinatioh o'I'---Ahlhheontehts of"
documents, I find that cheque was drawn in favou_:':1.j'_"of for a sum of Rs.2Q_,OOO/7- Rajajinagar branch. one Jaya Gopal.
simi1ar1,},,V_Eg.';é;4,"'«ghécjaehahatea T1o.5.1994 for a sum of Rs.3;3,00'O/ favour of Saroja Ba: (accused No.1] on Rajajinagar Branch, the was 'A by one Jaya Gopal and Ex.P--5, 10.5.1994 for a sum of Rs.16,000/-- was favour of Saroja Bai [accused No.1} on Syndicate Bank, Rajajinagar Branch, cheque was drawn Jaya Gopal. On the obverse of EX.P~--3, we find H fthe signature of one Ashwath, (presumably, PW--1). On the obverse of Ex.P~--4, We find the signature of Gowramma (presumably, PW~--5] on the obverse of Ex?- aq) _ 4 W 7 _ 5, we find the signature of Veiliyamma PW~10).
7. It is obvious that accqsed N0_-.'2"coii1'}dV"nc't. . been the party to the transactisn cftcheque to the aforesaid witnesses.._V'T.he chequesT'weife'*d.raWn by one Jaya Gopal, who is nc.t-«gfxam-i,ned'beforeeihe Court. The aggregate sum three cheques were drawn was _a.::s-am Q; charge framed agaif1st* "specific that accused had receiveciea ko:-"_ 'Rs1f2O,O0O/-- from ?W--1 -- Ashwath (eivgxgj and " Shantha Bai (cw--7), a sum of A afrorn CWs.3 to 6 cw--3 [?W--6) Ramesh, .'CW--4.S'1Vir1)anga1a not examined, CW--5 [PW--2) Ravi, CW~ 6(F".7V\V/5:1] Dinesh, a sum of Rs. 16,000/- from CW--8 (awn. V. Veiliamma and CW--9 [PW--7] Devanamma, a sum of Rs.10,000/-- from CW--1O [PW--8) Revamma and a sum of Rs.7,000/-- from CW--11 PW~9 [Arun Kumar). Thus, in all a sum of Rs.88,000/--~. In these circumstances, it is gm, /\...,.{'/x, «AOL .
_ 8 W not made clear as to how the aforestated che'q1p1ce.s"fVor a sum of Rs.20,000/~, Rs.35,000/-- and Rs.16,000/- drawn in favour; acc'as'ed:d'_'No:, handed over to PW--1 (CW--1i7,Ashc»yath,_V Gowramma and PW--1'0;__V"'*~[CW;8} prosecution has no caseAy__t.hp'at the .v'vitnepss,es namely Aswhath, Gowrainniafdizuid had collected money from tiie._S3rit1fiesses same to accused and they" "authorised by the aforesaid witnesses to th.eV"aforestated cheques on behalf of aforestatied In any event, the contents of P--5) do not bear any indication of ' .-a"r1y_ inxfolveirient of accused No.2. Therefore, we are left evidence of PWs.1 to 14 receipt of amount by accused No.2 by holding out false promises to secure ~appointrnents to them.
8. Before adverting to appreciation of evidence of PWs.1 to 14, it is necessary to refer to the first '3\_a, *-- £~'U-/*"'£r'\ ~ ._9w information given by PW--1 Ashwath_.;"""*'i7he_j:
information was lodged at about 8.45 V against accused Nos.1 and In,_-the ufi,r.st.'i11for1nati;cii, events that had occurred: from seven n1'onth.sHpI3ior 11.7.1994 have been __;t is stated that three cheques issuedkas, P--5 were drawn on Syndicate 'Bank, On verification it was and the amount Could..n.otVA'h_e of seven months, first * fidiodged. It is the case of prosecution. and others were cheated by a,_c'é:use'd and "ciie.q11.es as per Exs.P--3 to P-5 were issued ' 'a intention. of cheating them. CW--1 had 'kept qu'ie't_ for a period of seven months. There is no explanation for delay in lodging first information.
Tliho-ugh in the first information, it is stated that CW-1 __?and others had paid Various amount on different dates, it is not specifically stated as to whether the amount A A was paid to the hands of first accused or to the of second accused.
9. PW--1 -- Ashwath T 29.12.1993, accused Nos..1u and_v_l2 had'll*l- 3,?'/1'.,t':?4»'ville(Zl:; liar, locality (KurubaIahalli} andC4C'th_ey.VVwel:l'esearciiing for the address of one that "they have secured a job for if he is in need ofjob, in the lower Courts in "C knew an advocate who is practicingyin Court. PW--1 has changed his and deposed that both the accused told them C .-that an officer by name Mahadeva Rao, who 'C Civil Court at Tumkur and he would help thenih in getting a job. On the following day, accused and 2 came and contacted PW--1 and asked as to whether PW--1 or anybody in the locality is interested in getting a job in Civil Court and they can help them in getting the job. The accused repeatedly }visited the W _ alltup.
,1 ll _ locality and was contacting different persons. Due to repeated visits of accused in the said loca1.ity;..._:PW-1 believed them and thought that accused for him. PW--1 insisted them to..secure'a"fo"r Bangaiore. But the accused told secure a job at Tumkur'V.aind theyti' should secure train pass. to 10 got train passes and they tdahadeva Rao (CW-
12). Accusergtixlos. :<.it'.=_{fic1V1~g:i:2idj1'1.%,;i;;:i...taken CWs.2 to 10 to Turr1IEs:ur'-ont'several"-,ot:c'asions. On every occasion, accused" w_e1*e pieadiirigsome excuses. PW~1 had given aV_'s2.1ri'1__gAv'otV"Vy_Rs."I'0,QQO/-- to the hands of accused and he ' sum of Rs.6,(.)O0/-- to secure a job for his 'iatfcused used to take CWs.2 to 10 everyday to T One day, they were able to meet Mahadeva (CW--12] who told them to come after one month. since there was vacation for the Court. Accused Nos.1 and 2 had introduced CWs.2 to 10 to said Mahadeva Rao. After repeated visits ultimately said Mahadeva Rao N' .9 x -t/¥~--5:{~J'\» 'TV 12 _ told CWs.2 to 10 that there are no vacanci.e'a."-the Court. Therefore, CWs.2 to 10 return whatever money they '
10. Accused had aiso given a wife of PW-1 and cw--4 suaangaia it wash their one month's saiary. (CW-
12) had promised theam'.to them. Finally, CW--12 told§..the;r_n in the Court and he is nt:i"'co"nfcei'11.e'd 'with the money given by aforesaid W;tnes's.es».to=accused and asked the witnesses to recover.._the accused. CW-12 -- Mahadeva V. told CWs...2»to 10 to get their name registered in exchange. Therefore, PWs.2 to 10 .ins'itsted.'ai:_ci1sed to return the amount which he had recenrved from them. Accused No.1 issued a cheque for a of Rs.20,000/- to PW-1. When PW--1 took the "cheque to Syndicate Bank, Rajajinagar branch and presented it for encashrnent, he was told by the Bank authorities that there is no money in the said account _ A and he was sent away. When he informed first accused, she told PW-1 that she amount from her account and :asked. 37¢'-;:1v3re~se11tVV 2 the cheque. PW--1 took the accused for more than 20' tirries her 2 to pay the cash "PW¥}1 on one pretext or the other. f the cheque as Ex-.P-3. it i 2 V accused No.1 has not given accused No.2. However, during the V-.cou11*se" of cross examination, PW--1 has accused No.2 had also given cheques for a I "of-«..vf{s.IVv'1t5,000/-- and Rs.22,000/-- to two other person's'. v the discussion made supra, I have referred to "'v.the':cheques marked as Exs.P-3 to 13-5. Therefore, it is 2 2' "riot possible to accept the evidence of PW--1 that accused No.2 had given two cheques. Thus from the wt. ¥ \, «_,é»3L A4; ._ evidence of PW--1, we do not find that accused':
demanded or received money from promises to secure a job to the id Tumkur.
10. The evidence of PW.'-i»--'vu2""L'vis"n1Aore'o'1"Eessiisirnilar to the evidence of PW:1:;fl 'pf PW_2 is not specific as is not specific.
However; he has stated that accused No.1 gave a cheque -- in the name of CW--2 Goj,-vra.rnrna,»., vvhichti" on presentation to the Syndicate Rajajinagar was dishonoured, for want of .sufficient"v_tun»d's.
in discussion made supra, I have referred to the chetlue for a sum of Rs.35,000/-- which was handed ' :.Vover to Gowramma, bears her signature. It is clear from = ...--the evidence of PW--2 that accused No.2 had issued the cheque to PVV--5 Gowramma. ,f':,~_.,.9~~~d»» _ ..
During cross examination, PW--2 has--'jVad"1nitted that accused No.1 had received money'::"from"h:ut}1etn;'< Therefore, accused had issued-'the«r:hequ_e :i1Vi'._the--'.iiax'meV ' T of his mother [PW--5). Thus, from 42, it is clear that accused inonev and she had issued 'the cheq'u'e-:'toVV--retum the 'same.
11. Th§:"eVid€i1C€'f:)f or less similar to the PW-Q3 'hasmstated that accused had a of Rs.20,000/--in favour of "presentation of cheque. it was dish-onoured' for of sufficient funds. From the the cheque, we find that it was drawn in faccused No.1 and it was given to PW--1 A'shW_athA.:' A
12. PW--4, Dinesh has deposed that CW--2 (PW--5) Gowramma had given a sum of Rs.5,000/-- to secure a job to CW--4 (Sumangala not examined before the Court). TV a . -'\-*"--(.£'f\.: , _ 16 _ During cross--examination, PW--4 has adifnitted that accused No.1 had given three cheques to his.. PW--1 -- Ashwath and PW--1O Velliamma. were drawn on Syndicate Bar1:14:;.'**'It..isA the amount had been received therefore, accused No.1 the 'these' circumstances, evidence Ofiididoes not incriminate accused No.2.
given similar evidence.
During' cross'e;iiad5Ii.inat:iori., she has admitted that she had paid meet Rs.'i.0,000/-- to the first accused and to second accused which is not the .vei_fs.ion witnesses and which is not the version in""'thev--._'fir-cat information. PW--5 has given all together a edifferent version that accused had assured them to "secure job in the High Court. PW--5 had admitted that it "accused No.2 has not given cheques to them. It is seen from the evidence of PW--5 that for the first time, she TV _ CA»/\//\,. Dem/* V. '_ CQTI3f.iC1:C?_i'1('.§3.
W _.
has deposed before the Court to implicate acctitsed She has come out with a version that sum of Rs.25,000/-- to accused;.A_No:,...'2'p,«A is'i11o::éx:¢fi the charge framed against-.,acc1ise_d" No.§E;'V't' deposed that her sons were in need of job and thei5efoI':e, a sum of Rs.35,000/-- to.Vaccuse'd.v:h.::"p A t 2 V In out with a Rs.10,000/-- to the first "of Rs.25,000/-- to second accused:v.fi'he1cefoi*e,"etfidence of PW--5 does not inspire A Ramesh is the son of PW~5. PW--6 has version. PW--6 has deposed that in all, theuyjhvadhypaid a sum of Rs.20,000/-- to accused No.1 2 accused No.2 was present at that time. The 'evidence of PW--6 is contrary to the evidence of PW~5 that she paid a sum of Rs.10,000/~ to first accused and , _ trial Court. PW--8 has categorically admittediéyi had paid amount to accused No.1. titan' evidence is of no avail to bring the'._gui1t.:_of_ No.2.
17. PW-9 Arun. accused Nos.1 and 2 came .}.PW-1 and they were in the Court.
PW--9 house and discuss the matte; therefore, after two days, his house and discussed theiinatterhiwith'hisifather. Accused assured that they a of sweeper to PW-9 and demanded .vI_{€--'_.__1.A€)",'5(3f.)'V_/'§V.'V:'fr':om him. Accused took PW--9 to Turnkur but nvothing materialised. Therefore, they demanded returri" of money. Accused went on postponing repayment of money.
During cross examination, PW--9 has deposed that PW~1 had introduced PW-9 to accused. _3PW~9 has 3W. C..'(£'LA._ E/"\~"'""""€""
.. 21 W admitted that neither his father nor his brothte'r»t.had gone to Turnkur to inquire regarding vacaney.' PW--9 had also not gone to Tumkur to verify4,:_':if V' p a vacant post. PW--9 has deposeddylthathi amount to the hands of .acc__useédA.i_\To.2V. PW--8 and his father l§\_}:\l'.:--9:vVf§does not specify the date, tinie'«--.a:1d "c';f'p'V1;:~'.pa:'.>'y"n*1ent. The father of PW~9 was not exaxnhinedtl "the payment of amount to N has deposed that about six yeansvpriorutevhl"7.'7.2'O0l, accused Nos.1 and 2 had come of and told that they would get GC':VeArnn1eV_ntV.l"VV'job to needy persons in Bangalore and Tuinkur' showed some identity cards to show that they Working in the Court. PW-- l0 believed accused and 2 and pajdna sum of Rs.16,000/-- to accused demanded by them. PW--1O visited Tumkur and learnt that there was no vacancy and demanded M 34/ N... x./£"=* xvkefiixk "
_.22..
accused to return the money. Accused had cheque. A 2 i it In the discussion made supradiy cheque dated 10.5.1994 drawnliiiin WV No.1 for a sum of Rs.16,0v(')Ci..a/y'¥V.WasV. PW; V 10 by accused No.1. . she had paid the amount to accused No.2 was present§a't't,h'at junicture, it is relevant to state adduced evidence by examining" herse1fi:.'an(j..,,.ir";f(iso by examining her husband to pgrove thaii-accuseici No.2 was carrying business of silk "in that connection accused No.2 visited sevefalv houses along with accused No.1 in order to recover'. 'money which accused No1 owed to accused. 2' T11e_ pfesence of accused No.2 is not sufficient to hold "thiat: accused No.2 had demanded and received money 5 M Wfirorn PW--}O. w. ~w-~9-"'gL"' V23-
19. PW--11 Venkatasubbamma has mahazer prepared by the police.
20. PW--12 Rajakurnar has No.1 had approached hirn_ai:.d told get a job for him. PWf 12 evidenrie against accused No.2. is of no consequence.'
21. and 14 relates to investigation '-- pl ' to lvsum up the evidence both andworal adduced by the prosecution, is to prove that accused No.2 had deinan..ded:"'and received money from the above named prosecution witnesses by falsely promising them to "secure jobs in the Civil Court at Tumkur. In the "circumstances, the learned trial Judge was justified in acquitting accused No.2. On re--appreciation of the K: C an/«£3» V' Cit» evidence, I do not find any reasons to interfere with ' impugned judgment of acquitta}. Acc0;fding1y,;"
appeal is dismissed.
nas. """ .